![]() Newsletter Signup
Stay informed with the
NEW Casino City Times newsletter! |
Gaming News
Federal Lawsuit Filed in Effort to Block California Casino7 February 2001SACRAMENTO, California--(Press Release)--Feb. 7, 2001--In response to eleventh-hour maneuverings by the U.S. Congress that could result in the creation of California's first Las Vegas-style casino in a major urban area, several Bay Area card clubs joined by two charitable organizations filed a Federal Court lawsuit today challenging Proposition 1A and federal legislation that was enacted to allow a full-scale gambling casino in San Pablo. ``We filed this lawsuit as a regrettable last resort to prevent the creation of California's first urban-centered, Class III gambling facility in San Pablo,'' said Bo Links of San Francisco, attorney for one of the plaintiffs. ``We view the proposed Casino San Pablo expansion as an assault on the intent and spirit of Proposition 1A and we were forced to take this legal action in order to stop the San Pablo deal and others like it.'' In December, a last-minute ``technical amendment'' was added to federal legislation -- absent any public hearings or debate -- authorizing the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians of Sonoma County to acquire land in the City of San Pablo (Contra Costa County) for the purpose of engaging in Nevada-style gaming. To avoid controls on new Indian gaming designed to involve and protect local communities, the legislation instructs Federal officials to treat the land as if it was acquired 12 years ago, 3 years before the tribe was even recognized. Supporters of the lawsuit pointed out that while they are not opposed to lawful Indian gaming, the circumstances and political maneuverings surrounding the Casino San Pablo expansion compelled them to take legal action. ``In approving Proposition 1A, California voters were led to believe that the measure would allow only limited gaming on existing -- primarily rural -- Indian lands,'' said Links. ``The Casino San Pablo deal and the stealth legislation that made it possible clearly fly in the face of what voters thought they were approving.'' Two charities, Sacramento Consolidated Charities and Fairfield Youth Foundation, joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit and cited their concern that allowing Las Vegas-style Indian casinos would unfairly limit their ability to raise funding through their bingo operations. ``Charities rely heavily on bingo revenues to fund everything from food kitchens to after-school programs,'' said Kevin Beers, President of Sacramento Consolidated Charities. ``Allowing Las Vegas-style Indian casinos -- particularly in urban areas -- will severely and unfairly disadvantage the ability of charities to compete. The San Pablo deal sets a dangerous precedent that could be devastating to charities like ours across the state.'' Community activists also announced their support for the lawsuit saying they were concerned about the dangerous precedent set by the establishment of a city-centered casino and the questionable political tactics used to pass federal legislation that authorized the San Pablo land swap. ``Locating a major gambling facility in an urban area like San Pablo is a topic that should be subject to public scrutiny and review, not a backroom political deal that occurs outside of the realm of public awareness and debate,'' said Gloria Magleby, a community activist from Bay Point, located just miles away from Casino San Pablo. Plaintiffs stated that while the prospect of Casino San Pablo is the catalyst behind the federal lawsuit, legal experts have determined that a successful outcome is more likely by challenging not only the federal legislation but also the Constitutional amendments implemented by passage of Proposition 1A. As a result, the lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Sacramento challenges the Constitutional amendment embodied in Proposition 1A and the Tribal-State Compacts resulting from that amendment. The lawsuit also challenges the controversial legislation passed by the U.S. Congress that gives the Lytton Band the exclusive opportunity to conduct Nevada-style gambling in San Pablo in the Bay Area. The lawsuit claims violations of both Federal statutory and constitutional law and specifically: Attacks, as a violation of equal protection principles, the federal legislation that gives one tribe the exclusive opportunity to conduct Nevada-style gaming in the Bay Area. Asserts that Proposition 1A and Tribal-State Compacts are invalid under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Johnson Act that, properly interpreted, allow Tribes to operate slot machines or engage in other types of gaming only if such gaming is legal in California for others -- which is not the case under California law. Asserts that the equal protection principles found in the Federal Constitution do not allow either the State or the Federal Government to grant Indian Tribes exclusive, monopolistic rights to operate slot machines and other types of Nevada-style gaming. While the Federal Congress may grant certain preferences to Indian Tribes, its special authority over Indian affairs is not a commission to create preferences that are not related to the unique interests of Indian Tribes. ``We generally support the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act goals of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments,'' continued Links, ``but we believe that the State and Federal Government should seek to achieve these goals in a lawful, equitable manner.'' ``The San Pablo deal is an abuse of the will of California voters and has compelled us to take this necessary legal action. We are confident that we will prevail on the merits of the case,'' concluded Links. |