OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.
GOOD MORNING. I'LL GO AHEAD AND,
CALL THE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
COMMITTEE TO ORDER, WE WILL GIVE
MEMBERS, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO
GET DOWN HERE. I KNOW THERE'S
MULTIPLE COMMITTEES. BUT IF THE
SERGEANTS CAN CALL THE MEMBERS,
PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
GET STARTED. WE HAVE TWO BILLS
TODAY. THREE BILLS? OKAY I'M
SORRY. OKAY, FOR EACH BILL
TODAY, THERE WILL BE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR TWO WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT AND TWO WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO EACH PROVIDE, A
TOTAL OF TEN MINUTE, TESTIMONY,
SERGEANTS, PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS AND NOTICING THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM, WE WILL
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE,
ESTABLISHING A QUORUM REQUIRES
12 MEMBERS. AND, MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU CALL THE
ROLL? OH. I'M SORRY. WHEN A
QUORUM IS PRESENT. THANK YOU.
AND THEN WE HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOHN SAWYER IS
ABSENT TODAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HART IS SUBSTITUTING FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JOHN SAWYER AND
MEASURES ON CONSENT. WE HAVE, SB
536, SENATOR RUBIO. OKAY. THANK
YOU. AND WE HAVE SENATOR RUBIO.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND
PRESENT YOUR BILL? THIS IS ITEM
NUMBER THREE.
ESTÁ 1230. I'LL STOP AND SEE
SENATOR RUBIO. HOLD ON JUST A
SECOND. THE MIC IS OFF. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. MUCH
BETTER. HELLO, AND GOOD MORNING
TO EVERYONE. TODAY I'M HONORED
TO BE HERE PRESENTING SB 1230,
THE STOP AND SEIZE THE LEGAL
TOBACCO PRODUCT ACT. AS ALL OF
YOU KNOW, I'M A TEACHER, AND MY
GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO KEEP
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AWAY FROM OUR
CHILDREN AND OUR YOUTH. AND SO
TODAY, I'M HERE ONCE AGAIN WITH
THE BILL, TRYING TO ENSURE THAT
OUR STUDENTS, OUR KIDS DON'T
FALL INTO THIS VERY UGLY HABIT
THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BREAK.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, THE
HEALTH RISKS. I THINK WE'RE ALL
AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE
START SMOKING EARLY ON. AND YOU
KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED
DUE TO TOBACCO USE. SO TODAY I
HAVE A VERY SIMPLE BILL THAT
JUST TRIES TO PREVENT THE
ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS
ALREADY BANNED HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. SO AGAIN, THESE
ILLEGAL PRODUCTS CONTINUE TO
MAKE THEIR WAY INTO OUR STORES.
AND CALIFORNIA SB 1230 WILL
STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT OF
CALIFORNIA ANTI-TOBACCO LAWS AND
ENSURE THAT FLAVORED VAPES ARE
KEPT OFF THE SHELVES, WHICH ARE
CLEARLY MEANT TO ATTRACT OUR
YOUTH AND USUALLY THEY WILL DO
SO THROUGH SOME VERY CREATIVE
MEANS OF ADVERTISEMENT, AS WELL
AS FLAVORED TOBACCO THAT ARE
BUBBLE GUM AND OTHER THINGS THAT
I DON'T THINK ADULTS WOULD CARE
ABOUT. BUT ANYHOW, THEY CONTINUE
TO SELL THESE PRODUCTS AND THIS
BILL IS REALLY JUST MEANT TO
TACKLE THOSE BAD ACTORS. THEY
CONTINUE TO FAIL TO FOLLOW THE
LAW AND CONTINUE TO TRY AND HOOK
OUR CHILDREN INTO TOBACCO USE.
SO MY BILL DOES ONE VERY
IMPORTANT THING, WHICH IT
ALLOWS. IT AUTHORIZES EMPLOYEES
OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION TO
SEIZE AND DESTROY FLAVORED
TOBACCO PRODUCTS DISCOVERED
DURING A REGULAR INSPECTION OF
TOBACCO RETAILERS AND
WAREHOUSES. AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY
ILLEGAL, BUT NOW WE'RE JUST
GIVING THEM THE AUTHORITY TO
SEIZE AND DESTROY THEM, THE
DEPARTMENT ALREADY DOES THIS, AS
MENTIONED, BUT THIS ALSO NOW
INCLUDES A VERY MODEST FEE. IT'S
A SIMPLE, EASY, EFFECTIVE WAY OF
TACKLING THIS VERY LARGE ISSUE.
AS VÆ 1230 ALSO INCLUDES A
REASONABLE CIVIL PENALTY IMPOSED
TO RETAILERS FOR BREAKING THE
LAW. THE FINE AMOUNT HASN'T BEEN
CHANGED IN 20 YEARS, SO THIS
MODEST INCREASE GOES A LONG WAY
TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE
FOLLOWING THE LAW AT THE STOP
AND SEIZE ILLEGAL TOBACCO
PRODUCT ACT IS SPONSORED BY THE
COALITION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE
CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO FREE KIDS
AND THE BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION.
AGAIN, VERY MODEST FINE. AND IT
ONLY TACKLES THOSE BAD ACTORS.
AND WITH ME, I'M PROUD TO HAVE A
STUDENT WHO'S BEEN AN ADVOCATE,
OMRI ABU MARSHA, WHO WILL BE
PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF OUR
YOUTH. AND I ALSO HAVE TIM GIFTS
FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS OMRI ABU MARSHA, AND
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 1230.
I RECENTLY GRADUATED FROM
GRANITE BAY HIGH SCHOOL IN
PLACER COUNTY, AND I'LL BE
ATTENDING YALE UNIVERSITY IN THE
FALL. I'VE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED
IN TOBACCO PREVENTION EFFORTS
BOTH LOCALLY AND STATEWIDE. ONE
OF MY MOST RECENT PROJECTS
INVOLVED CREATING A POLICY
HANDBOOK FOR CALIFORNIA TOBACCO
RETAILERS TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE LAW AND REDUCE UNDERAGE
TOBACCO ACCESS. GROWING UP, I'VE
WITNESSED ADDICTION FIRSTHAND
THROUGH MY DAD CAR RIDES WITH MY
DAD ALWAYS MEANT HIS CIGARETTE
SMOKE WOULD BE BLOWING INTO MY
FACE, AND EVEN A HUG MEANT
INHALING THOSE HARMFUL CHEMICALS
. I EVENTUALLY LEARNED THAT MY
DAD'S 34 YEAR OLD ADDICTION HAD
BEEN FUELED BY MISINFORMATION,
SOCIAL NORMS, AND MANIPULATIVE
MARKETING TACTICS. AS A RESULT
OF MY DAD'S CHOICES, MY ENTIRE
FAMILY SHARES A PART OF THE
BURDEN VIA SECONDHAND SMOKE. BUT
SECONDHAND SMOKE IS NOT JUST
EXCLUSIVE TO MY FAMILY. IT
AFFECTS OUR YOUTH AT LARGE. IN
REALITY, THE SMOKE I INHALED AT
HOME WAS THE SAME SMOKE I HAD TO
ENDURE ON MY SCHOOL CAMPUS. ONLY
AT ONLY AT SCHOOL. THE SMOKE
TENDS TO CARRY AN ARTIFICIAL
SCENT. EVERY TIME I ENTER THE
SCHOOL RESTROOMS, I AM MET WITH
THE SIGHT OF STUDENTS HUDDLED
TOGETHER SHARING A VAPE ALONG
WITH THE REMNANT SMELL OF
ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS. I SOMETIMES
EVEN SEE IT IN THE HALLWAYS
BETWEEN CLASSROOMS AND I'M ALSO
AWARE THAT STUDENTS WILL OFTEN
LEAVE IN THE MIDDLE OF CLASS TO
VAPE IN THE RESTROOMS. NOT ONLY
DOES THIS INHIBIT THE STUDENTS
LEARNING, BUT IT ALSO AFFECTS
EVERYONE ELSE ON CAMPUS,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY
PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO SMOKE OR
NOT. OF COURSE, THERE ARE
RESOURCES TO HELP STUDENTS QUIT
SMOKING, BUT THE MOST PRODUCTIVE
APPROACH IS ADDRESSING THE ROOT
CAUSE, WHICH IS THE AVAILABILITY
OF THESE PRODUCTS. IF WE DON'T
GET THESE FLAVORED OR OTHERWISE
ILLEGAL TOBACCO PRODUCTS OFF THE
SHELVES TODAY, THIS CYCLE OF
ADDICTION WILL ONLY PERPETUATE,
LEADING TO MORE LIFELONG SMOKERS
LIKE MY DAD AND MORE YOUNG
PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF WHO WILL HAVE
TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. THE
ULTIMATE GOAL OF MY ADVOCACY IS
TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE NO ONE
IS ROBBED OF A SMOKE FREE LIFE,
AND THAT'S WHY I URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE AYE ON SB
1230. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? OKAY YES. ANYONE IN THE
AUDIENCE WISH TO COME UP AND
SUPPORT? MORNING. JAMIE MORGAN,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN HEART
ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THE BILL. TIM GIBBS WITH THE
CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO FREE KIDS.
ALSO CO-SPONSOR AUTUMN OGDEN
SMITH WITH THE AMERICAN CANCER
SOCIETY. CANCER ACTION NETWORK,
ALSO PROUD CO-SPONSOR HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
Kò, BRUCE, AMERICAN LUNG
ASSOCIATION, PROUD SPONSOR.
THANK YOU. JOE SIGNS WITH THE
COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING LOCAL
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC IN SUPPORT? THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY MAIN
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT
UP TO THE PUBLIC. ANYONE IN THE
PUBLIC IN OPPOSITION? OKAY. DO
ANY MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? MISS DAVIES? THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST REALLY
QUICK, SENATOR, I WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING
THIS UP, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN
WORKING WHEN I WAS ON CITY
COUNCIL AS WELL AS NOW WHEN IT
COMES TO THE VAPING. AND SO MANY
PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT ONE
CARTRIDGE IS LIKE SMOKING A PACK
OF CIGARETTES. AND WE ARE GOING
TO BE SEEING SO MUCH LUNG
DISEASE COMING UP WITH, YOU
KNOW, WITH OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. SO
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BEING SUCH AN ADVOCATE.
AND I WOULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE A
MOTION. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM
YET, BUT AS SOON AS WE DO, WE'LL
OPEN IT UP. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. WELL,
FIRST OF ALL, I NEVER LOSE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH
PARENTS. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
PARENTS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO TACKLE THIS
ISSUE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AS A TEACHER, I HAVE BEEN IN A
LIBRARY WHERE SOME OF OUR
STUDENTS WERE VAPING AND YOU
DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE HAVE NOW
MARKERS THAT ARE VAPING DEVICES,
HIGHLIGHTERS, INCLUDING CLOTHING
FOR EXAMPLE, SWEATSHIRTS WITH A
LITTLE STRING THAT NOW IS A
SMOKING DEVICE. AND NONE OF THE
PARENTS WOULD KNOW THIS. WE TEND
TO GO INTO A ROOM LOOKING FOR
THE ACTUAL VAPING DEVICE. YOU'RE
NEVER GOING TO FIND IT, AND SO
THERE'S SO MANY PRODUCTS THAT
ARE NOW USED TO VAPE, AND
PARENTS ARE REALLY NOT IN A
POSITION TO UNDERSTAND ALL THESE
PRODUCTS. SO OUR GOAL IS TO
ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO FLAVORED
TOBACCO OUT THERE THAT THAT THEY
CAN USE. SO AGAIN, JUST BE AWARE
FOR PARENTS OUT THERE LISTENING
THAT THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS.
AND I WOULD JUST GO ONLINE TO
TRY TO SEE WHAT THESE TOBACCO
PRODUCTS ARE. THE VAPING DEVICES
THAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING, AND
ALSO THE UNFORTUNATE PART IS
THAT, THEY'RE VAPING AND SOME
PRODUCTS ARE VAPING. YOU CANNOT
SMELL THEM. SO THAT'S ANOTHER
ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO CONTEND
WITH. BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING
ADVOCATES, ALONG WITH MYSELF.
