Indian tribes have the right to govern themselves without state or federal interference. Operating casinos and other activities are one of their main income sources, and allows them to support their tribe. However, before a tribe is able to offer gaming on their land, they must come to an agreement with the state. This negotiation is called a “tribal-state compact” and it ensures that the casino will provide benefits to the tribe, and most importantly, will not harm the reservation area where it will be located. The approval of this compact by the federal government means that the regulation of the casino is adequate. One of the many agreements that the compact comprises requires the tribe to make payments to the state that go towards specific …show more content…
Brown Jr., Madera County Chairman Tom Wheeler, and President State Building and Construction Trades Council Robbie Hunter argue that voting yes on Proposition 48 will bring many benefits to the tribes “at no cost to state tax payers.” These benefits that Governor Brown claims are the advantages on voting yes include: generating thousands of jobs, allowing the tribes to be self-sufficient, consenting local control to the community, and avoiding development in these reservation areas. To support these claims, direct authoritative quotes from supporters are included. These quotes reiterate the positive outcomes of Proposition 48. They state that poor regions will take over the jobs that the casino will generate, and mention that public services such as police and fire responders will receive funds. A quote from the Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce claims that Madera will not be the only county benefiting from this project, it will generate jobs in Fresno and the San Joaquin Valley as well. Tom Wheeler, Chairman of the Madera County Board of Supervisors stresses to the voter that economic control must remain local to protect the future of the region. Finally, Executive Director of the California Association of Tribal Governments, Will Micklin, claims that funds help non-gaming tribes become …show more content…
It is well structured and organized; they start off with the compact background, continue with evidence, and finalize with claims and rationale. The opponents’ use of historical background presents a strong foundation for their claims. Not only do they refer to the original agreements of the compact, which state the boundaries of casino construction, but also highlight that this project is breaking the rules, utilizing capital letters. “Years ago, California Indian Tribes asked voters to approve limited casino gaming on Indian reservation land. They promised Indian casinos would ONLY be located on the tribes' original reservation land. PROP. 48 BREAKS THIS PROMISE.” Unlike the argument that supports the proposition, the opponents’ authoritative quotes do not belong to supporters or member of their campaign. They utilize quotes from newspapers to demonstrate that a broader audience rejects this project. "Now, two casino proposals could open the door to a new era of Indian gaming in the state. . .which would make these the state's first Indian casinos located off existing reservations." Los Angeles Times, 8/19/12. Unfortunately, this argument made the same mistake of not providing detail and instead, listed the reasons why Proposition 48 is a “BAD DEAL FOR CALIFORNIA.” However, their website www.stopreservationshopping.com delivers useful information about the issues, news, and other opposers to the