Other transcripts

Transcripts

September 30, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
Proposition 202, Majority' Tribes' Indian Gaming Inititative;
How the Native American vote will affect propositions and statewide races.
· Learn more about Prop 202
In-Studio Guests:
Delia Carlyle, vice chairwoman of the Ak-Chin Indian community south of Phoenix;
David LaSarte, executive director of the Arizona Indian gaming association;
Bruce Merrill, Professor of Mass Communication at ASU's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Telecommunication

>> Michael: Tonight on "Horizon," Prop 202 would expand Indian gaming in exchange for the state getting a cut of the profits, plus with three gaming initiatives on the ballot, Native Americans may turn out to vote in record numbers. A look at how the Indian vote will affect propositions and statewide races. I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon." There are three propositions on November's ballot relating to Indian gaming. One is the result of negotiations between the state and 17 Indian tribes. Backers of proposition 202 sought the approval of lawmakers on a gaming compact negotiated with the governor's office. But nothing resulted from a special session last spring. Paul Atkinson reports the 17 tribes that negotiated the compact hope voters do what lawmakers could not.

>> Reporter: The Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian tribe owns and runs casino Arizona near the loop 101 and McKellips road just east of Scottsdale. The casino stands in stark contrast to conditions elsewhere on the reservation where dilapidated housing is the rule, not the exception. Janet Johnson knows firsthand the difference Indian gaming makes on the Salt River reservation. Her son and daughter attend preschool at childhood center built with proceeds.

>> Janet Johnson: I look at the children, I bring my kids to the child care center here, and I look at the -- all the items they have and how they're fortunate to have what they have.

>> Reporter: In fact, before gaming, the tribe had little infrastructure and offered little on-reservation help in the form of community services. Now the tribe is building a new fire station and community center. It's hired more police officers and made sure they were properly paid and equipped. The tribe also opened a modern kidney dialysis center. The Salt River-Pima Maricopa tribe is one of 17 tribes that sponsor proposition 202. These 17 tribes who represent over90% of the -- over 90% of the Indians in the state spent three years working on this, three years of consulting with the governor, legislators, community leaders, public hearings across the state.

>> Reporter: Current gaming compacts last ten years. Proposition 202 calls for 10-year compacts that can be automatically renewed for another ten years and at the end an additional three years which to negotiate a new deal. Right now tribes are allocated two to four casinos depending on population size. Most don't use their full allocation. Prop 202 would reduce the number of casinos for most tribes. Four of the smallest tribes could have one casino, nine tribes could have two, one of the largest gaming tribes, Gila River, could have three casinos, and the Tohono O'odham tribe near Tucson could have four. Right now small tribes are limited to 475 slot machines total. One tribe has 700, three others 900, and two can have up to 1400 slot machines under current gaming compacts. Right now tribes cannot transfer slots. That would change under prop 202. Tribes keep the same number of authorized slot machines plus can transfer slots among each other. Prop 202 sets limits on the number of transferred slots a tribe can have. The column on the left shows the number of transferred slot machines casinos can use from as little as 40 for one rural tribe to as many as 1020 for casinos near Phoenix and Tucson. The Salt River-Pima Maricopa tribe, for example, could more than double its 700 allotted slot machines by 830 more. Right now tribes can offer unlimited non-house banked poker tables where players bet among themselves but not Las Vegas style blackjack or poker. Prop 202 would allow rural tribes to offer up to 75 tables of house banked blackjack and poker per casino. Casinos near Phoenix and Tucson could have up to 100 tables. Under current gaming compacts the number of gaming devices cannot increase. Prop 202 calls for the number of table and slot machines to increase every five years based on the percentage of increase in state population.

>>David LaSarte: What we have been able to do in 20 on 2 is reduce the number of facilities built in the state but at the same time allow the machines that are already available in the state to be used more efficiently and give benefits to the non-gaming tribes and that's something I don't think has ever been done effectively anywhere in the country. So 202 has really been able to meet the needs of the gaming tribes, the non-gaming tribes and the people of the state.