AND WITH THAT, I ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE, BILL
COMING UP. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS AND AS A TEACHER
AS WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT,
SOMETIMES YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM,
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND,
WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, SO AS
SOON AS A QUORUM IS PRESENT,
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION
AND TAKE A VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER TWO, SB
549. NEWMAN.
THANK YOU, MR. NEWMAN. YOU MAY
BEGIN, BUT, JUST FOR,
CLARIFICATION ON THIS ITEM, WE
HAVE OPENED UP, TWO WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT FOR A TOTAL OF TEN
MINUTES, SO THAT YOU HAVE PLENTY
OF, OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS,
THE OPPOSITION WILL HAVE THE
SAME. AND IF MEMBERS OF THE
AUDIENCE, WHEN YOU PLEASE COME
UP, TO YOUR DO YOUR MEETINGS,
PLEASE KEEP IT TO NAME, NAME AND
POSITION. THANK YOU, MR. NEWMAN.
YOU MAY BEGIN. I APPRECIATE THAT
INDULGENCE, MADAM CHAIR, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB
549, THE TRIBAL NATIONS ACCESS
TO JUSTICE ACT, WHICH WILL
PROVIDE CALIFORNIANS INDIAN
TRIBES A LIMITED AVENUE TO SEEK
IN STATE COURT A DECLARATION ON
THE LEGALITY OF SPECIFIC GAMES
OPERATED BY CALIFORNIA'S
LICENSED CARDROOMS PRIOR TO THE
YEAR 2000. CALIFORNIA LAW AS
ARTICULATED IN THE STATE'S
CONSTITUTION, EXPLICITLY
PROHIBITED THE OPERATION OF
NEVADA AND NEW JERSEY TYPE
CASINOS WITH REGARD TO CARD
GAMES. STATE LAW PROHIBITED THE
FOLLOWING ONE. SEVERAL SPECIFIC
CARDROOMS, SUCH AS 21 TWO
SO-CALLED BANKED GAMES WHERE THE
HOUSE HAS A STAKE IN THE OUTCOME
OF THE GAME, AND THREE
PERCENTAGE GAMES WHERE THE HOUSE
ENJOYS BETTER ODDS THAN THE
OTHER PLAYERS AT A TABLE. IN THE
YEAR 2000, THE VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA WERE EXPLICITLY ASKED
UNDER PROPOSITION ONE A ON THE
BALLOT. THAT YEAR WHETHER
CALIFORNIANS INDIAN TRIBES
SHOULD BE GRANTED AN EXEMPTION
TO THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITIONS WITH THEIR VOTE. A
CONVINCING MAJORITY OF 64% OF
CALIFORNIA VOTERS CHOSE TO GRANT
TO THE TRIBES THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO OFFER SLOT MACHINES,
LOTTERY GAMES, AND BANK AND
PERCENTAGE CARD GAMES LIKE
BLACKJACK AND BACCARAT. STATE
LAW HAS ALWAYS ALLOWED LICENSED
CARDROOMS TO OPERATE ANY CARD
GAME THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE
PROHIBITED. TYPICALLY CARDROOM
CARDROOM PLAYERS PAY A FEE ON A
PER HAND OR PER HOUR BASIS TO
PLAY THESE GAMES. OVER THE
COURSE OF THE MORE THAN TWO
DECADES SINCE THE PASSAGE OF
PROP ONE Ã, HOWEVER,
CALIFORNIA'S CARDROOMS HAVE
STEADILY ADDED TO THEIR
OFFERINGS A NUMBER OF GAMES
WHICH ARE FOR ALL INTENTS AND
PURPOSES, INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM
THE CARD GAMES OFFERED AT LAS
VEGAS AND TRIBAL CASINOS. IT HAS
LONG BEEN THE TRIBE'S CONTENTION
THAT THE OFFERING OF SUCH GAMES
IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF PROP ONE A, BUT
BECAUSE OF THE TRIBE'S LACK OF
STANDING IN CALIFORNIA COURTS,
NO COURT HAS BEEN ABLE TO OPINE
ON THE EXTENT OR IMPLICATIONS OF
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT. THIS
LACK OF CLARITY HAS FORMED THE
BASIS FOR THE LONG STANDING
DISPUTE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA'S
INDIAN TRIBES AND CALIFORNIA'S
LICENSED CARDROOMS. PRIOR
ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE
THROUGH THE REGULATORY AND
LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES, OR BY
ELECTORAL INITIATIVE, HAVE
FAILED. SB 549 SEEKS TO
DEFINITIVELY RESOLVE THIS
DISPUTE BY GRANTING CALIFORNIA'S
INDIAN TRIBES CIRCUMSCRIBED TIME
TO LIMITED LEGAL STANDING, TO
SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON
WHETHER CERTAIN CARD GAMES
OFFERED BY CARDROOMS AND BANKED
BY THIRD PARTY PROPOSITION
PLAYERS. SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE
IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. THE CENTRAL
QUESTION OF THIS BILL IS
ACTUALLY NOT ABOUT WHICH GAMES
CARDROOMS ARE OR SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO OFFER, RATHER, THE
CENTRAL QUESTION OF THIS BILL IS
SIMPLY WHETHER TO ALLOW THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR A COURT OF LAW
TO ADDRESS THIS NOW DECADES OLD
QUESTION PURELY ON ITS MERITS
AND PURSUANT TO THE VOTER
APPROVED PROVISIONS OF PROP ONE
Ã. TO BE CLEAR, SB 549 DOES NOT
TAKE A SIDE IN THIS REGARD. IT
NEITHER VINDICATES NOR CODIFIES
THE ARGUMENTS OF THE TRIBES, NOR
DOES IT DECLARE CARDROOMS IN
VIOLATION OF ANY LAW. MOREOVER,
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE AS TO HOW
A COURT MIGHT RULE IN THIS
MATTER. BUT IF THE LEGISLATURE
REFUSES TO GRANT THE LEGAL
STANDING NEEDED FOR THE COURTS
TO WEIGH IN, WE REMAIN NO CLOSER
TO A RESOLUTION ON THIS LONG
STANDING DISPUTE WITH ME TO
TESTIFY TODAY IS JAMES SIVA,
VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE MORONGO
BAND OF MISSION INDIANS AND
CHAIR OF THE CALIFORNIA NATION'S
INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, AND
CATALINA CHACON, COUNCILWOMAN OF
THE PECHANGA TRIBAL COUNCIL AND
VICE CHAIR OF THE TRIBAL
ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN
NATIONS. ALSO WITH US TODAY TO
ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
AS TORI BIGKNIFE, ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE VÀ, HIS BAND OF
KUMEYAAY INDIANS, I AM
RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. YOU
GOT ME. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
CHAIRMAN, CHAIRWOMAN RUBIO AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS JAMES SIVA, AND I HAVE
THE HONOR OF SERVING AS THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE CALIFORNIA
NATION'S INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION, WHICH REPRESENTS 52
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. I'M HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE LARGEST
COALITION OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
SUPPORTING A SINGLE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION SINCE THE PASSAGE OF
SCA 11 BY THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE AND THE PASSAGE OF
PROP ONE Ã IN 2000, WHICH
AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO
PERMIT SLOT MACHINES AND BANK TO
PERCENTAGE CARD GAMES
EXCLUSIVELY OPERATED BY TRIBES
ON INDIAN LANDS. 64% OF
CALIFORNIA VOTERS SUPPORTED
GAMING EXCLUSIVITY PROVIDED TO
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS UNDER PROP
ONE. Ã. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
THE RATIFICATION OF OUR TRIBAL
STATE GAMING COMPACTS AND THE
PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION ONE, A
SEVERAL CARDROOMS FILED LAWSUITS
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF PROP
ONE, A AND THE GAMES AUTHORIZED
BY OUR TRIBAL GAMING COMPACTS.
THOSE LAWSUITS WERE NOT
DISMISSED ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS.
AFTER YEARS OF LITIGATION, THE
CARDROOM SECURED A DECISION ON
THE MERITS. THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RULED THAT TRIBES WERE OPERATING
LAWFUL GAMES, THEREBY PROVIDING
CLARITY TO CARDROOMS ON WHAT
TYPES OF GAMES COULD BE
AUTHORIZED TO BE PLAYED ON
TRIBAL LANDS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT IF THE CARDROOMS HAD BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR LITIGATION,
MANY TRIBES MAY STILL BE LIVING
IN ABJECT POVERTY TODAY. WHILE
THE CARDROOMS ARE ABLE TO
RECEIVE CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM THE
COURTS ON WHAT GAMES WERE
PERMITTED ON TRIBAL LANDS,
TRIBES HAVE BEEN DENIED THE SAME
ACCESS TO JUSTICE. YOU CAN
CHANGE THAT TODAY BY SUPPORTING
SB 549. FOR OVER A DECADE,
CALIFORNIA TRIBES HAVE ENGAGED
IN CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS TO
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY
GUARANTEED EXCLUSIVE GAMING
RIGHTS AND STOP WHAT WE BELIEVE
IS ILLEGAL GAMING ACTIVITY. BY
CARDROOMS. THESE EFFORTS INCLUDE
THE INITIATION OF FEDERAL AND
STATE LAWSUITS. UNFORTUNATELY
EACH OF THOSE LAWSUITS WERE
DISMISSED SOLELY ON PROCEDURAL
GROUNDS WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE
MERITS, THEREBY DENYING TRIBAL
ACCESS TO JUSTICE. SB 549 IS A
STRAIGHTFORWARD MEASURE THAT
PROVIDES A FAIR AND REASONABLE
PATHWAY TO ALLOW AN IMPARTIAL
COURT TO DECIDE, ONCE AND FOR
ALL, WHETHER CERTAIN GAMES
OPERATED BY CARDROOMS CONSTITUTE
BANKED CARD GAMES THAT VIOLATE
CALIFORNIA LAW AND TRIBAL GAMING
EXCLUSIVITY. THE SHEER LENGTH OF
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON A TWO
PAGE BILL UNDERSCORES THE
COMPLICATED NATURE OF GAMING
LAWS, AND HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. THIS IS
GOOD PUBLIC POLICY. IF CARDROOMS
ARE CONFIDENT IN THE LEGALITY OF
THE GAMES THEY OPERATE, THEY
SHOULD WELCOME THE CHANCE TO
PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW. WE
RECOGNIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT
GAMING HAS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FOR
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, GAMING IS
OFTENTIMES THE SOLE SOURCE OF
MEANINGFUL REVENUE TO FUND OUR
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS. THE REALITY
IS THAT CARD ROOM CASINOS HAVE
EXISTED IN CALIFORNIA FOR OVER A
CENTURY, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE
TO EXIST AFTER THIS LEGISLATION
PASSES. SB 549 NOR DECISION BY
AN INDEPENDENT JUDGE CAN
INVALIDATE ANY CARD ROOM GAME
THAT ARE FOUND TO BE LEGAL UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW. THOSE GAMES WILL
CONTINUE. MANY PERSONS OUTSIDE
OF INDIAN COUNTRY HAVE FORGOTTEN
THAT AS RECENTLY AS 1991, NOT
EVEN A GENERATION AGO, THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AT THE DIRECTION
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DAN LUNGREN,
ORDERED RAIDS ON TRIBAL
RESERVATIONS DESPITE THE STATE'S
LACK OF AUTHORITY, THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE
TRIBAL CASINOS THROUGHOUT THE
90S THAT DISPUTE WAS RESOLVED
AFTER YEARS OF COSTLY
LITIGATION, AND THE EVENTUAL
SIGNING OF TRIBAL STATE GAMING
COMPACTS AND THE PASSAGE OF
PROPOSITION ONE A AS A TRIBAL
LEADER. AS AN INDIAN PERSON, I
AM FRUSTRATED AND SADDENED BY
THE DISPROPORTIONATE TREATMENT
OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND THESE
COMMERCIAL OPERATORS WHO SEEM TO
SCOFF AT THE LAWS OF THIS GREAT
STATE. HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF
NATIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS
FRAUGHT WITH ATROCITIES ON JUNE
18TH, 2019, GOVERNOR NEWSOM
FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE PAST
ATROCITIES AND ISSUED A FORMAL
APOLOGY FOR THE STATE SANCTIONED
GENOCIDE OF NATIVE PEOPLE.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S APOLOGY
PROMISE A NEW PATH GOING FORWARD
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE TRIBAL NATIONS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS. A VOTE IN SUPPORT OF SB
549 ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT AND
THE SPIRIT OF GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S
APOLOGY, AS ACTIONS TO HIS WORDS
AND HONORS THE PROMISES MADE
UNDER PROP ONE, Ã BY AFFORDING
TRIBES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
ACCESS JUSTICE AND TO DEFEND OUR
EXCLUSIVE GAMING RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
STAND HUMBLY BEFORE YOU TODAY TO
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. WE ARE NOT
ASKING YOU TO CHOOSE WHETHER
TRIBES OR CARDROOMS WILL
ULTIMATELY WIN THIS DECADE LONG
DISPUTE. THAT IS, FOR THE COURTS
TO DECIDE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS
MATTER OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WE WILL STOP FOR A MOMENT TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. ON THE
QUORUM, RUBIO HERE, RUBIO HERE.
