Note about the Guide:
Back when we researched and compiled the guide in early January, there wasn't a lot of info on PROPS 94, 95, 96 & 97- the Indian Gaming Props. We have since done some digging and we’ve decided to vote NO on 94-97. Here’s the scoop:

Amendments to Indian Gaming Compact – YPM says NO.
The State Attny General lets us know that these are amendments to the existing gaming compact between the state and Morongo Band of Mission Indians that went through in '04 -  permitting the tribe to operate 5,500 additional slot machines. Revenue paid by the tribe will be deposited into the State General Fund: $36,700,000 over 27 years.

For Propositions 94- 97: Coalition to Protect California's Budget and Economy (group including "California Indian Tribes," NAACP, California Republican Party, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, seniors, & public safety officials). Their argument: Preserves four tribal gaming agreements and protects hundreds of millions of dollars each year they will provide to Cali. The agreements increase the percentage of revenues tribes pay to the state, mandate strict new environmental protections, and share revenues with non-gaming tribes.

Against Propositions 94- 97: Californians Against Unfair Deals (coalition of tribes, educators, taxpayers, public safety officials, labor, seniors, environmentalists.)

Their argument: 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¢.

Of all that we read, we thought the argument that the The Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA) made to OPPOSE was pretty on point. We thought we would share it with you: "First, because we see the state as a community of obligation, we believe that revenues to provide needed services should be raised from the general population by progressive forms of taxation. We all need and benefit from services like education, fire and police protection, and we should all pay for them. Second, echoing our opposition to Propositions 68 and 70 (the original gaming propositions from November 2004), we are opposed in principle to any measure that increases the reach of gambling because of the destructive ways it preys upon and financially impoverishes the poorest members of our society. Third, like regressive forms of taxation, we oppose any scheme that would raise needed state funds from gambling revenues which come disproportionately from the incomes of the poorer segments of our population. Last, but certainly not least, we are concerned about the lack of protection for union organizing and about the absence of adequate worker health and safety provisions in these tribal casinos. Accordingly, we urge all Californians to vote "no" on Props. 94, 95, 96 and 97."

Downloadable PDF