>> Reporter: Current gaming compacts allow the department of gaming to monitor and investigate the operation of casino slot machines but not poker rooms. Tribe report profits to the state but those figures aren't publicly disclosed. Prop 202 would give the gaming department authority over poker rooms, too. It also creates an online electronic monitoring system for casinos near Phoenix and Tucson. Prop 202 requires tribes report all financial information to the state. It makes public the overall amount of money Indian casinos bring in but not what each tribe makes.

>> David LaSarte: And under 202, the 17-tribe initiative, the 17 tribes for the last three years have discussed with the department of gaming how that regulation can be tightened, how it can be ill proved, how it can be enhanced as we move ahead to the next five, ten years.

>> Reporter: Prop 202 imposes a graduated revenue sharing plan. For the first $25 million in net profit, tribes will share 1% of revenues, tribes will pay 3% of profits from 25 to $75 million. 6% on profits from 75 to $100 million. And 8% of profits over $100 million. 12% of that money will go to local governments to spend on public safety, programs to offset the negative impacts of Indian gaming and economic development. The state will see 88% of revenue sharing money. 9% would be taken off the top for regulation expenses and 2% for compulsive gambling prevention, treatment and education. The rest would go into an Arizona benefits fund with money distributed as follows. 56% for educational improvement, 28% for trauma and emergency services, 8% for wildlife conservation, and 8% for tourism promotion. Legislative council estimates prop 202 could bring up to $102 million a year for state and local governments.

>> Davud Lasarte: Because under 202 we have this long process, almost three years of working on this, we've had the opportunity to get the input of people from all over in the state. So when you look at what 202 does for sharing revenue with the state, it's over a billion dollars over the first ten years.

>> Reporter: Arguments against Proposition 202... gambling opponents contend that with drastically expanded gaming, gambling addiction and the problems associated with it will increase. Others argue because prop 202 doesn't fully disclose to the public what Indian casinos are making there is no way to ensure each tribe pays its fair share of revenue funding to the state.

>> Michael: Joining me now to discuss proposition 202 is Delia Carlyle, vice chairwoman of the Ak-Chin Indian community south of Phoenix, and David LaSarte, executive director of the Arizona Indian gaming association. Thanks to both of you for joining us.

>> Delia Carlyle: You're welcome. Thank you.

>> Michael: Delia, why should Arizona voters vote for proposition 202?

>> Delia Carlyle: Well, Michael, that's a real easy choice. Proposition 200 is a self-interest for one tribe. Proposition 201 is special interest for out of state racetrack owners. Whereas proposition 202 is a common interest not just for the tribes of the 17 initiative it's for all tribes and for all of Arizona.

>> Michael: Explain to me a little bit more how the Colorado River proposition is only for that one tribe. I mean, many of Arizona's tribes would benefit if it were passed, would they not?

>> Delia Carlyle: Chances are it would, but like any tribal sovereignty, Colorado River was part of our -- the Arizona Indian gaming association, however, for their own reasons they chose to leave and pursue another Avenue for what would be for the betterment of their tribe.

>> Michael: David, one thing I have never quite understood is there are certain aspects to proposition 200, the Colorado River Tribe initiative, which are much more beneficial to tribes, including but not limited to less profit sharing with the state, even more greatly expanded gaming opportunities. Why not go with Proposition 200, just abandon the campaign right now.

>> David LaSarte:You know, Mike, the point here I think is that 200 is not better for the tribes. Prop 200, the CRIT single tribe initiative were better, it would be supported by more than just one tribe. But that's all it is supported by. Prop 202 is supported by every gaming tribe in the state except for CRIT, supported by non-gaming tribes, and here's why, to answer your question. You mentioned prop 202 is the result of negotiation, 17 tribes, the state sitting down. You look at the differences and it's a clear difference between 200 and 202. 202 maintains reasonable limits on gaming. Prop 200, the CRIT initiative, removes all limits on you how large a casino can be. 202, the 17-tribe initiative, tightens regulation. 200, the CRIT initiative, rolls back regulation by the state. 202 shares money with the state, a billion dollars over ten years in the places where it's needed the most. 200 shares very little money with the state. What you really see here, the difference boiled down is 202, the 17-tribe initiative, is really about a balanced approach, it's about responsibility, it's about building a positive future for the tribes and the state. 200 is really just about the self-interest of one tribe and it's really just self-indulgence that the other tribes couldn't support.