LACKEY. LACKEY HERE. ADDIS.
ADDIS HERE. BAINES BRIAN. HERE.
BRIAN, HERE. CERVANTES. DAVIES.
DAVIES HERE. DIXON. GABRIEL
GIBSON. GIBSON. HERE HANEY.
HANEY. HERE. HART HART. HERE.
LOW MCKENNA. MCKINNON. HERE
PACHECO. PAPIN PATTERSON. RAMOS
RAMOS. HERE. SORIA. TO VALENCIA.
VALENCIA HERE. WALLACE. WALLACE.
HERE. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK
YOU. MOVE THE BILL. I HAVE A
MOTION BY BRIAN AND A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WALLACE. MADAM
COUNCILWOMAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
WE HAVE. YOU WERE VERY GOOD.
FIVE, FIVE MINUTES AND 29
SECONDS. CHAIRMAN RUBIO AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MAY
YOU, NATHAN CATALINA CHACON,
PECHANGA. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS CATALINA CHACON, AND I'M A
TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS AND
VICE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE TRIBAL
ALLIANCE OF SOVEREIGN INDIAN
NATIONS, WHICH YOU MAY KNOW AS
TASSAN. I ALSO SERVE ON THE
CALIFORNIA TRIBAL FAMILIES
COALITION, AS WELL AS SERVING ON
THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS.
TASSAN IS MADE UP OF 13
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING THE AGUA
CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS, THE AUGUSTINE BAND OF
KAWEAH INDIANS, THE CAHUILLA
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, THE
CABAZON BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
, THE CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE,
THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS, THE PECHANGA BAND OF
INDIANS, THE SAN MANUEL BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS, THE SANTA ROSA
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, THE
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH
INDIANS, THE SOBOBA BAND OF
LUISENO INDIANS, THE TAURUS
MARTINEZ MARTINEZ DESERT
CAHUILLA, AND THE TWENTYNINE
PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS.
WE THANK SENATOR NEWMAN AND ALL
THE COAUTHORS FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN SB 549 AT ITS
CORE, THIS BILL IS ABOUT RIGHTS
AND OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR
TRIBAL RIGHTS IN COURT. THAT IS
WHY WE ARE PLEASED THAT THE BILL
PASSED WITHOUT ANY NO VOTES IN
THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, ALMOST A YEAR AGO. WE
UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT
GAMING HAS ON THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES. BUT FOR TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS, GAMING IS
OFTENTIMES A SOLE SOURCE OF
MEANINGFUL REVENUE TO FUND OUR
VITAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. THE
REALITY IS THAT CARDROOM CASINOS
HAVE EXISTED IN CALIFORNIA FOR
OVER A CENTURY, AND THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO EXIST AFTER THIS
LEGISLATION PASSES. AND EVEN IF
AN INDEPENDENT JUDGE AGREES WITH
TRIBES, WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO
RENDER A JUDGMENT ON THE
LEGALITY OF THE GAMES IN
QUESTION. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU
TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS. WE
ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT WE BE
ALLOWED ACCESS TO AN INDEPENDENT
COURT TO PRESENT OUR CASE TO AN
IMPARTIAL JUDGE. THIS BILL IS A
SENSIBLE SOLUTION TO A LONG
STANDING DISPUTE THAT HAS PUT
MANY OF YOU IN A DIFFICULT
POSITION, YEAR AFTER YEAR. THERE
WAS A PERIOD IN TIME, A LONG AND
DARK PERIOD IN WHICH OUR RIGHTS
WERE CONSISTENTLY THWARTED,
UNDERMINED AND DENIED, AND
SOMETIMES THIS EVEN HAPPENED AT
THE HANDS OF THE STATE. IT IS
NOT LOST ON US THAT THE FIRST
GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, PETER
BURNETT, SAID IN HIS SPEECH,
QUOTE, THAT A WAR OF
EXTERMINATION WILL CONTINUE TO
BE WAGED BETWEEN THE RACES UNTIL
THE INDIAN RACE BECOMES EXTINCT.
END QUOTE. THE BURNETT
ADMINISTRATION ALSO FOUGHT
EFFORTS BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO SAVE SOME NATIVE
LAND RIGHTS. IN 1875, OUR PEOPLE
WERE EVICTED FROM OUR ANCESTRAL
LANDS AT GUNPOINT BECAUSE WE
COULD NOT ENFORCE WHAT WE NEED
TO WHAT WE KNEW TO BE TRUE, THAT
THE LANDS THAT WE HAD CALLED
HOME FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS WERE
INDEED OUR LANDS. AS A RESULT OF
THE INABILITY TO ACCESS THE
COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, WE LOST
VAST ACREAGE THAT HELD GREAT
TRIBAL HISTORY, AND THAT FOR
GENERATIONS HAVE PROVIDED
SUSTENANCE FOR OUR PEOPLE. OVER
A CENTURY LATER, WE ARE STILL
RECOVERING FROM THIS MASSIVE
LAND THEFT. SADLY, AS YOU KNOW,
OUR STORY IS NOT UNIQUE. TRIBES
HAVE MANY SIMILAR STORIES UP AND
DOWN THE STATE. BACK THEN, THE
LAWS OF CALIFORNIA PROHIBITED
OUR ANCESTORS FROM ACCESSING
STATE COURTS, AND THEREFORE THEY
WERE UNABLE TO PROTECT OUR LAND
RIGHTS. AND WE FOREVER LOST
THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.
TODAY, WE ARE IN A POSITION TO
PROTECT OUR GAMING RIGHTS, AND
TODAY CALIFORNIA HAS A DIFFERENT
SET OF VALUES WITH TRIBES. WE
REFUSE TO ALLOW INJUSTICES TO BE
REPEATED. WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL
OBLIGATION TO HONOR AND PROTECT
OUR RIGHTS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND
FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO
COME. THIS LEGISLATURE HAS STOOD
UP FOR THE RIGHTS BECAUSE RIGHTS
MATTER. WE ARE HERE ASKING YOU
THE LEGISLATURE, TO GIVE TRIBES
THE RIGHT TO GO TO A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL CALIFORNIA COURT, TO
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
OUR CASE ABOUT THE GAMES AND
CONTROVERSY, NOTHING MORE. IN
FACT, THE BILL IS LIMITED TO
JUST ONE ACTION AND ALL
COMPLAINTS WILL BE COMPILED INTO
ONE DECISION IN CLOSING THE
CHOICE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS
WHETHER OR NOT CALIFORNIA TRIBES
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT OUR
RIGHTS IN A CALIFORNIA COURT.
EVERY ONE OF US SHOULD WANT TO
AVOID MORE REPEATS OF PAST
EXPLOITATIONS. THANK YOU. WE
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND WE RESPECT RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OKAY, I'LL BRING IT UP TO
THE PUBLIC. THOSE IN SUPPORT.
OH, I'M SORRY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I SKIPPED, THE OPPOSITION. YES.
THE MAIN WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
MAY COME UP ME TWOS NOW, RIGHT?
DO WE SIT DOWN? LET'S HEAR FROM
THE MAIN WITNESSES FIRST,
PLEASE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, YOU ALL HAVE TEN
MINUTES AS WELL.
OH. THAT ONE. THERE WE GO. I
THINK I KNOW THAT BY NOW. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS, ED
MANNING WITH KP PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ON BEHALF OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS
CASINO. AND HERE, ON BEHALF OF
ALL CARD CLUBS ACROSS THE STATE
AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE BEHIND ME
AND OUT IN THE HALL WHO WORK IN
CARD CLUBS, FIRST, THANK YOU TO
ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TO
YOURSELF, MADAM CHAIR, FOR
SPENDING INORDINATE AMOUNT OF
TIME WITH US AND LISTENING TO US
AND TALKING TO US ABOUT THE BILL
AND THE ISSUES AT STAKE AND THE
IMPORTANCE, AND MR. HART,
WELCOME TO THE PARTY. SO, WE, WE
APPRECIATE IT, A YEAR AGO, WHEN
THIS BILL WAS A GUT AND AMEND AN
EDUCATION BILL THAT IT POPPED UP
IN THE ASSEMBLY, IT WAS HEARD IN
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHERE
IT SKATED OUT BY ONE VOTE, I
MIGHT ADD. MR. BIG KNIFE WAS
TESTIFYING AND TALKED ABOUT THE
REASON FOR THE BILL AND WAS ALSO
INTERVIEWED AND PUBLISHED
ARTICLE WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT
THE FACT THAT DURING THE
PANDEMIC, WHEN CALIFORNIA WAS
SHUT DOWN, ALL VENUES,
RESTAURANTS, MOVIE THEATERS,
CARD CLUBS, THE TRIBES MADE AN
EXTRA $100 MILLION. AND THAT
THAT WAS REALLY THE GENESIS OF
THIS BILL, AN $11 BILLION
INDUSTRY, AND THAT THAT SHOWED
THEM WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF CARD
CLUBS WERE SHUT DOWN. THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT, AND
THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. AND THE
REASON IT'S UNFORTUNATE IS CARD
CLUBS HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE
1800S. THE GAMES WE CURRENTLY
PLAY, WE PLAYED SINCE AT LEAST
THE 1980S, MANY LONGER THAN THAT
. AND THEY WE ARE REGULATED BY
THE CALIFORNIA GAMING STATUTES
AND EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED. AND
WE'VE SHARED THESE CODE SECTIONS
TO PLAY THE GAMES WE PLAY UNDER
THE MANNER WE PLAY THEM EVERY
SINGLE GAME WE PLAY IS
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
BUREAU OF, OF GAMING AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING, THOUGH, IS
THE REAL LIFE IMPACTS, THE
IMPACTS ON, REAL PEOPLE AND REAL
WORKERS AND SHE COULDN'T BE HERE
TODAY. BUT, ONE OF OUR, ONE OF
OUR MAIN WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE
OF OUR MAIN WITNESSES IS SIOBHAN
MOORE CAGE WITH ASK ME LOCAL 36,
AND SHE PUBLISHED AN OPINION IN
THE SENATE AND I'LL JUST READ A
PIECE THESE CARD ROOMS PROVIDE
OVER 30,000 JOBS ACROSS THE
STATE, WITH MORE THAN 13,000 OF
THEM LOCATED IN LA COUNTY ALONE,
WHILE GENERATING OVER $2 BILLION
IN TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 500
MILLION TAXES STATEWIDE. OUR
MEMBERS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN
THESE CITIES ARE THE BACKBONE OF
THESE COMMUNITIES. THEY WORK AS
LIBRARIANS, FIREFIGHTERS,
LIFEGUARDS, PARK MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES, BUS DRIVERS,
CUSTODIANS, CROSSING GUARDS AND
MANY OTHERS WHO DEDICATE THEIR
CAREERS TO PUBLIC SERVICE. THEIR
WORK IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL. IT IS
REAL, TANGIBLE AND VITAL. I
SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
WHEN I SAY THAT THE CLOSURE OF
CARD ROOMS DIRECTLY IMPACTS CITY
WORKERS. I WAS LAID OFF WHEN OUR
LOCAL CARD ROOM HAD TO CLOSE
DURING THE PANDEMIC. I HAVE SEEN
THE HARDSHIP IT BRINGS. I DO NOT
WANT MY UNION BROTHERS AND
SISTERS TO SUFFER THE SAME FATE
SO THAT THAT'S A REAL LIFE
EXPERIENCE. IT'S NOT A
HYPOTHETICAL. THIS IS A
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. AND LET ME
TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PROPONENTS
DID AND SAY ABOUT HOW THIS BILL,
IGNORES THE WILL OF THE VOTERS
AND IGNORES PRECEDENT IN
CALIFORNIA. FIRST, A PAGA
PROVISION VERY SIMILAR TO THIS
WAS REJECTED BY THE VOTERS IN
PROP 26. OVERWHELMINGLY, WE
PROVIDED ALL OF THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS A SERIES OF EDITORIALS
FROM AROUND THE STATE THAT
DEMONSTRATED WHY IT WAS
REJECTED, AND, AND THESE
EDITORIALS WERE SPECIFIC TO THE
PAGA PROVISION AND IN
PARTICULAR, THE ORANGE COUNTY
REGISTER, WHO ECHOED MANY OF THE
SAME THOUGHTS, SAID TRIBES WILL
HAVE TOOLS TO HARASS THEIR
LONGTIME COMPETITORS CARD ROOMS
BY FILING LAWSUITS CHALLENGING
THE LEGALITIES OF THE GAME. THEY
OFFER. THIS IS A RAW MONEY GRAB
AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
SELF-RELIANCE OR RESPONSIBLE
GAMING, THAT WAS ECHOED BY THE
DESERT SUN. THE RIVERSIDE PRESS,
ENTERPRISE, THE LA TIMES. SO THE
VOTERS HAVE REJECTED THIS
SEVERAL CRITICAL ISSUES ONE
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE. THIS
WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME IN THE
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA YOU'RE BRINGING
ACCESS TO THE COURTS FOR A
SOVEREIGN ENTITY TO SUE
INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES IN
CALIFORNIA WHO ARE LEGALLY
OPERATING AND HAVE NO RECOURSE
BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO SUE THE SOVEREIGN ENTITY IN
COURT. THAT IS NOT JUSTICE.
