Weight of a hundred propositions

The election approaches and all of California’s residents have, in recent weeks, been bombarded by television, radio and mail advertisements urging us to vote “Yes” or “No” on the six propositions that have been tacked on to the presidential primaries this time around. But how many of us will actually research these decisions before we vote?

I fear that a large number of voters base their opinions on these important issues on what they’ve seen in these ads. However, the ads can be very misleading and sometimes contain almost no information about the specific changes that are being proposed.

That’s entirely evident in the ads for Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. Aggravated from the lack of understanding, I looked up the actual language of the propositions. They were almost identical, and most of the text concerned excluding future expansion of the tribes’ casinos from being considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

This seemed very dishonest because none of the ads make any mention of the CEQA. Because of this, I was sure I would vote “No” on the Indian gaming agreements.

Then I visited the Website of the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It turns out the reason so much of the text concerned the CEQA is because the rest of the language is in compact amendments that were already approved by the state legislature but held off for a public vote because the propositions qualified for the ballot.

In truth, Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 are amendments and extensions of existing compacts between California’s government and the Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan and Agua Caliente tribes respectively.

The agreements allow the tribes to expand their casinos by up to 17,000 Vegas-style slot machines collectively.

Tribes who do expand will pay a percentage of the net profit of the classic slot machines into the state general fund, to be spent at the state’s discretion. This might be why some casino moguls are preferring to set up online casinos, so they can keep more of the revenue. Especially, with bitcoin casinos, which you can Click Here to learn more about, as bitcoin is more anonymous and harder to trace.

Existing payments to the state for the purpose of distribution to tribes with no casino larger than 350 slots will increase dramatically.

Although I was opposed at first to the propositions, after careful research I decided they were good for the tribes as well as California.

This just goes to show you how important it is to know what your vote means. A little research goes a long way.

So get out there and vote, but first make sure you understand what it is you’re voting for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.