The Indian Gaming Compacts Act: How SB 1067 Sought to Implement the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

In the late 1990s, the federally recognized California tribe that wanted to operate a Class III casino was, in most cases, a tribe that was operating in the legal uncertainty. The tribe was, in most cases, a tribe that, in the words of the tribal advocates, was the predictable outcome of a state-tribal relationship that did not have the statutory tools to require the Governor to negotiate the Class III gaming compact. The tribe was, in most cases, a tribe that was being forced to operate in the legal uncertainty. The uncertainty was, in the words of the same advocates, the predictable outcome of the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which required the states to negotiate the Class III compacts with the tribes, and which the state of California had not implemented. The state had not, by 1997, implemented the framework. The tribe was, in plain language, waiting for the framework. The framework was, in the late 1990s, a documented gap. The gap was, in the words of the tribal advocates, the predictable outcome of a state framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Governor to negotiate. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his first term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the state framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 1067, the Indian Gaming Compacts Act, and it was, by any measure, the first California implementation of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Pete Wilson in September 1997. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the federal framework. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a state policy framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the federal framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the tribal gaming community. The setback was, in 1997, a documented event. The framework was, however, later enacted by SB 1350 (Polanco, 1999), which was signed by Governor Davis in October 1999.

The Law

Senate Bill 1067, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 1997 to 1998 Regular Session, sought to authorize the Governor to negotiate the Class III gaming compacts with the federally recognized California tribes. The bill would have been codified in the Government Code, in the chapter governing tribal gaming. The operative provisions would have authorized the Governor to negotiate the Class III compacts, and would have required the Governor to submit the compacts to the Legislature for ratification. The bill was VETOED by Governor Pete Wilson in September 1997. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a state policy framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the federal framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the tribal gaming community. The setback was, in 1997, a documented event. The framework was, however, later enacted by SB 1350 (Polanco, 1999), which was signed by Governor Davis in October 1999. SB 1350 was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the statutory successor of SB 1067.

The federally recognized California tribe that wanted to operate a Class III casino was, in 1997, in most cases, a tribe operating in the legal uncertainty. The tribe was, in the words of the tribal advocates, the predictable outcome of a state framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Governor to negotiate the Class III gaming compact. SB 1067 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the first California implementation of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Wilson in September 1997. SB 1350 (Polanco, 1999) later established the framework.

The Problem

By 1997, the implementation gap of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in California was, by any measure, a problem. The California Nations Indian Gaming Association, in its 1996 report, had documented that more than 50 federally recognized California tribes were, in the aggregate, waiting for the state to negotiate the Class III compacts, and that the tribes were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a state framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the Governor to negotiate. The 50 figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of tribes. The report recommended that the state implement the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act through the Class III compact framework. The implementation had not, by 1997, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 1067, an Indian Gaming Compacts Act. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the Governor to negotiate the Class III compacts with the tribes. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the Legislature to ratify the compacts. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the tribes to comply with the compacts. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act required a state implementation. The state implementation was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the federal act to be effective in California. The second idea was that the implementation required a compact framework. The compact framework was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the Class III gaming to be authorized. The third idea was that the framework required legislative ratification. The legislative ratification was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the compacts to be binding.

The Fight

The fight over SB 1067 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 1997 to 1998, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would commit the state to a federal framework that the Governor did not support. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the federal framework was, in fact, the law of the land, and that the state implementation was, in fact, the kind of implementation that the federal framework required. The compromise was that the bill provided for the state to retain the authority to negotiate the compacts on a tribe-by-tribe basis. The second layer was the card room operators. The operators argued that the bill would give the tribes a competitive advantage over the card rooms. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the tribal compacts were, in fact, the kind of compacts that the federal law required. The compromise was that the bill provided for the revenue-sharing percentage to be set at a level that would fund the regulatory costs and the non-gaming tribal services. The Senate passed the bill in May 1997. The Assembly passed the bill in August 1997. Governor Wilson VETOED the bill in September 1997. The veto message cited the policy disagreement with the federal framework. The disagreement was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a state policy framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the federal framework. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the tribal gaming community. The setback was, in 1997, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 1997 to 1998, in his first term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the Governor. He did the negotiations with the card room operators. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of a state policy framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the federal framework. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the SB 1067 framework as the foundation of the SB 1350 framework that was enacted in 1999. The SB 1350 framework was, in his view, the statutory successor of the SB 1067 framework. The successor was, in 1999, the foundation of the California tribal gaming framework.

What Changed

SB 1067 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The federally recognized California tribes did not, in 1997, receive the Class III gaming compacts that the bill would have authorized. The Governor did not, in 1997, negotiate the Class III compacts. The tribal gaming community did, however, continue to advocate for the framework. The advocacy has, since 1997, been the foundation of the state-level tribal gaming framework. The framework was, however, enacted in 1999, when SB 1350 (Polanco, 1999) was signed by Governor Davis. SB 1350 was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the statutory successor of SB 1067. SB 1350 has, since 1999, provided the Class III gaming compact framework for the federally recognized California tribes.

The Legacy

SB 1067 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The Indian Gaming Compacts Act was not enacted. The Governor did not, in 1997, receive the statutory authority to negotiate the Class III compacts. The federally recognized California tribes did not, in 1997, receive the Class III compacts that the bill would have authorized. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the policy disagreement with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The disagreement was, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of a state policy framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the federal framework. The bill was, however, the foundation of the SB 1350 framework that was enacted in 1999. SB 1350 was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the statutory successor of SB 1067. SB 1350 has, since 1999, provided the Class III gaming compact framework for the federally recognized California tribes. The legacy of SB 1067 is the long-term advocacy for the framework, which has continued since 1997. The Indian Gaming Compacts Act is the cleanest record of the early California tribal gaming framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the framework that culminated in SB 1350.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 1067, 1997 to 1998 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 1067, May 1997.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 1067, August 1997.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 1067, September 1997.
5. California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Compact Implementation Report, 1996.
6. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.
8. Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988, Public Law 100-497.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.