SECOND, THEY CHANGED THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR
REGULATIONS IN CALIFORNIA FOR
THE FIRST TIME TO MAKE IT A DE
NOVO STANDARD. THINK ABOUT THIS
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS. WHEN THOSE
AGENCIES REGULATIONS ARE
CHALLENGED, THEY GET DEFERENCE.
THIS CHANGES IT. IT RIGS THE
DECK TO EMPOWER THE COURTS.
LASTLY, THE BILL WOULD, WOULD
DESTABILIZE NOT ONLY US, BUT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND WITH
THAT, I'LL CLOSE. THANK YOU,
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR RUBIO AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS SERGIO JIMENEZ, AND I'M
A SAN JOSE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
IN SAN JOSE, IS PROUD TO BE THE
HOME TO TWO CARD ROOMS, BAY 101
AND CASINO MATRIX, WHICH HAVE
BEEN OPERATING FOR GENERATIONS.
THESE TWO CARD ROOMS ARE
IMPORTANT MEMBERS OF OUR
BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND OUR VITAL
ECONOMIC ENGINES FOR OUR CITY.
I'M HERE TODAY IN STAUNCH
OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 549,
WHICH JEOPARDIZES THE CITY'S
GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF THE
CITY'S TWO CARD ROOMS AND THE
LIVELIHOODS OF APPROXIMATELY
2000 LOCAL RESIDENTS. THEY
EMPLOY. THE CARD ROOMS GENERATE
CLOSE TO $30 MILLION IN ANNUAL
TAX REVENUE THAT PROVIDE
CRITICAL SERVICES TO OUR MOST
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS,
INCLUDING SUPPORT TO PROGRAMS
THAT PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES
TO HOMELESS RESIDENTS, HELP TO
TRANSITION PEOPLE FROM
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS TO
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, RESPONDING
TO PRIORITY ONE POLICE CALLS AND
ALLOWING FIRE TO RESPOND TO
HEALTH EMERGENCIES AND
STRUCTURAL FIRES. THIS INFUSION
OF $30 MILLION EQUATES TO
FUNDING 150 POLICE OFFICERS, 133
FIREFIGHTERS. THE COST OF 911
CALL TAKING AND POLICE DISPATCH
OR THE ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR
PROVIDING 750 BEDS FOR OUR
HOMELESS POPULATION.
FURTHERMORE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
CONTINUES TO ASSUME THIS REVENUE
AS IT HAS FOR YEARS IN BUDGET
FORECASTS, AND ITS LOSS WOULD
HAVE ONGOING IMPACTS TO BASIC
CITY OPERATIONS. THE CARD ROOM
INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO BE ONE OF
THE CALIFORNIA'S MOST HIGHLY
REGULATED INDUSTRIES, AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS
INDIVIDUALLY APPROVED EVERY GAME
PLAYED IN THE STATE'S CARD
ROOMS. NONETHELESS, SB 549 GIVES
UNIQUE STATUS TO CALIFORNIA
TRIBES TO SUE INDIVIDUAL CARD
CLUBS FOR DOING NOTHING MORE
THAN PLAYING CARD GAMES.
PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. HAVING FAILED
IN ALL OTHER VENUES, SB 549
WOULD GIVE GAMING TRIBES A NEW
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF CARD
ROOM GAMES THAT HAVE BEEN
APPROVED AND PLAYED IN CARD
ROOMS FOR DECADES. IF PASSED, SB
549 WOULD OPEN UP LITIGATION BY
TRIBES ON OUR CARD ROOMS AND
EVERY CARD ROOM IN CALIFORNIA.
THE LITIGATION COSTS ALONE WOULD
JEOPARDIZE THE ECONOMIC
VIABILITY OF SMALL CARD CLUBS
LIKE THOSE IN SAN JOSE AND
IMPORTANTLY, SUPPORTERS OF SB.
549 PREVIOUSLY WENT DIRECTLY TO
THE VOTERS THROUGH PROP 26 AND
2022, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE
TRIBES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
TO SUE THE CARD ROOMS. HOWEVER,
THIS APPROACH WAS REJECTED. THE
COURTS AND THE VOTERS HAVE
DENIED THEM, SO NOW THEY ASK THE
LEGISLATURE TO SIDESTEP BASIC
EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. SB 549
ESSENTIALLY RESURRECTS THIS
REJECTED PROPOSAL. FURTHERMORE,
THIS BILL WOULD INJECT
UNCERTAINTY INTO CITY BUDGETS
ACROSS THE STATE AT A TIME WHEN
REVENUES AND REVENUE LEVELS AND
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ARE JUST
BEGINNING TO STABILIZE. AFTER
COVID 19 PANDEMIC. TO PROTECT
CITY REVENUES, HONOR THE WILL OF
THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO
PROTECT THOUSANDS OF JOBS
STATEWIDE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR OPPOSITION TO SB. 549
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP
FOR PUBLIC IN SUPPORT. PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION.
HELLO, CHAIRWOMAN SHERRY, ON
BEHALF OF HABEMATOLEL POMO OF
UPPER LAKE TRIBE IN SUPPORT.
CHAIRMAN JOHN CHRISMAN,
CHAIRMAN, JAZZ BAND OF KUMEYAAY
INDIANS SPONSORED THE BILL AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. MIKE
LOPEZ, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE SAN
JOSE CHUMASH INDIAN. THE SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY IN SUPPORT.
CHAIRMAN JACK POTTER OF REDDING,
CALIFORNIA. AND SHASTA COUNTY IN
SUPPORT. RAYMOND WELCH,
CHAIRMAN, BARONA BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS IN SUPPORT. REED
MILANOVICH, CHAIRMAN OF THE AGUA
CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, JOSHUA MUSE, VICE
CHAIRMAN, SEQUIM AND THE
KUMEYAAY NATION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, JAMES KINTER, SENIOR
ADVISOR TO THE TRIBAL COUNCIL
HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, SETH LOWELL,
TRIBAL MEMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER AT
LARGE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. CHRIS WRIGHT,
CHAIRMAN, DRY CREEK RANCHERIA
BAND AND POMO INDIANS IN SUPPORT
. GOOD MORNING, ISAIAH VIVANCO,
CHAIRMAN FOR THE SABOBA BAND OF
LUISENO INDIANS HERE IN SUPPORT
MCKECHNIE MICHAEL VASQUEZ IN
SUPPORT. MICHELLE HEREDIA
CORDOVA, TRIBAL CHAIRWOMAN.
TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA HERE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, JENNA
GOSLER, TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA
TRIBAL COUNCIL SECRETARY
TREASURER IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, BRYCE BAGA, TRIBAL
DELEGATE FOR THE SANTA ROSA
RANCHERIA. TAKAOKA TRIBE HERE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, LEO
CISCO, CHAIRMAN, SANTA ROSA
RANCHERIA, YOKUT TRIBE IN FULL
SUPPORT. MY NAME IS OLIVIA
FLANAGAN AND I AM IN STRONG
SUPPORT. SEAN FLANAGAN, LOBBYIST
ON BEHALF OF SAN JUAN IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. CHRIS GALLARDO ON
BEHALF OF PASKENTA BAND AND
NOMLAKI INDIANS ENTERPRISE
RANCHERIA, THE TUOLUMNE BAND,
MIWOK AND CHICKEN RANCH
RANCHERIA IN SUPPORT. MADAM
CHAIR KIRK KIMBALL ESHOO, ON
BEHALF OF CHAIRMAN GREG SARRIS
AND THE FEDERATED INDIANS OF THE
GRATON RANCHERIA, IN SUPPORT.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, TRIBAL
ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF TUOLUMNE
BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS. THE BIG
VALLEY RANCHERIA, AND THE TOLOWA
DENE NATION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS MELVIN
ESPEY. I AM THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF
PICAYUNE RANCHERIA CHUKCHANSI
INDIANS, AND WERE IN FULL
SUPPORT. HELENA SANDERS, TRIBAL
COUNCIL TREASURER FOR THE
PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF CHUKCHANSI
INDIANS, IN SUPPORT, AND SACHEM
MIKE CANEDO TO THE RIVER. TRIBAL
VICE CHAIRMAN AND SUPPORT
MICHELLE LEE ON BEHALF OF THE
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA BAND OF
MAIDU INDIANS, AND ALSO MYSELF
AS A TRIBAL MEMBER AND ATTORNEY
FOR THE PIT RIVER TRIBE. WE BOTH
STAND IN SUPPORT OF 549. THANK
YOU, NATALIE ROGERS,
REPRESENTING RINCON BAND OF
INDIANS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
PAMELA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
FORT YUMA QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE
IN SUPPORT. CAROLYN BEALL HUNTER
ON BEHALF OF CHAIRWOMAN REGINA
CUELLAR AND THE SHINGLE SPRINGS
BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS IN SUPPORT
. PAULA TREAT, ON BEHALF OF
PECHANGA INDIAN AND THE CALUSA
INDIAN COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU,
MANDY ISAACS LEE HERE ON BEHALF
OF TEJON INDIAN TRIBE IN SUPPORT
. SUSAN JENSEN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
NATIONS INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING 52
TRIBES IN STRONG SUPPORT. ANDREW
GOVERNOR, ON BEHALF OF THE
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
IN SUPPORT DANIEL IKE CRLA,
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM
THE POMO OF UPPER LAKE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. CAROL MUNOZ HABIKINO
POMO OF UPPER LAKE, STRONG
SUPPORT. VERONICA CRONE, A
MEMBER OF UPPER LAKE STRONG
SUPPORT. MICHAEL MARKS, ALSO A
MEMBER OF HABEMATOLEL POMO OF
UPPER LAKE. TRIBAL MEMBER STRONG
SUPPORT. FRANK MOLINA ON BEHALF
OF THE SAN MANUEL BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS, IN STRONG
SUPPORT. DAVID QUINTANA, ON
BEHALF OF THE CAHUILLA BAND OF
INDIANS AND IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, NOW WE'LL HAVE OPEN IT UP
TO THE PUBLIC, IN OPPOSITION TO
549. PLEASE COME UP.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. TRENT
SMITH, ON BEHALF OF ARTICHOKE
JOE'S IN OPPOSITION. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, PAT WAYLAND ELLISON
WILSON ADVOCACY HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF INGLEWOOD IN
OPPOSITION, JOHN PARK PARK WEST
CASINOS IN OPPOSITION. MATTHEW
STREAM, PROUD FIRST TIME FATHER
OF A SEVEN WEEK OLD, STRONGLY
OPPOSED. MICHAEL VASEY WITH PARK
WEST CASINOS OPPOSE. ERNIE
HERNANDEZ, CITY OF COMMERCE AND
CALIFORNIA EQUITY ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSED. MAYOR AMY SHARIF,
CITY OF COMPTON AND I OPPOSE.
