|
A "Yes" vote approves and a "No" vote rejects, a law that:
- Ratifies amendment to existing gaming compact between the state and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians; amendment would permit tribe to operate 5,500 additional slot machines.
- Omits certain projects from scope of California Environmental Quality Act; amendment provides for Tribal Environmental Impact Report and intergovernmental procedure to address environmental impact;
- Revenue paid by tribe to be deposited into General Fund; tribe would make $42,500,000 annual payment and pay percentage of revenue generated from the additional slot machines to the state.
Net increase in annual state revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030. For local governments in Riverside County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.
- A YES vote on this measure means:
- The
Pechanga Band of Luiseño
Indians--a tribe that owns a
casino in Riverside County
with about 2,000 slot
machines--could operate up
to 7,500 slot machines. The
tribe would make increased
payments to the state
annually through 2030.
- A NO vote on this measure means:
- The
Pechanga tribe would be able
to continue operating its
existing casino, but would
not be able to significantly
expand its casino operations.
The tribe's current payments
to the state would not be affected.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 94:
- YES on 94, 95, 96,
97 preserves four
tribal gaming agreements
and protects hundreds of
millions of dollars each year
they will provide to our state.
The agreements increase the
percentage of revenues tribes
pay to the state, mandate
strict new environmental
protections, and share
revenues with non-gaming
tribes.
Full Text of Argument In Favor,
Rebuttal
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 94:
- Part of Sacramento
political deal for 4
wealthy, powerful tribes. Bad
deal for California. Huge
casino gambling expansion.
Could economically
devastate other tribes. Lacks
protections for workers,
environment. Loophole
language lets tribes manipulate
revenue and underpay state.
Revenue claims wildly
exaggerated. Schools not
guaranteed 1¢. NO--94, 95,
96, 97.
Full Text of Argument Against,
Rebuttal
- Contact FOR Proposition 94:
- Coalition to Protect
California's Budget and
Economy
(800) 827-1267
info@YESforCalifornia.com
http://www.YESforCalifornia.com
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 94:
- Californians Against Unfair
Deals--No on 94, 95, 96,
97, A coalition of tribes,
educators, taxpayers,
public safety officials,
labor, seniors,
environmentalists.
(310) 996-2676
http://www.NoUnfairDeals.com
|
|
No Spin Information
League of Women Voters
Other Nonpartisan Sources
- Proposition 94-97
- includes background, pros&cons, voter info, key links and more from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley
Events
Video Voter Minutes
KQED (SF Public Radio)
KPCC 89.3 (Southern CA Public Radio)
League of Women Voters Video of Pros & Cons
Official Information
Governor
Secretary of State
Campaign Finance Data
California Voter Foundation
Secretary of State
- Cal-Access
- how much money is being raised and spent on Prop 94
News and Analysis
Google News Search
Message to News Reporters
- If you use our website for your research, please encourage your readers to go to smartvoter.org!
|
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
|
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Pass:
4,645,274 /
55.8% Yes votes ......
3,685,926 /
44.2% No votes