Editorial: California decision is salve only

Las Vegas casinos, their employees and most other valley residents let out a collective sigh of relief on Monday. The reason: The California Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional an initiative passed in November that would have expanded legalized gambling at Indian casinos. If the initiative had been ruled constitutional, there were justifiable concerns that many Southern Californians -- perennially Las Vegas' biggest market -- might instead stay home and gamble at nearby Indian casinos instead of making the trek to Las Vegas.

The tribes sought the ballot initiative after then-Gov. Pete Wilson would not agree to the expansions they had sought. While Nevada casinos were lampooned for trying to unfairly wield their clout in a California issue, the reality was that of the $100 million spent on the initiative -- a national record for a ballot question -- two-thirds came from the tribes. The initiative appealed to Californians, with an overwhelming 63 percent of the voters approving the measure. Following the victory, though, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, commonly known as the Culinary Union, filed a lawsuit in an attempt to derail the initiative through the courts.

The Supreme Court's ruling that the measure violated the state's constitutional ban on Nevada-style gambling is important for the gaming industry, but before Las Vegans get too giddy, there are other Indian gaming issues that this tourist-based economy must surmount. For starters, tribal leaders already are circulating another petition to overcome the court's decision, seeking to amend the California constitution, possibly in time for the March 2000 ballot. Considering the favorable response in November there's good reason for Las Vegans to be worried. But that's not all. If the tribes can't reach an agreement with the state's governor to permit casino expansion, U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt wants federal rules adopted giving the interior secretary the authority to permit tribes to expand gambling if a state refuses to negotiate in good faith.

Even if high-stakes gambling is stymied in California, wagering elsewhere in the nation is proliferating -- including casinos initiated by the very companies that decry the expansion in California -- that could cut into tourism in Nevada. What this state should be doing is revitalizing its economic diversification efforts so when tourism hits some turbulence here -- and eventually that day will happen, no economy is foolproof -- Nevada will be able to weather that storm. Failure to do so could leave the Las Vegas Valley in real jeopardy one day.

archive