MARCEL RODARTE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA CONTRACT
CITIES ASSOCIATION, STRONGLY
OPPOSED. LOCAL STONES GAMBLING
HALL IN CITRUS HEIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION JOE
OLIVERI, SEVEN MILE CASINO
STRONGLY OPPOSE AARON STRAUSS.
SEVEN MILE CASINO STRONGLY
OPPOSE. OPPOSE MIKE LEBLANC.
JASON VAN CASINO OPPOSED. MARK
ENGLISH LEE. GAMING OPPOSED.
HEATHER GUERENA, GENERAL COUNSEL
FOR ELEVATION ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, OPPOSE. KEVORKIAN ON
BEHALF OF SEVEN MILE CASINO,
STRONGLY OPPOSE KERMIT SCHULTZ.
STONES CASINO ON BEHALF OF THE
SALOON. STRONGLY OPPOSE GETTING
CHAN PARK WEST CASINO. MANTECA
OPPOSE NAOMI VARDY. PARK WEST
CASINOS OPPOSED. JONATHAN
BARRON, PARK WEST CASINOS OPPOSE
BRETT SPADONI PARK WEST CASINO
580 OPPOSED. NICK MCDOWELL, PARK
WEST CASINOS OPPOSED. THOMAS
ROMERO PARK WEST CASINOS OPPOSED
. JOY HAHN ON BEHALF OF COMMERCE
CASINO, STRONGLY OPPOSE CASEY
TUCKER PARK WEST CASINOS OPPOSE.
MIKE DURAN NOT ADVENTURES STRONG
OPPOSE. CARLOS VILLALOBOS NIGHT
ADVENTURES I OPPOSE DAVID KNIGHT
ADVENTURES. OPPOSE ALULI OF PARK
WEST CASINOS AND I OPPOSE
ALEXANDRA PALMER PARK WEST
CASINOS. I STRONGLY OPPOSE ROY
CHOI UNITED STRONGLY OPPOSE
BRIAN LUNGREN ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITIES OF CALIFORNIA. CARD
ROOMS REPRESENTING OVER 40 SMALL
TO MEDIUM CARD ROOMS OPPOSE JOHN
GRIFFO COMMERCE CASINO STRONGLY
OPPOSE JARED BLANTON ON BEHALF
OF LUCKY CHANCES CASINO, THE
PLAYERS CLUB IN VENTURA AND
GOLDEN WEST CASINO IN
BAKERSFIELD OPPOSED. CLARK
ROZSA, OWNER, CAPITAL CASINO AND
OPERATOR, STRONGLY OPPOSE KEITH
SHARP, HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO,
STRONGLY OPPOSE. MAYOR VICTOR
FARFAN, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF
HAWAIIAN GARDENS, ALSO
REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN AGE CLUB
FROM HAWAIIAN GARDENS AND EAGLE
SOCCER, STRONGLY OPPOSE. MAYOR
HUGO ARGUMEDO, REPRESENTING THE
CITY OF COMMERCE, STRONGLY
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. AND S¼ NGUYEN
PARK AND CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE
MOULIN LUONG PARK WEST CASINO
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE. PARKWAY
CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE DAVID
HAHN PARK WEST CASINO STRONGLY
OPPOSE SCOTT SEBOK, 19 YEAR
EMPLOYEE OF CARDROOMS ON BEHALF
OF PARK WEST CASINO. STRONGLY
OPPOSE. BRIAN BOWLING, GENERAL
MANAGER OF PARK WEST CASINOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSED. SEAN YAPLE ON
BEHALF OF HUSTLER CASINO AND
LUCKY LADY CASINO, STRONGLY
OPPOSE VINCENT OLMOS. PARK WEST
CASINO, STRONGLY OPPOSE. DAVID
FENG PARK WEST CASINO STRONGLY
OPPOSE. DAVID SCHENDEL WITH
PLAYERS EDGE SERVICES STRONGLY
OPPOSE. JOSH WIGGAM. PARK WEST
CASINO LODI STRONGLY OPPOSE.
CHARLES MARTIN PARK WEST CASINO
STRONGLY OPPOSE. RICHARD
SCHINDEL KINGS CARD CLUB
STRONGLY OPPOSED. APOLLO BOAZ
ACE CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE. JOHN
GOODWIN, REPRESENTING THE TOWN
OF COLMA AS MAYOR, STRONGLY
OPPOSE ANDREW REISINGER. PLAYERS
SERVICES. FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
STRONGLY OPPOSE. JASON BRISBY
KINGS CARD CLUB STRONGLY OPPOSE
CESAR BURGER KINGS CARD CLUB
OPPOSE. CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, ACE
AND VINE OPPOSE. MARK PICKENS,
ACE AND VINE CASINO NAPA
STRONGLY OPPOSE. FABIANO
ARELLANO. TWO KINGS GAMING
OPPOSE. BRITTANY HUDSON, ACE AND
VINE, STRONGLY OPPOSED. AYANO
WARD. ACE VÌ CASINO STRONGLY
OPPOSE QUENTIN VASQUEZ. ACE AND
VINE STRONGLY OPPOSE FRANCISCO
NAVARRO. ACE AND VINE STRONGLY
OPPOSED BRIAN SEARLES. ACE AND
VINE CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE
CHRIS. KENDRA SARON. ACE AND
VINE STRONGLY OPPOSE. JOEL ROSSI
ACE AND VINE CASINO STRONGLY
OPPOSE DANIELLE GARD CASINO
MERCED, CASINO MADERA AND THE
500 CLUB STRONGLY OPPOSE TERRY
MULLINS. WEST LANE AND KINGS
CARD CLUB STRONGLY OPPOSE BRIAN
SORIA. KINGS CARD CLUB STRONGLY
OPPOSED BRANDON KING. KINGS CARD
CLUB STRONGLY OPPOSED MAYOR
TOSHISADA FROM THE CITY OF
GARDENA. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE.
JODY CARTER, KINGS CARD CLUB
HAVE WE OPPOSE? CARLIN, SHELBY
ON BEHALF OF THE CITIES OF TRACY
AND LIVERMORE IN OPPOSITION
JAMES MULLINS, KINGS CARD CLUB,
WEST LANE CARD ROOM STRONGLY
OPPOSED. LEO SOTO, KINGS CARD
STRONGLY OPPOSED. GREG VALDIVIA,
KINGS CARD CLUB, STRONGLY
OPPOSED RUDY BERMUDEZ,
REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA CITIES
GAMING AUTHORITY, REPRESENTING
THE INTERESTS OF SMALL CITY
CITIES WITH SMALL CARD ROOMS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. STRONGLY
OPPOSE ROBERT LINDO FROM CASINO
MATRIX IN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE.
OPPOSE MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ADAM KELLEN ON BEHALF OF BAY ONE
ONE CASINO IN SAN JOSE AND
OPPOSITION. HI, MY NAME IS
STOLEN CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE.
COUNCIL FROM STONES GAMBLING
HALL. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
HONORABLE CHAIR MEMBERS ESTHER
SANCHEZ, MAYOR FOR THE CITY OF
OCEANSIDE. RESPECTFULLY STRONGLY
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. MICHAEL
GAUSMAN, CITY OF OCEANSIDE.
OPPOSE ELISA. OUR CITY OF CONO,
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EMERY.
EMERYVILLE IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
MORNING, JANICE O'MALLEY ASKED
ME. CALIFORNIA HERE ON BEHALF OF
MEMBERS FROM THE CITIES OF
COMMERCE, COMPTON, INGLEWOOD,
BELL GARDENS, OCEANSIDE,
HAWAIIAN GARDENS AND SAN JOSE,
ALL IN STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS, I
WOULD KIDANI ON BEHALF OF
HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO IN THE
BEAUTIFUL CITY OF INGLEWOOD IN
STRONG OPPOSITION. MARVIN
PINEDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR
SELF-RELIANCE JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY REPRESENTING OVER A
THOUSAND PUBLIC SERVICE
EMPLOYEES IN OPPOSITION.
ALEJANDRO SOLIS, ON BEHALF OF
ASSOCIATION THE GUATEMALTECOS
IMMIGRANTS. CASA DEL DIABETIC
C , CALIFORNIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
AND LA COOPERATIVA CAMPESINA DE
CALIFORNIA ON NOT RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. KELLY ROBERSON, STONES
GAMBLING HALL STRONGLY OPPOSE
NICOLE MERRIWEATHER STONES
GAMBLING HALL STRONGLY OPPOSED.
RACHELLE GORDON STONES GAMBLING
HALL I OPPOSE. KARA ALLEN,
STONES GAMBLING HALL, STRONGLY
OPPOSE. WELL, THAT'S GUY FOR
CRYSTAL CASINO AND OCEAN'S 11
STRONGLY SUPPORTS OPPOSE. BILL
1087 CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE.
SHEENA EASTON VIÆT. STRONGLY
OPPOSED. JACLYN CHÁVEZ ADRIN VÌ
CASINO. STRONGLY OPPOSE. ROSEN
1087 CASINO. I STRONGLY OPPOSE.
MIKE SAFFELL. CHIEF OF POLICE.
GARDENA. POLICE DEPARTMENT
STRONGLY OPPOSE. CLINT OSSORIO,
CITY MANAGER FOR CITY OF GARDENA
. STRONGLY OPPOSE MICHELLE
O'KEEFE. PARK WEST CASINO,
STRONGLY OPPOSE. NIKKI CHAU
NGUYEN PARK WEST CASINO. LOTUS I
STRONGLY OPPOSE. KELLY LIEB,
PARK WEST CASINO LOTUS STRONGLY
OPPOSE. DENNIS ALBIANI CLUB WON.
CASINO. FRESNO, CALIFORNIA.
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. DAVID
GUTIERREZ, CAPITAL CASINO
STRONGLY OPPOSE. RICK KIRK,
CAPITAL CASINO. CITY OF
SACRAMENTO, STRONGLY OPPOSE.
MARK FLORENDO, CAPITAL CASINO. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE JUSTIN COOPER.
CAPITAL CASINO. STRONGLY OPPOSE
CHRISTOPHER LINDNER. CAPITAL
CASINO STRONGLY OPPOSE. PABLO
GUTIERREZ, CAPITAL CASINO
STRONGLY OPPOSE. GOOD MORNING.