>> Michael: Delia, let me clarify here, are the 17 tribes affirmatively recommending a no vote on both proposition 200, and I know you're recommending a no vote on proposition 201.

>> Delia Carlyle: Yes, we are with, a real affirmative on yes on 202.

>> Michael: Ok. Delia, if I'm -- I'm going to avoid the term "joe Arizona." If I am a self-interested Arizonan concerned mostly with the state of the general fund, why do I vote for proposition 202? It's not the best deal economically if I'm looking out for my own interests in terms of the most money for the state.

>> Delia Carlyle: Well, as David had explained before, it has been three years, three years of negotiating, which was -- which I was a part of, as well as other tribal leaders, and the percentage going off our gross gaming revenues is going to benefit all Arizonans with that. Special interests you were talking about being "joe Arizona," or what have you, if you clear -- 202 is a proposition -- like we said, it's a common interest. You may have separate, but I think as Arizonans we have a common interest when it comes to providing services needed to our state not just again for Indian tribes but for all.

>> Michael: But, David, if I'm doing the math here, isn't it very simple, gee, under 201 I get $300 million, and under 202 I only get $100 million.

>> David LaSarte: 201, the racetrack initiative, it's about one thing and it's about out state racetrack owners from Florida, New York and California turning their racetracks into casinos. How many millions of dollars are going into the pockets of those out of state owners, being funneled out of the state to those owners. Under 202, this money, the over a billion dollars over the first 10 years, go to where Arizona needs it the most, and that's the classroom, and it's trauma centers. This money goes specifically for drop-out prevention, teacher salaries, classroom size. These are the places where Arizona ranks last or almost last in the country. These are the places where Arizona needs the money and all the money that doesn't go to the state goes to the tribe to provide social programs and services. It all stays within the state.

>> Michael: But you would agree there is less of that money that goes to the state under proposition 202?

>> David LaSarte: Clearly -- 202, the 17-tribe initiative is about balance. It's something that was developed over three years that helps the tribes and the state both benefit, both move forward with a positive future. 201, if 201 is about greed, greed for special interests, out of state owners, greed to try to balance the budget deficit on the backs of the tribes, then maybe that is your proposition. But we don't think so. We think that people will support 202 because it's the balanced approach.

>> Michael: Delia, as negotiated, and when it was before the legislature, the percent of revenue sharing just went to the state's general fund. As the packages pointed out and as we've discussed here briefly, it's now the money -- the revenue sharing with the state goes to specific targeted programs, education, tourism promotion, I believe is --

>> Delia Carlyle: Trauma centers.

>> Michael: Right. Why the shift? Why earmark it for particular programs? Why not send it to the yen fund as was the original intent with the negotiated compacts.

>> Delia Carlyle: I think it was based on information received and David point out -- the State of Arizona is at the bottom of certain areas, education for one, and by what David was saying about earmarking money for that, he meant -- he mentioned drop-out rate, classroom size, the K-3 reading program. These are issues that are -- we as Arizonans are concerned about, and trauma centers is another area. We've heard of closures of trauma centers, and if that were to happen, where would our people, and Arizonans, go with regards to receiving medical treatment. So earmarking those dollars weren't just something we picked up. It was something -- facts that the people of Arizona had voiced their concerns on.

>> Michael: Was there also a political aspect to it? Do you feel that voters are more inclined to go for specifically earmarked dollars as opposed to just the general fund?

>>David LaSarte: I think the real issue here and I remember this, because I sat in the meetings with these tribe leaders for so long, they went to the legislature and they did have the money going to the general fund but the legislature failed to act. Essentially punted this issue to the people. I remember specifically tribe leaders saying, if we're taking this question directly to the people and asking for their support, we want this money to go directly to the people and they just felt like that was the right thing to do, that the money should go to the people if they had to go to the ballot.

