
Controversy Surrounds California Tribal Ballot Initiative
In a move that has caught many off guard, a new ballot initiative in California has emerged, stirring controversy among the state's Native American tribes. The initiative, which was not crafted with the input of many tribes, has been met with formal opposition from the California Nations Indian Gaming Association (CNIGA), signaling a deep rift within the community over the proposal.
Lack of Tribal Involvement and Opposition from CNIGA
Despite California tribes' long history of over forty years in the gaming industry, many have expressed surprise at the development of this recent ballot initiative. Their extensive experience in gaming operations has fostered a sense of expertise among tribal leaders regarding what is best for their people. However, it appears this expertise was not sought in the formulation of the current initiative, as the CNIGA—the largest tribal group in the state—has taken a firm stance against it.
The lack of consultation and involvement in the initiative's development process has led to significant disapproval. Tribes have historically been vigilant about maintaining sovereignty and control over their gaming operations, and any perceived external interference is met with skepticism and resistance.
The Proponents Behind the Measure
Reeve Collins and Kasey Thompson are identified as the figures spearheading the ballot measure. Both individuals are not new to the tribal gaming scene, having previously worked with tribes through Pala Interactive. Thompson, in particular, has been actively engaging in discussions with tribes and securing financial backing for the initiative. Despite these efforts, no specific tribes have come forward in support of the measure, underscoring the prevailing opposition from the tribal community.
CNIGA Chairman James Siva's Strong Rebuke
James Siva, the chairman of CNIGA, has vocally criticized the approach taken by the sponsors of the initiative. He describes the effort as "abhorrently" managed and finds the conduct of the sponsors offensive, suggesting that it represents another instance of outside forces attempting to divide and conquer Indian tribes—a historical pattern that the tribes are determined not to repeat.
In a powerful statement, Siva reiterates the success that California tribes have had in the gaming market, attributing it to deliberate and thoughtful action with consideration for the welfare of their members and local communities. He emphasizes the authority and expertise of tribal leaders in deciding what is beneficial for their people. Siva also calls on the sponsors to withdraw the initiative, reminding them of their pledge to do so should the tribes oppose it. He makes it clear that the opposition from the tribes is unequivocal and will not change.
Defense of the Initiative
Despite the backlash, Collins defends the proposal, asserting that it is not merely a haphazard attempt but rather a strategic and well-considered plan. His comment suggests that there is more to the initiative than meets the eye, although he does not elaborate on the specifics of the strategy or how it aligns with the interests of the tribes.
Conclusion
The discord over the tribal ballot initiative in California highlights the complex dynamics between Native American tribes and external entities when it comes to gaming operations. The strong opposition from CNIGA and the absence of public support from any tribe cast doubt on the future of the initiative. It remains to be seen whether Collins and Thompson will heed the call to retract their proposal or if they will continue to push forward despite the clear disapproval from the tribal community. What is certain is that tribal leaders stand united in their resolve to protect their sovereignty and maintain control over gaming decisions that affect their people and their heritage.
The unfolding situation serves as a reminder of the importance of involving those who are most impacted by policy changes in the decision-making process, especially when it involves matters as sensitive and significant as tribal gaming. The controversy is not just about a ballot initiative; it's about respect, autonomy, and the right of the tribes to determine their own destiny without outside interference.