ON BEHALF OF THE YOUTH ADVISORY
COMMISSION, THE FIRST STATE
FOUNDATION. SENIOR CITIZEN CLUB,
CENTRAL VALLEY OPPORTUNITY
CENTER, A RESPECTFUL NØ REQUEST.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WISHING TO RISE IN
SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
THANK YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO
INVITE THE TWO MAIN WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT BACK UP TO THE DAIS,
I'M BRINGING IT UP TO OUR
MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CERVANTES. AND THEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BAYNES AND THEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WANT TO
START OFF BY FIRST THANKING
EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S IN
THIS ROOM TODAY. WHETHER YOU'RE
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION OF THIS MEASURE. I
HAVE A STATEMENT TO MAKE AS IT
RELATES TO THE BILL BEFORE US. I
DO WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING
THAT I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT
FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR
TRIBES AND THEIR ABILITY TO HOST
GAMING. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANT ROLE THAT CARDROOMS DO
PLAY IN OUR COMMUNITIES, ACROSS
OUR GREAT STATE. HOWEVER, IT IS
VERY OBVIOUS THAT THE STATUS QUO
IS NO LONGER TENABLE FOR OUR
TRIBES AND THE SOVEREIGNTY THEY
UNDERSTANDABLY HOLD SO DEAR IS
AT RISK. ULTIMATELY, I DO
BELIEVE THAT WE NEED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEP UP AND
TO NOT ONLY DO A BETTER JOB
ENFORCING OUR EXISTING GAMING
LAWS, BUT PROVIDE BETTER
GUIDANCE AND CLARITY TO
CARDROOMS ABOUT WHICH OF THEIR
GAMES ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE
LAW. UNTIL THE AG AG'S OFFICE
DOES THAT, I BELIEVE THE TRIBES
MUST BE ALLOWED TO SEEK RECOURSE
IN THE COURTS TO PROTECT THEIR
RIGHTS. THIS BILL IS NARROWLY
TAILORED POLICY THAT PROVIDES A
VERY LIMITED AND SHORT TIME
FRAME FOR THE TRIBES TO SEEK
RELIEF AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SACRAMENTO COUNTY. IT IS MY HOPE
THAT PROVIDING OUR TRIBES WITH
THIS ONE TIME OPPORTUNITY TO
DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS WILL FURTHER
HELP END THIS LONG STANDING
STRUGGLE BETWEEN OUR TRIBES AND
CARDROOMS. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE
THAT ENDING THIS DIVISION WILL
ALLOW BOTH TRIBAL CASINOS AND
CARDROOMS TO FLOURISH IN OUR
GREAT STATE AGAIN, I DO URGE THE
AG TO DOUBLE HIS EFFORTS IN HIS
ROLE AS A REGULATOR OF GAMING
AND HELP US ENFORCE POLICIES,
PROCEDURES AND STATUTES. THANK
YOU. I HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BAINS, THEN, HANEY, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BRIAN AFTON. YES, SO I'VE
ONLY SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE
FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT
WHAT HAS BECOME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
TO ME AFTER MULTIPLE MEETINGS
WITH BOTH BOTH SIDES AND
STAKEHOLDERS, ON BOTH SIDES OF
THIS ISSUE, IS THAT THE
QUESTIONS AROUND BANKED GAMES AT
ISSUE IN THIS BILL HAVE BECOME
SIMMERING FOR DECADES. MULTIPLE
AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER CERVANTES
STATED, MULTIPLE ATTORNEY
GENERALS HAVE AVOIDED ADDRESSING
THESE ISSUES WITH THE CLARITY
THAT THEY REQUIRE AND DESERVE
THAT FAILURE TO REGULATE IS NOT
BEHAVIOR. THIS BODY ACCEPTS FROM
CAL, EPA, OR THE CPUC. SO WHY DO
WE ACCEPT IT HERE? I'M NOT
NORMALLY SOMEONE THAT BELIEVES
LAWSUITS SOLVE PROBLEMS, AND I
HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE
USE OF LITIGATION TO HARASS AND
EXTORT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF
ONEROUS LEGAL EXPENSES. SO I'M
VERY GLAD THAT THIS BILL
EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS A CLAIM FOR
MONETARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES. BUT I ALSO TAKE TRIBAL
SOVEREIGNTY VERY SERIOUS, AND I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOUR
SOVEREIGNTY SHOULD BE WEAPONIZED
AND USED TO TREAT YOU LIKE
SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. YOU ARE
THE DESCENDANTS OF PEOPLE WHO
WERE INTENTIONALLY PUSHED ASIDE
AND EXCLUDED FROM AMERICAN
SOCIETY, PROVIDING EVERY OTHER
BUSINESS OWNER THE RIGHT TO
PROTECT THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS
IN COURT. WHILE DENYING YOU THE
SAME RIGHT PERPETUATES THAT
HISTORICAL EXCLUSION. I ALSO
CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE ECONOMIC
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT CARDROOMS
PROVIDE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES,
AND I DON'T FAULT CARDROOMS FOR
MAXIMIZING THE GAMING
OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THEM
BY THEIR REGULATOR. FRANKLY, I
DON'T KNOW HOW A COURT WILL
DECIDE THE BANKED GAMING
QUESTIONS PUT FORWARD BY THIS
BILL. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE
IN THIS ROOM KNOWS HOW THE COURT
WILL ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, AND
THAT REALLY IS THE POINT. THOSE
QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ANSWERED BY THE REGULATOR A VERY
LONG TIME AGO, BUT DECADES HAVE
GONE BY AND WE HAVE MORE AND
MORE QUESTIONS, AND THE ANSWERS
REMAIN UNCLEAR. IF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS PERMITTED GAMING
THAT VIOLATES THE COMPACTS AND
EXCLUSIVITIES COMMITTED TO
TRIBES, I, FOR ONE, REALLY WANT
TO KNOW THAT. AND THIS BILL
SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY OPTION OR
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THOSE ANSWERS
. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HANEY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
WANT TO THANK ALSO EVERYONE WHO
CAME FORWARD TODAY, AND I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD, YOU KNOW, AS AS MY
TWO COLLEAGUES WHO WHO JUST
SPOKE, I THINK QUITE ELOQUENTLY
TO THIS QUESTION, WE DO HAVE IN
FRONT OF US A DISAGREEMENT.
THERE ARE DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES
ON THE BANKED GAMES AND WHETHER
THE LAW IS BEING FOLLOWED, AND
THERE'S A DISPUTE OVER THAT
QUESTION AND ALL THIS BILL DOES
IS PROVIDE A NARROW AVENUE TO
HELP TO RESOLVE THAT DISPUTE.
AND THAT QUESTION IN OUR COURTS,
TO ME, THAT THAT NARROW,
OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS
FORWARD IN A FAIR, OBJECTIVE
JUDICIAL WAY, IS THE BEST PATH
THAT WE HAVE FORWARD TO WHAT IS
CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT THERE IS
STILL VERY STRONG DISAGREEMENT
ON. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
OUTCOME OF THIS WILL BE. IF, AS
WE'VE HEARD, THE CARDROOMS
BELIEVE AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY
ARE COMPLETELY FOLLOWING THE
LAW, THIS SHOULDN'T IMPACT A
SINGLE DOLLAR. IT SHOULDN'T
IMPACT A SINGLE JOB. IT SHOULD
NOT AFFECT ANY CITY'S BUDGET,
THIS SIMPLY GIVES THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT THEY
ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW AND HAVE A
DETERMINATION MOVING FORWARD OF
WHAT THAT LAW IS AND HOW TO
FOLLOW IT, TO ME, THAT THAT IS
THE FAIREST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD,
NOT TO DICTATE ONE OUTCOME OR
ANOTHER, BUT TO GIVE EVERYONE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
IN FRONT OF A COURT, WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT OTHER WAYS TO
DETERMINE THIS, AND THERE'S
QUESTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND THEIR ROLE. CLEARLY,
WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS NOT
HELPING US UNDERSTAND CLEARLY
HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE
CLARITY FOR ALL INVOLVED. AND I
AND I DO WANT TO SAY, AND OTHERS
HAVE SAID THIS IN PARTICULAR,
OUR RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERING
THE HISTORY OF OUR STATE AND THE
COMMITMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
TO TRIBES AND THEIR SOVEREIGNTY,
AND THE ROLE THAT THEY PLAY IN
GAMING, THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT WE TAKE INCREDIBLY
SERIOUSLY IF IT IS BEING
VIOLATED AND THERE ISN'T RIGHT
NOW, THE PATH FOR THAT, FOR THAT
TO BE ADJUDICATED, FOR US TO
HAVE A WAY FOR THAT TO MOVE
FORWARD AND TO DO IT FAIRLY, I
THINK IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT
WE HAVE TO THE TRIBES AND TO THE
CITIZENS AND ACTUALLY, FRANKLY,
TO THE CARDROOMS AND EVERYONE
INVOLVED TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY
ADJUDICATE THIS QUESTION. SO I
APPRECIATE EVERYONE WHO'S BUILT
A BUSINESS, WHO'S CREATED A JOB,
WHO PROVIDED REVENUE TO THIS
STATE, AND WE ARE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO, I'M SURE, HAVE A
TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CARDROOMS AND OTHERS. BUT I
DON'T THINK ANYBODY BENEFITS
FROM THE LACK OF CLARITY THAT WE
HAVE RIGHT NOW. AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS AND EVERYONE FOR GIVING
US THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS
BILL TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME
CLARITY AND TO HAVE AN AVENUE TO
HAVE THIS BE ADJUDICATED. AND
FOR THAT REASON, I'M A STRONG
SUPPORTER OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. I HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRIAN, THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ARDIS, AND THEN ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PACHECO. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
FIRST I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR JUMPING IN TO THIS ISSUE.
I'VE SAT ON THIS COMMITTEE MY
ENTIRE TIME IN THE LEGISLATURE.
I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS ROOM AS
FULL AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND
THAT SPEAKS TO THE IMPORTANCE,
THE WEIGHT OF THIS ISSUE. AND AS
WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE
STATUS QUO IS JUST NOT
SUSTAINABLE. THERE'S A LONG
HISTORY IN CALIFORNIA AND A
HISTORY WITH OUR COUNTRY'S FIRST
PEOPLES, BUT IT'S UNIQUE IN
CALIFORNIA AND MANY OTHER
STATES. THERE WAS PUSH OUT.
THERE WAS RELOCATION IN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF THE
COASTLINE. WE HAVE A SPECIFIC
AND UNIQUE GENOCIDAL HISTORY
WITH THE FIRST PEOPLE OF OUR
STATE, AND WE HAVEN'T DONE
NEARLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO
REMEDY THAT. BUT ONE OF THE
THINGS WE DID WAS WE GRANTED
EXCLUSIVITY OVER CERTAIN TYPES
OF GAMING. AND IT'S CLEAR TO ME
THAT TRIBAL COMMUNITIES FEEL
LIKE THAT IS BEING ABUSED. AND I
RECOGNIZE THERE'S A LONG
STANDING HISTORY OF THE
CARDROOMS THAT PREDATES THAT
EXCLUSIVITY OVER GAMING. SO THE
REAL QUESTION HERE IS ABOUT
CERTAIN TYPES OF GAMES. I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE GENERATION
IS INCREDIBLY NECESSARY FOR
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. I WOULD
ALSO POINT OUT, THOUGH, THAT IF
THAT IS REVENUE GENERATED FROM
WHAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL GAMES, AND
THAT'S REVENUE LOST TO THE
TRIBES. AND I REMEMBER BEING
DOWN WITH MY BROTHERS AND
SISTERS IN BARONA. NOT THAT LONG
AGO, LOOKING AT THEIR WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE, HAVING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW THEY
DIDN'T HAVE ELECTRICITY UNTIL
THE 1950S. WE'RE EVEN LOOKING
NOW ABOUT MAKING SURE TRIBES ARE
INCLUDED IN THE BONDS THAT WE'RE
CONSIDERING PASSING OUT OF THIS
BODY, BECAUSE THERE ARE DEEP
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT COULD
HAVE BEEN MET IF THOSE REVENUES
BELONGED TO THE TRIBE. SO
WHETHER IT'S BUILDING THE CITY,
BUILDING THE TRIBES, I THINK THE
STATE HAS AN INTEREST IN ALL OF
IT. AND I ALSO DON'T THINK THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE MAKING THE
DECISION. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ON
US TO DECIDE WHAT'S AN ILLEGAL
GAME, WHAT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL
GAME. THERE'S A REGULATOR WHO'S
BEEN PLAYING A ROLE WHO I
BELIEVE, AS WAS MENTIONED
EARLIER, SHOULD PLAY AN EVEN
BIGGER ROLE IN MAKING THE FINAL
DECISIONS HERE. BUT GRANTING
THIS ONE TIME EXEMPTION FOR THE
COURTS TO WEIGH IN, I THINK, IS
ONE OF THE REASONS WE MOVED THIS
CONVERSATION FORWARD. IT'S
SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S NECESSARY. I'M
PROUD TO BE A COAUTHOR OF THIS
MEASURE, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHO MAY STILL
BE ON THE FENCE TO SUPPORT
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR
CALIFORNIA'S FIRST PEOPLES
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, ARDIS AND THEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND I WANT TO
THANK THE WITNESSES. THE
METOO'S, ALL THE FOLKS, THE
ADVOCATES THAT HAVE COME TODAY
AND NOT JUST TODAY, BUT HAVE
CONTACTED ME OVER MONTHS BEING A
NEW MEMBER ON THE GEO COMMITTEE.
