BILL NUMBER: AB 1443AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 29, 2009 AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 15, 2009 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 6, 2009 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Huffman FEBRUARY 27, 2009 An act to add Section 12012.87 to the Government Code, relating to gaming. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1443, as amended, Huffman. Gaming compacts: local support. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. This bill wouldauthorizerequire the Governor to consider the presence or absence of local support when negotiating a tribal-state gaming compact to allow class III gaming on Indian lands, as specified. The bill would include a related statement of legislative findings and declarations. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) authorizes federally recognized Indian tribes to conduct class III gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction, to the extent those games are permitted by state law, and pursuant to a gaming compact negotiated between a tribe and the state. (b) IGRA requires the state to negotiate in good faith for the conclusion of tribal-state gaming compacts with Indian tribes that request negotiations when those tribes have eligible Indian lands located in the state. (c) In 1998, California voters approved Proposition 5, a statutory measure designed to allow for the operation of slot machine and house banked card gaming by California Indian tribes on Indian lands in accordance with federal law. In 1999, the California Supreme Court held that most of the provisions enacted by Proposition 5 were unconstitutional. (d) In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, amending the California Constitution to authorize the Governor to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature, for the operation of slot machines, and for the conduct of lottery games and banked and percentage card games by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with federal law. (e) During the campaigns to approve Propositions 5 and 1A, proponents assured California voters that Indian lands were mainly in remote, rural areas of the state and that approval of these measures would not result in tribal casinos being located in urban areas. (f) In the general election of 2004, two initiative measures, Propositions 68 and 70, that would have expanded gaming activities in urban areas were placed before the California voters. (g) Proposition 68 was defeated with 83.8 percent of the electorate voting against it and Proposition 70 was defeated with 76.3 percent of the electorate voting against it. (h) There is increasing public concern over the location, expansion, and impact of tribal gaming on nontribal lands in California. (i) There are over 100 federally recognized Indian tribes in California and many of those tribes have Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction that are eligible for class III gaming. (j) Subdivision (d) of Section 12012.25 of the Government Code designates the Governor as the state official with authority to negotiate and execute tribal gaming compacts on behalf of the state. (k) Subdivisions (c) and (e) of Section 12012.25 of the Government Code provide that tribal-state gaming compacts negotiated by the Governor are subject to ratification by the Legislature. (l) An increasing number of Indian tribes are seeking to take new land into trust for purposes of conducting class III gaming activities pursuant to the provisions of IGRA, often in urban areas. (m) In May 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation that he would (1) oppose proposals for the federal acquisition of lands within any urbanized area where the lands sought to be acquired in trust are to be used to conduct or facilitate gaming activities; (2) decline to engage in negotiations for tribal-state gaming compacts where the Indian tribe does not have Indian lands eligible for class III gaming; (3) consider requests for gubernatorial concurrence to allow a tribe to conduct class III gaming on newly acquired land only when (A) the land that is sought for class III gaming is not within any urbanized area, (B) the local jurisdiction in which the tribe's proposed gaming project is located supports the project, (C) the tribe and the local jurisdiction demonstrate that the affected local community supports the project, such as by a local advisory vote, and (D) the project substantially serves a clear, independent public policy, separate and apart from any increased economic benefit or financial contribution to the state, community, or the Indian tribe that may arise from gaming. (n) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature, with respect to all Indian gaming proposals on nontribal lands, to encourage the Governor to negotiate a tribal-state gaming compact only when land has been taken into trust and when the local jurisdiction and the local community in which the tribe's proposed gaming project would be located actually support the project, and, in the absence of that local support, it is the intent of the Legislature not to ratify the compact. SEC. 2. Section 12012.87 is added to the Government Code, to read: 12012.87. When engaging in negotiations for a tribal-state gaming compact to allow class III gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction, the Governormayshall consider the presence or absence of local support demonstrated by both of the following: (a) The results of an advisory vote in the county or counties in which the tribe's Indian lands are located, either approving or disapproving a proposed gaming facility. (b) One or more intergovernmental agreements enforceable in state court, that include provisions to mitigate the impacts of the proposed gaming and related activities, executed by the Indian tribe and each of the following entities: (1) The incorporated city or city and county in which the Indian lands are located, or, if the land is not located within an incorporated city or city and county, the county or counties in which the land is located. (2) Each county that is contiguous to the county in which the land is located and that is likely to be substantially impacted by the proposed gaming and related activities, as reasonably determined by the board of supervisors of the county and set forth in a measure specifying the nature of anticipated impacts that are no more than 75 miles from the proposed gaming facility, and the estimated costs of mitigation.