"When Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, tribes were given the right to operate any games on their reservations that were allowed elsewhere in the state. Governors were directed to negotiate with tribes for gambling compacts — modern-day treaties.

But California allowed only rinky-dink gambling, the Indians felt. They went to the ballot in 1998 and 2000 and talked voters into letting them run Nevada-style slots. Moreover, they were given a monopoly. Nobody else could have the machines.

The tribes still needed compacts, however.

So it raises the question: How sovereign is a tribe when it has to get a governor's signature and a bill from the Legislature, or a vote of the people, before expanding a casino? Not very, I'd say, when it comes to gambling.

But that's not the rhetoric we hear from some tribal leaders. And it's not how they act.

Sovereignty is sacrosanct for all tribes — but some tribes more than others. There's a split. Some gaming tribes have a rigid attitude. Others are more flexible. Some are confrontational with the state; some cooperative."

Get the Story:
Tribes in Prop. 70 Fight Cite Sovereignty but Need to See Reality (The Los Angeles Times 10/18)
pwlat