Although most Californians think the recent approval of gaming compacts for four tribes in San Diego and Riverside counties is a major victory for "the Indians," in a real sense the Feb. 5 referendums may prove to have been a Pyrrhic victory. At a minimum, the election results can be seen as being a "double-edged" sword for Native Americans nationally.
For those who can't quite remember what a Pyrrhic victory is, Pyrrhus was a Greek general of the fourth century B.C.E. whose military victories were so costly that he once opined "One more such victory will undo me!"
And that's the underlying reality on Propositions 94-97.
On the one hand, the four California tribes with casinos involved in the heart of that $130 million media blitz (filled mostly with half-truths) ensured a lucrative financial future; on the other hand, they permitted a precedent to be set that will emasculate notions of Indian sovereignty for the rest of this century, clearly in California and perhaps nationally as well.
On the positive side for the Agua Caliente, Morongo, Pechanga and Sycuan Indians, overwhelming support from the voters of California now entitle them to some of the world's largest resort casinos. Given quasi-monopoly in one of the wealthiest corners of Planet Earth, that ensures them a revenue stream unmatched on a per gaming unit basis by even the glitziest of Vegas casinos -- at what amounts to the functional equivalent of a gaming tax rate well below the national average (albeit higher than in Nevada). It also ensures them a well-funded continuing presence at the highest levels of public policymaking in the Golden State.
On the negative side, Propositions 94-97 cut deeply into the legal doctrine of Native American sovereignty. Potentially permitting every voter in a state to vote on every gaming compact between a state and an Indian tribe clearly undercuts the constitutional understanding that federally recognized tribes are "dependent sovereigns" of the United States on their own reservations, equal under the law with the government of the states in which they are physically located, and thus entitled to one-on-one binding negotiations.
For most Californians, this constitutional point is one that neither has relevance nor importance. What matters to these men and women is the estimated $9 billion that casinos will contribute to the state budget over the next 20 years and the expanded access to gaming that it enables. Never forget that in terms of revenues expended casino gambling is the most popular activity for adult Americans outside of their homes, and that the "baby boomers" are reaching the age where they will be in casinos weekdays as well as weekends.
What gaming-prone boomers everywhere, and California boomers in particular, truly care about most is access to a gaming environment that is safe, clean and fun, a lesson Native American casinos in this jurisdiction have learned well. Among the state's 58 tribal casinos are examples of the entire continuum of gaming experience -- from slot "grind joints" in tents to major resort casinos with every amenity associated with a high-end resort (including golf and tennis courses, spas, fine dining and luxurious hotel accommodations).
For the short-run, Propositions 94-97 will ensure not only additional revenues for the state coffers but also the continued growth of Southern California as a major gaming venue.
Depending on how one manipulates the numbers, San Diego County already ranks high as a gaming destination -- No. 1 for Indian casinos only and No. 5 or 6 overall (a number that includes both Native American and corporately or privately owned casinos, the latter of which are termed "commercial" in industry jargon).
Few residents of San Diego County today think of their home county as a major gambling venue, but that perception is likely to change in the years ahead as Indian gaming grows both here and nationwide. Indeed, the growth rate for Indian gaming is so fast now that it will surpass commercial gaming within the next decade if current growth rates continue.
In 2006, for example, revenues from gambling on Indian reservations totaled $25.5 billion, just $7 billion less than for commercial gaming. Given that commercial gaming (now legal in 11 states) began in Nevada in 1931 vis-a-vis effective legalization of Indian gaming in 1988, it is clear that Indian gaming -- legal in 28 states -- is on an incredibly fast-growth trajectory.
To a significant extent, Indian gaming has been the proverbial blessing for Native American tribes with casinos. Revenues are now flowing into mostly isolated reservations that had truly been "Third World" in economic terms beforehand. As a result, health care, housing and education, and cultural preservation levels are significantly higher than previously.
Providing thousands of jobs with full benefits has also strongly benefited non-Indian communities adjacent to most tribal casinos. Even so, nationwide slightly more than 10 percent of Native American casinos are bringing in more than 80 percent of the revenues. That means the economic impact of the 415 tribal casinos and bingo parlors across the country is far from evenly distributed.
Indeed, many of the largest tribes in the nation's heartland still experience unemployment, inadequate housing, poor dietary, alcoholism and drug abuse rates many times higher than the national average. They may have casinos, but in population-starved areas, those casinos produce limited resources.
On the other extreme, a handful of tribes -- particularly in California, Florida and Connecticut -- are experiencing an embarrassment of riches, leading to the rise of the so-called "rich Indian" stereotype. That stereotype clearly has emerged here and is likely to become more significant over time as per capita casino-profits dispersal rates for some tribes soar far beyond the average income of non-Indians.
The single greatest threat to Indian gaming in California, however, as in most other states, is not the rise of the "rich Indian" stereotype or even a demand for higher tax-equivalent rates on revenues from Indian casinos. Rather, it is the legalization of commercial casinos. When casino gaming becomes politically acceptable, there will be a meaningful move to legalize it for downtown locations in major California cities -- enhancing the tax return to the state but critically hurting the viability of reservation-based casinos. That will happen. It is not a matter of if but when. Exactly when that "when" will be, however, is anybody's guess.
In the interim, tribal sovereignty will be whittled away bit by bit with additional referendums to ratify gaming compacts, with more and more "waiving of sovereign immunity" for Native American nations to enter into non-reservation-based economic ventures, and possibly even with a non-Indian community perception that the law favors Native Americans more than others.
Thus, what began with a perceived major victory for "the Indians" in the 2008 Propositions 94-97 referendums may be viewed differently in the future. It may not be seen as a Pyrrhic victory, but at a minimum, it will be seen as a measure that had both good and bad consequences for Indian peoples and perhaps for the state of California itself.
Randolph Baker is chair of the Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming at San Diego State University.
