Share
California Indian tribes took a big step Thursday toward getting their day in court.
Tribes want access to state courts to challenge the way California cardrooms operate games such as blackjack and baccarat.
The California Assembly unanimously voted 62-0 to approve SB549, the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act.
Co-author and Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry argued for the bill.
“The fact is this dispute is about a provision in the state constitution,” Aguiar-Curry said. “State courts are the only appropriate venue. SB549 does not take a side in this dispute at all. It does take a side on whether the questions get answered. … But one thing is certain. If this legislature refuses to grant our first people the legal standing needed for the courts to weigh in, we remain no closer to a resolution to this intractable dispute and will be back here next year.”
The bill grants tribes legal standing to seek a declaratory judgment on whether card games offered at cardrooms and banked by third-party proposition player service providers (TPPPS) violate the California constitution.
“We greatly appreciate those brave members of the Assembly who stood in support of California tribes’ basic civil right to access justice,” Tuari Bigknife, attorney general for the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, told PlayUSA. “We now look forward to moving SB 549 through the Senate.”
The Senate must concur with the bill by Saturday, when the California legislature adjourns for the year.
Why tribes need legislature’s help to get court decision
Asm. Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who was a law professor before entering politics, explained why the tribes need this bill to get a court to rule on the merits of their claim.
As sovereign nations, state courts don’t have personal jurisdiction over tribes. Since states don’t have jurisdiction over them, tribes generally can’t sue or face lawsuits in state courts.
“Sovereign nations within our borders because we took their land and surrounded it with California,” Bauer-Kahan said. “And now we say, sorry, you can’t come into our courts and have this decided. And that to me is a fundamental civil rights issue. I believe it is a fundamental right for everyone here to have their day in court.”
Asm. Al Muratsuchi, whose district includes the cardroom Hustler Casino, said he entered the day unsure of which way he would vote but that Bauer-Kahan’s comments swayed him to support the bill.
“I was wrestling with this because I have a city, the City of Gardena, that has up to 20% of their revenues come from their local card clubs. I know that our firefighters and public servants in these cities rely upon those revenues. But, yes, I have to agree with that very simple point that as sovereign nations they deserve their standing to bring their claims to state courts to bring resolution to these issues.”
Controversial topic goes through with surprising ease
Tribes long tried to get the California legislature to take action against cardrooms.
But with cardrooms employing union workers and financially supporting cities that also employ union workers, legislators haven’t wanted to decide the issue.
Despite strong lobbying in opposition, the Assembly made a big statement by passing the bill unanimously. There were 17 assemblymembers who abstained.
Allowing a court to decide the issue is key to the legislative support.
“To anyone who is concerned about losing resources from their city, if the law is being followed there is going to be no change,” Asm. Matt Haney said. “Anyone who is following the law has nothing to worry about when they enter the court.”
Asm. James Ramos, the first California tribal member to serve in the state legislature, said tribes are compromising by embracing a state court deciding their complaint.
“SB549 is about tribal governments asking a judicial system that has not been friendly to California’s first people, a system that is a constant reminder of a government that oppressed our people. And to now turn to a judicial court shows great compromise on the side of California’s first people to live with an outcome through those proceedings.”
Asm. Isaac Bryan said he bought into the argument that tribes deserve access to justice.
“When we think about what that history means and the role that this chamber, this body and these institutions played in facilitating that kind of state-sanctioned violence, there’s a harm to be repaired. That’s why we promised exclusivity over certain games to tribal communities. We gave them that as a form or reparation, as a form of repayment, as a form of justice. And there is a dispute over whether … that exclusivity over gaming is being held true to what the voters passed for tribal communities.”