AND I WILL SAY THAT THE INCOMING
INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROLIFIC.
IT'S ALSO BEEN HELPFUL, AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
INVESTMENT IN THIS ISSUE. AND
IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN THE
LONG HISTORY, HISTORY, THAT
WE'VE HEARD TODAY OF HOW LONG
THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM. WHERE
I'M COMING FROM IS THAT ACCESS
TO JUSTICE HAS REALLY BEEN A
CORE VALUE OF MINE SINCE THE DAY
THAT I WAS SWORN IN. I HAVE
STARTED WORKING ON ISSUES OF
ACCESS TO JUSTICE, AND MANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS DAIS HAVE
SUPPORTED ME IN CREATING MORE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR FOLKS THAT
DIDN'T HAVE THAT ACCESS. AND ONE
THING I WILL SAY ABOUT GETTING
ACCESS TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
TO THE COURT SYSTEM IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT
THE NEED FOR CLARITY, BUT HAVING
ACCESS TO THE COURTS ALSO
PROVIDES SOMETHING ELSE. IT
ALLOWS PEOPLE TO BE HEARD. AND
IN MANY CASES, WHAT I'VE BEEN
TOLD IS THAT IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO
HEAL. AND I DO THINK THAT IT'S
TIME FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR
VOICES HEARD IN THE COURT
SYSTEM, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE
DECISION IS MADE, THIS DECISION
MAY NOT FALL IN THE WAY OF THE
TRIBES, AND THAT'S REAL. BUT
HAVING YOUR STORY HEARD IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. AND FOLKS
HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT
CALIFORNIA'S VERY HORRENDOUS
TREATMENT OF FIRST NATION AND
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. AND I THINK
SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS OBVIOUSLY
CONTINUE TO EXIST TODAY. WE JUST
HEARD ABOUT LACK OF WATER
ACCESS, BUT THERE'S OTHER WAYS
LACK OF HEALTH CARE, LACK OF
BEING ABLE TO STAND UP FOR
ONESELF SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
ECONOMICS AREN'T THERE. AND SO
WITH THAT, I WOULD ALSO SAY IT'S
ESSENTIAL THAT TRIBAL NATIONS
HAVE THIS ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN
MY OWN WORK WITH OPENING UP THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. WHAT I ALSO KNOW
IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO
INADVERTENTLY HURT PEOPLE. WE
DON'T WANT TO INADVERTENTLY
CAUSE MORE ECONOMIC HARM OR
OTHER KIND OF HARM TO
INDIVIDUALS. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S
BEEN IMPORTANT TO ME TO HEAR THE
STORIES OF HOW MUCH THIS BILL
HAS BEEN NARROWED. AND I WOULD
ENCOURAGE THE AUTHOR, IF THERE'S
ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN DO TO
NARROW THIS BILL. I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO
LOOK AT THAT. WE'VE HAD HUNDREDS
OF PEOPLE COME UP AND TALK ABOUT
HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS, BUT I
DIDN'T COME TO THIS DECISION
LIGHTLY. IT TOOK ME A LOT OF
THOUGHT AND A LOT OF LISTENING.
HOWEVER, I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS TODAY. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PACHECO. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND I JUST WANT TO START
OFF BY THANKING EVERYONE, WHO
WAS HERE TODAY, THIS IS A VERY
TOUGH BILL. I HAVE FRIENDS ON
BOTH SIDES. I'VE ALREADY HEARD
THIS BILL IN COMMITTEE, IN
JUDICIARY LAST YEAR. AND IT WAS
A IT WAS A VERY TOUGH BILL, BUT
LIKE I MENTIONED IN JUDICIARY,
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I HAVE TO
VOTE MY DISTRICT. I HAVE, BELL
GARDENS WITHIN MY ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT, AND WE HAVE A CARD
ROOM WITHIN MY ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
IN BELL GARDENS. AND I AM
CONCERNED HOW BELL GARDENS WOULD
BE IMPACTED. AND SO BECAUSE OF
THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT
SUPPORT THIS BILL. IT'S A VERY,
VERY, VERY TOUGH VOTE. AND I
FEEL FOR BOTH SIDES, AT SOME
POINT, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BOTH
SIDES JUST COME TO THE TABLE,
HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS AND
HOPEFULLY EVERYTHING CAN BE
WORKED OUT, BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, I DO HAVE TO VOTE. MY
DISTRICT, THESE ARE THE VOTERS.
THE CONSTITUENTS I REPRESENT.
AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, I
HAVE TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR MY
DISTRICT, BUT I TRULY, TRULY,
TRULY APPRECIATE EVERYONE WHO IS
HERE, AND JUST KNOW THAT I CARE
ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT ARE
IMPORTANT TO BOTH SIDES. SO
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCKINNON AND ASSEMBLY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWELL. YES.
SAME HERE. I AGREE WITH THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PACHECO. THIS IS A VERY, VERY,
VERY HARD VOTE. THIS IS A VERY
HARD DECISION. BUT I TO
REPRESENT INGLEWOOD AND GARDENA,
FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, INGLEWOOD
WOULD HAVE GONE INTO BANKRUPTCY
IF WE DID NOT HAVE THOSE CARD
ROOMS IN OUR DISTRICT, AND THEY
THEY LITERALLY SAVED THAT CITY.
SO THIS IS JUST VERY, VERY HARD.
BUT I TOO WILL BE VOTING NO. I
WILL BE VOTING MY DISTRICT. BUT
I DO UNDERSTAND AND I DO,
SYMPATHIZE. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWELL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, AND HELLO,
COUNCILMEMBER JIMENEZ FROM THE
CITY OF SAN JOSE, TO WHICH THE
DISTRICT I ALSO REPRESENT IN THE
JURISDICTION ITSELF TO, TO THAT
OF YOUR TESTIMONY WAS QUITE
COMPELLING, OF COURSE, YOUR
OBLIGATION TO THE WELLNESS OF
THE CITY THAT WE REPRESENT,
ACKNOWLEDGING ALSO THE LOSS OF
THE FISCAL, I SHOULD SAY, THE
FISCAL IMPACT SPECIFICALLY. AND
SO MAYBE, PERHAPS TO THE AUTHOR,
SENATOR NEWMAN AND ADDRESSING
THE CONCERN FROM SPECIFICALLY A
COUNCIL MEMBER IN HIS FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION, ALSO TO THE ENTIRETY
OF THE CITY, MAYBE YOU MIGHT BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT IN
HELPING TO ALLEVIATE AND OR
ADDRESS THE CONCERN FROM NOT
JUST THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, BUT
FROM MANY OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS. AS WELL, I WILL
TRY. SO I WILL SAY I AM
PERSONALLY VERY SYMPATHETIC, TO
THE IMPACTS AS EXPRESSED BY ALL
OF THE CITIES AND THROUGH THE
WITNESS, BUT BUT LET ME GIVE YOU
A HYPOTHETICAL, YOU KNOW, YOU
KNOW, LET'S SAY IN A DIFFERENT
SPHERE, THERE WAS A COMPANY THAT
SETS UP SHOP IN A SMALL TOWN,
AND THEY BUILD A BOOMING
BUSINESS. BUT IT TURNS OUT
LATER, IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT
BUSINESS IS BUILT ON EITHER AN
INFRINGEMENT ON A PATENT OR A
TRADEMARK, AND A COURT RULES
THUS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE
RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THAT
BUSINESS. IT WOULD BE
UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT WOULD BE,
YOU KNOW, KIND OF A NEUTRAL
QUESTION FROM THE COURT IF THAT
BUSINESS CEASED TO ENGAGE IN
THAT ACTIVITY AND THE REVENUES
THAT WERE GENERATED WERE NO
LONGER AVAILABLE. BUT THAT IS
ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE. THIS IS NOT A
SUBJECTIVE MATTER, MOREOVER, TO
SOME OF THE POINTS MADE BY, SOME
OF YOUR MEMBERS, WHAT WE'RE
ASKING HERE IS NOT FOR YOU FOLKS
TO MAKE A RULING, BUT SIMPLY TO
ALLOW THE COURTS TO HEAR THIS
ISSUE AND TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PACHECO'S POINT. IN THAT
INSTANCE, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE
THAT BOTH SIDES WILL COME TO THE
TABLE AND THE COURT WILL HEAR
BOTH ARGUMENTS, AND THE COURT
WILL RULE. AND WHAT WE'RE WHAT
WE'RE ENDEAVORING TO DO IS TO
TAKE THE SUBJECTIVITY OUT OF
THIS. AND INSOFAR AS THE COURT
MAKES A JUDGMENT, IT WILL GO
EITHER WAY. IT WILL EITHER GO IN
FAVOR OF THE CARDROOMS OR THE
TRIBES. BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS LEGISLATION, WHILE I'M
SYMPATHETIC, I WOULD I WOULD
POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THAT'S
THAT'S NOT THE OPERATIVE
QUESTION HERE. BUT, SENATOR, YOU
DO HEAR LOUD AND CLEAR THAT A
NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS AND
CITIES, ARE RECIPIENTS AND MANY
OF THE COURTROOMS THAT AND THE
TRUTH IS, THOSE COURTROOMS WERE
IN EXISTENCE, ACTIVE, PROBABLY
PROSPEROUS, PRIOR TO 2000IN THE
PASSAGE OF PROP ONE, A THERE'S
NOTHING ABOUT THIS MEASURE THAT
WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM
CONTINUING THEIR BUSINESS.
THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS
MEASURE THAT WOULD THAT WOULD
PREVENT THEM FROM INNOVATING IN
THAT BUSINESS TO OFFER GAMES OR
OTHER AMENITIES THAT MIGHT
INCREASE THEIR BUSINESS, AS LONG
AS IT DIDN'T INFRINGE UPON THE
EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE OF THE
TRIBES. BUT AGAIN, JUST TO HEAR
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, THOUGH, THAT
THE NUMBER OF CITIES ARE HAPPY
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, I'M HAPPY
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT AGAIN,
AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT THAT
MAY BE AN INESCAPABLE
CONSEQUENCE AND IT MAY BE IN
THEIR BEST INTEREST TO
RECONSIDER A CARD ROOMS THE,
THE, THE OFFERINGS THAT THEY
PROVIDE, BUT BE TO THOSE CITIES
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY'RE
DEPENDENT ON A SINGLE SOURCE OF
REVENUE. IN THIS CASE,
CARDROOMS. AND I THINK PART OF
THAT ALSO, NOT JUST THE REVENUE
THAT HAS BEEN GENERATED, BUT
ALSO THAT OF Ã WORKERS, MANY OF
WHO ARE HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE
ROOM. AND THIS IS CAPITAL AS
WELL, TOO. AND THE CONCERN THAT
I HEAR VERY LOUD AND CLEAR ABOUT
THE LOSS OF JOBS, BUT ALSO THE,
AGAIN, AS THE AUTHOR, THE
OPENNESS TO ADDRESS AND
ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS. AGAIN, I AM HAPPY TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. AND IT PAINS
ME, TO CONSIDER THAT
POSSIBILITY. BUT IT IS OUR JOB
HERE TO LOOK BEYOND THAT TOWARD
THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT
THE CARD ROOMS ARE OFFERING
GAMES THAT VIOLATE THE
PROVISIONS OF PROP ONE EIGHT.