>> Michael: Delia, there are certainly, I think, well intentioned people in this state and any state concerned about the effects of gambling. Proposition 202 expands the forms of gambling. We haven't had table blackjack up to this point in time, and we haven't had house banked poker games. Proposition 202 moves into that territory. Some people are concerned about the expansion of the forms of gaming. Why should they not be concerned about that?

>>Delia Carlyle: Because, again, with proposition 202, after -- you know, with thorough negotiations, we will have -- proposition 202 does call for more game -- more regulation on any gaming, new or old, game or slot machines, what have you. So the regulation is there. That was a concern that we wanted to take care of as tribal leaders to ensure people that we weren't just going to expand and not be regulated, whereas for -- for 202, whereas the CRIT initiative opens up more -- expands -- opens that up with no increase in regulatory issues there.

>> Michael: I don't know that it's so much a regulatory issue, David, as it is a concern with where is this going. It's an additional step into a Las Vegas style of gaming. Admittedly not as aggressive as the Colorado River proposition, but still an additional step. Shouldn't people be a little worried about that?

>>David LaSarte: No, you know, I really don't think so. I mean, clearly, compared to prop 200, 202 is something completely tiff rent. Essentially the only thing that's been added is the limited number of blackjack tables to existing operations and what the tribes have negotiated among themselves and with the state is that there are firm limits in place. Right now under the status quo, there are no limits on how much poker can be offered. So the tribes have voluntarily limit those operations and added a little bit of blackjack to make up for adding that limit. It's something that --

>> Michael: But you can have a ton of blackjack tables under this proposition. It's, what, 100 in the urban area -- a mixture of poker and blackjack, but you could have, for example, what, 50 blackjack tables and 50 poker tables --

>>David LaSarte: You would have to scale back your current poker operation in order to do that. See, again, the tribes have agreed to limit what they have in order to add something new, and that's something that's happened on a whole lot of issues. The tribes consistently have said, let's compromise, you want fewer tables because right now there are no limits, but let us add something into the mix so that we can cut back on -- limit the numbers but still, you know, make good business sense and provide for our people.

>> Michael: Delia, we're almost out of time, but very quickly, could you explain to me the tribal reluctance on disclosure of what individual -- individual disclosure?

>> Delia Carlyle: We do disclose. We disclose to the state, national Indian gaming association, our own tribal audits and various federal audits. We are not -- so we do disclose. Now, as a competitive edge, was my tribe is 40 miles out Phoenix, and if I were to publicly disclose the information, then Gila River just up the road from us, and as I pointed out, they would have a competitive edge over us.

>> Michael: Delia Carlyle, thank you much for joining us. David LaSarte, good to see you again. Good luck.

>>> Michael: Three initiatives on the ballot may be cause for more Native Americans to vote this November. The 2000 census found more than 233,000 Native Americans living in Arizona. Of which 198,000 are 18 or over. Earlier I talked to Bruce Merrill about the role native American voters could play. Merrill's a professor of mass communication at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Telecommunication. Bruce, first off, what voter or voter blocks are we talking about that will be drawn to the polls by the three gaming propositions?

>> Bruce Merrill: Well, you have two main ones. One is the religious right, which is, as we saw in the primaries, very influential in Arizona. These people have been opposed to any kind of gambling for a long time and that's why you have somebody like Matt Salmon saying he doesn't support any of these measures because they relate to gambling and in a sense expanding gambling in the sense that they have more games and more casino-type gambling. The other one is interesting because it has the potential to be very influential, and that's whether or not the tribal leaders because this relates to Indian tribes is able to mobilize their members and deliver to them -- them to the polls. Because basically what happens is for every native American that goes to the polls that would not have gone to the polls, the probability is they're going to vote more democratic than more Republican.

>> Michael: And those two phenomena, those two elements, don't cancel each other because normally the religious right is an efficacious voting segment, it would have been coming out anyway.

>>Bruce Merrill: Absolutely. And the other thing that we don't know, as we were talking before the air, the Navajos, which is the largest tribe by far in terms of numbers is not directly affected by this in the sense that the issue is putting more casinos on their land or whatever. So it's not clear at this point whether or not the Navajo nation would be mobilized to participate. If they do, it could really be a boon for Janet Napolitano and some of the statewide democratic races.