SURE. AND JUST TO CONCLUDE,
MADAM CHAIR, AND HEARING FROM
THE AUTHOR SPECIFICALLY
ACKNOWLEDGING SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES, I DO HAVE CONCERN,
ESPECIALLY HEARING FROM THE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CITY
THAT I ALSO REPRESENT ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL FOR THE LOSS OF
REVENUE AND ALSO THE LOSS OF
JOBS. THIS IS ALSO THE POLICY
HEARING AND SHOULD THIS
POTENTIALLY NOT BE AMENDED,
SHOULD IT GO TO THE FLOOR? I
WOULD ALSO RESERVE THE RIGHT,
BUT THIS IS THE POLICY COMMITTEE
THAT WE'RE ON HERE AS WELL. AND
I WOULD VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE. BUT I DO WANT TO, FOR
THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE,
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT IS OF A
SIGNIFICANT CONCERN. AND
HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THAT SHOULD IT MOVE
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS?
YES, ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO. SO
I HAD A QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR.
I KNOW YOU, YOU MENTIONED YOUR
EXAMPLE, BUT IN YOUR EXAMPLE,
SOMEBODY IS BRINGING A LAWSUIT
FORWARD. WOULDN'T IN THIS
SITUATION, WOULDN'T IT BE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WOULD BE
THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO BRING
A LAWSUIT FORWARD? IT DEPENDS ON
THE SCENARIO. SO IF IT'S PATENT
INFRINGEMENT, I WOULDN'T KNOW
KNOW IN THIS SITUATION. LIKE
WOULDN'T IT BE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
BRING THIS, LITIGATION? I THINK
I'LL DEFER TO MY TECHNICAL
WITNESS HERE. I THINK MANY
EFFORTS HAVE MADE IN THE PAST TO
TRY TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL, AND
THAT HAS FAILED. GO AHEAD. YEAH.
SO NOBODY WOULD DISAGREE THAT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE
ABILITY TO BRING CRIMINAL
ENFORCEMENT OR SEEKING CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT THROUGH THIS
MEASURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE
OPPOSITION WANTS TO RESPOND.
YEAH, SO THIS IS SORT OF THE
EQUIVALENT OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
GIVING LAND USE PERMIT TO
STARBUCKS. STARBUCKS OPENS UP
OPERATES. BUT THE COFFEE SHOP
DOWN THE STREET DOESN'T LIKE IT.
AND SO THEY WANT TO SUE
STARBUCKS INSTEAD OF THE CITY
GOVERNMENT THAT GAVE THEM THE
PERMIT. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
NO ONE HAS DISPUTED THIS. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS AUTHORIZED
THE PENAL CODE SPECIFICALLY
TALKS ABOUT HOW OUR GAMES ARE
PLAYED. THIRD PARTY PROPOSITION
PLAYERS CONTINUOUS AND
SYSTEMATIC OFFER OF THE DEAL.
EVERYTHING RAISED IS IN THE CODE
AND AUTHORIZED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. IF SOMEONE HAS A
COMPLAINT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE
OPERATE GAMES APPROVED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU WOULD SUE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, RIGHT? YOU
DON'T SUE THE STARBUCKS BECAUSE
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWED
THEM TO OPEN AND GAVE THEM A
PERMIT. SO IN ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION, THE ANSWER, OF COURSE,
IS YES. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAS CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY,
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY,
AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO PULL
PERMITS AND LICENSES FROM ANY
CARD CLUB THAT IS OPERATING
OUTSIDE THE LAW. THEIR ARGUMENT
IS NOT THAT WE'RE OPERATING
OUTSIDE THE LAW. THEIR ARGUMENT
IS WE'RE OPERATING CONSISTENT
WITH THE LAW, BUT THEY DON'T
LIKE THE LAW. LET ME ADD, I
DON'T THINK COFFEE IS THE BEST
EXAMPLE. LET ME GIVE YOU A
BETTER EXAMPLE. MEDICAL DEVICES.
RIGHT. SO THE COMPANY SETS UP
SHOP AND THEY'RE MAKING A
MEDICAL DEVICE. IT TURNS OUT
THAT ADVICE THAT THAT DEVICE,
NOBODY ARGUES WITH THEIR ABILITY
TO DO THAT BUSINESS. BUT IF THAT
DEVICE INFRINGES UPON THE PATENT
OF ANOTHER COMPANY, THAT WOULD
BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE FOR CIVIL
ACTION. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
DISCUSSING HERE. NOW, I YOU
KNOW, THE TRIBES HAVE NO ISSUE
WITH CARDROOMS ENGAGING IN THEIR
BUSINESS OR THEIR HISTORICAL
BUSINESS PRACTICES. IT'S THE
INFRINGEMENT UPON THE EXCLUSIVE
FRANCHISE GRANTED TO THEM BY A
PROPOSITION THAT WAS THAT WAS
PASSED BY THE VOTERS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? NOPE OKAY. I WILL
INVITE, THE AUTHOR TO CLOSE. SO
MEMBERS, I TRULY APPRECIATE THE
ROBUST DISCUSSION HERE. AND AS
WELL AS THE COMMENTS AND
INSIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS, TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CERVANTES. HIS
POINT THIS IS A NARROWLY
TAILORED MEASURE, DELIBERATELY
SO, PROVIDING A ONE TIME VERY
CIRCUMSCRIBED OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE TRIBES TO BE GRANTED
STANDING AND TAKE THIS, MATTER
TO A COURT OF LAW, TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. HANEY'S POINT. IT IS
INDEED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
STATE TO ENSURE THAT WE ADHERE
TO THE PROVISIONS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION AND THE OBLIGATIONS
THAT IT CREATES, TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ADDIS'S POINT AND THE
POINTS MADE BY OTHERS. NOTHING
ABOUT THIS BILL WILL WILL
INHIBIT CARDROOMS ABILITY TO
CONTINUE IN BUSINESS. IT WILL IT
WILL SIMPLY MAKE CLEAR AS TO
WHICH CARD GAMES THEY MAY OFFER
AND WHICH THEY MAY NOT, AND TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAINES'S POINT.
NOBODY KNOWS HOW THE COURTS WILL
RULE. VERY IMPORTANT TO
CONSIDER. AND SO WHAT YOU ARE
DOING TODAY IS NOT MAKING A
DECISION THAT FAVORS ONE SIDE OR
THE OTHER. YOU'RE SIMPLY
ALLOWING FOR THE TRIBES TO HAVE
STANDING TO GO TO A COURT OF LAW
IN CALIFORNIA, TO ASK THAT COURT
TO RULE ON THIS QUESTION, AND
THAT THAT RULING WILL BE FINAL,
THAT RULING WILL THAT THAT
PROCESS WILL BE CONSOLIDATED. SO
IT DOESN'T EXPOSE CARD ROOMS TO
ENDLESS LITIGATION, AS HAS BEEN
ASSERTED. AND AT THE END OF
THIS, WE'LL HAVE CLARITY. AND
THAT CLARITY IS DESPERATELY
NEEDED TO SOLVE A DECADES LONG
DISPUTE. WITH THAT, I ASK
RESPECTFULLY, FOR YOUR AYE VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU. WELL, TO SAY
THAT THIS ISSUE IS COMPLEX WOULD
BE AN UNDERSTATEMENT. I THINK
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
COMMITTEE, NOW UNDERSTAND WHY
THIS LONG STANDING DEBATE HAS
PERSISTED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE
PLUS YEARS. MY GOAL FROM DAY ONE
BACK IN JANUARY, WHEN THIS BILL
WAS REFERRED TO THIS COMMITTEE,
WAS TO GIVE ALL OF THE
INTERESTED PARTIES THE NEEDED
TIME TO EDUCATE EACH MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE ON THE BILL'S
CONTENT AND GENERAL HISTORY. I
WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO ALL
STAKEHOLDERS WITH MY DIRECTIVE
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
THERE ARE MANY KEY FACTORS AND
CONSIDERATIONS IN PLAY WITH SB
549, INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION,
THE GAMBLING CONTROL ACT, THE
PENAL CODE, SOVEREIGNTY, TRIBAL
STATE COMPACTS, JUDICIAL
DECISIONS, LACK OF STANDING AND
IMMUNITY, AND PENDING
REGULATIONS CURRENTLY WORKED ON
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AT THE
HEART OF IT ALL WILL BE THE
IMPACT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
HAVE ON THE GAMING INTERESTS
THAT OPERATE WITHIN, OR JUST
ADJACENT TO OUR RESPECTIVE
COMMUNITIES. AS CHAIR, EVERY
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE CASE
MADE BY BOTH SIDES. WITH THAT,
WHILE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
THE DETERMINING FACTORS, I
MAINTAIN AN ON RECO ON THIS
BILL. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. SB 549 BY SENATOR NEWMAN.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
RUBIO NOT VOTING. RUBIO NOT
VOTING. LACKEY NOT VOTING.
LACKEY. NOT VOTING. ADDIS.
ADDIS. AYE BAINES. BAINES. AYE
BRIAN. AYE. BRYANT. AYE.
CERVANTES CERVANTES. AYE.
DAVIES. DAVIES. AYE. DIXON.
DIXON AYE. GABRIEL. GABRIEL. AYE
GIBSON. HANEY HANEY. AYE. HART
HART. AYE. LOW. HIGH. LOW. AYE
MACKINAW. MCKINNON. NO PACHECO.
PACHECO. NOT VOTING. PAPINE.
PAPINE. NOT VOTING. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. NOT VOTING. RAMOS
RAMOS. AYE. SORIA SORIA. AYE TO.
TO AYE. VALENCIA VALENCIA. YES.
WALLACE. WALLACE. YES OKAY. THE.
THE MOTION HAS 15 VOTES. WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR, ABSENT
MEMBERS. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE. WE
HAVE, CONSENT CALENDAR AND
ANOTHER BILL. Tð. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. CAN WE TAKE UP, THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, PLEASE, ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, WE HAVE SB 536 BY
SENATOR RUBIO. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
RECOMMENDED CONSENT. RUBIO AYE.
RUBIO. AYE. MOTION WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. RUBIO A
RUBIO. AYE. LACKEY. ADDIS ADDIS.
AYE. BAINES. BAINES. AYE BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. CERVANTES CERVANTES.
AYE. DAVIES. DAVIES. AYE. DIXON
DIXON. STEPPED OUT. OKAY.
GABRIEL GABRIEL. AYE. GIBSON
HANEY. HANEY. AYE. HART HART.
ILO MCKINNEY. MACKINNON. AYE.
PACHECO PACHECO. AYE. PAPINE.
PAPINE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. RAMOS RAMOS I.
SORIA. SORIA. AYE TO. TO. AYE.
VALENCIA. YES VALENCIA. YES.
WALLACE. WALLACE AYE. THE
CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT. WE WILL
BE MOVING ON TO FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE. SB 1230 BY SENATOR RUBIO.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
RUBIO RUBIO. AYE, LACHIE. ADDIS.
ADDIS. AYE BAINES. BAINES. AYE.
BRIAN BRYANT. AYE. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES AYE. DAVIES. DAVIES.
AYE. DIXON GABRIEL. GABRIEL. AYE
GIBSON. HANEY. HANEY AYE. HART.
HART. AYE. LOW LOWE. AYE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA AYE. PACHECO.
PACHECO. AYE. PAPIN PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. NOT VOTING. RAMOS.
RAMOS. AYE SORIA. SORIA. AYE.
TO. VALENCIA. VALENCIA. YES.
WALLACE WALLACE. AYE. THAT
MEASURE HAS A 16 VOTES. WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR MEMBERS TO ADD
ON. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ANOTHER TEN MINUTES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GIBSON SAID HE
WAS GOING TO RETURN. THANK YOU.
OPENING THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. LOW. LOW. LOW.
AYE. OPENING THE ROLL FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. DIXON ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. DIXON DIXON.
AYE FILE ITEM TWO. SB 549. DIXON
HAS ALREADY VOTED. AND FILE ITEM
THREE, SB 1230. RUBIO DIXON.
DIXON. AYE.
I THINK WE HAVE TIME.
OPENING THE ROLL FOR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GIBSON. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. AYE. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. GIBSON. AYE. THE
CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT. FILE
ITEM TWO. SB 549. NEWMAN. GIBSON
GIBSON. NOT VOTING THAT MEASURE
HAS A 15 EYES AND ONE NO VOTE
FILE. ITEM THREE SB 1230. RUBIO.
GIBSON GIBSON. AYE. THAT MEASURE
HAS 18. AYE VOTES AND ZERO NO
VOTES. OKAY, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.