>> Michael: Any way at this point in time to figure out how much of a boon it could be?

>> Bruce Merrill: Well, not quantitatively, Michael, but what we do know in 1974 when Raul Castro was elected, he ran against a guy named Russ Williams. Russ Williams carried every county in Arizona except the three counties that were heavy Native Americans, and I don't think it's too farfetched to say the Native Americans in 1974 elected Raul Castro governor. So the potential is there.

>> Michael: Are there other statewide races, or for that matter other races period that could be affected by the phenomena?

>>Bruce Merrill: Well, any of them could be in the sense that when you get below the governor's race, there's a phenomenon called drop-off, which means because they're not very visible races in term of Secretary of State and treasurer and stuff like that, a lot of people vote for governor, and then they just don't vote for the rest of the offices. Those that do vote for the other offices do tend to vote on the basis of party because they don't know frankly hoot candidates are. Our last poll, you may remember, basically showed that statewide the voters don't know who any of the voters -- or any of the candidates are that are running for office.

>> Michael: Undecided got larger as you went down the ballot. >> Bruce Merrill: Exactly.

>> Michael: So ironically enough, you could almost see a heavier impact from the phenomena the deeper you got in the ballot, helping up top side, but if the people choose to vote, maybe a stronger impact further down the ballot?

>> Bruce Merrill: Absolutely. They vote on the basis of party and at least the native American vote has been much heavier democratic.

>> Michael: Now, what about some of the other propositions? You've got a wide variety of other issues being voted on, the ability of the state to exchange land, a variety of other things. How does it impact --

>> Bruce Merrill: Frankly, I would expect the fall-off on those ballot propositions would be enormous, and largely because there is so much focus on these gaming issues. I mean, Michael, I think they're going to spend $30 million on --

>> Michael: Those are California type --

>> Bruce Merrill: For Arizona, that's crazy. I mean, for running for governor the two candidates may spend $3 million together. I mean, that's a 10th -- when you stop and think about it, it must say something about what the stakes are here in terms of gambling in the State of Arizona.

>> Michael: Interestingly enough, the state lottery, as you know, is up for renewal. Now, does this phenomena help or hurt? I could construct a scenario for you that they say, hold it, that's the competition, I won't vote for that.

>> Bruce Merrill: Well, it could, but again, it depends on how the three issues play out. I mean each of these propositions, 200, 201 and 202, have their own spin on things in terms of what they're telling the people, and if you take, for instance, if you take 200, the issue there -- and with 202 to some degree, the issue is primary one of white guilt, that the Native Americans deserve self-reliance -- it's an issue of fairness. Now, the difference between 200 and 202 is the issue -- the issue on 200 is really related more to one specific tribe, the Colorado Indians, but on 202, it involves 17 tribes, but basically both of them rear late to what's fair -- related to what's fair, self-reliance and the under lying issue is white guilt. Now on 201 the major issue, I think --

>> Michael: Is money.

>> Bruce Merrill: It's money. It's just money, stupid, and I think that that's going to be interesting to follow because I think a lot of people are going to be sensitized to the economy and to the budget and basically say, why not take the $89 million instead of --

>> Michael: And run.

>> Bruce Merrill: And run.

>> Michael: Bruce Merrill, thank you very much for the information. If you would like to learn more about the three gaming propositions on the ballot, please visit our website at www.kaet.asu.edu. Just click on election 2002. You'll find links to all ballot propositions plus websites for and against. You can also read transcripts of "Horizon"'s election coverage. Tomorrow we'll take a look at two propositions, first learn more about proposition 301, which if approved would continue the state's lottery for another ten years, then we'll tell you more about proposition 303. That would increase tobacco taxes to pay for health services. Wednesday you've heard a lot about the problems with Arizona's clean elections system. We will give you an update, and Thursday, prop 304, that would give lawmakers a pay raise. Thanks very much for joining us on this Monday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a pleasant one. Good night.