- GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting - Ranked Choice Vote Details

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting

Login

Ranked Choice Vote Details

Ranked Choice Vote ID	60
Ranked Choice Vote	GPCA position on Prop 48: Referendum to Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts
Type	Open Ballot
Number of Seats	1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator	Mike Feinstein
Phase	Closed
Discussion	08/18/2014 - 09/28/2014
Voting	09/29/2014 - 10/05/2014
Result	Results
Presens Quorum	12 0.5001
Candidates	GPCA endorses Proposition 48 GPCA opposes Proposition 48 GPCA takes no position on Proposition 48

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 48: Referendum to Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts, which has been placed via the referendum process on the November 2014 general election ballot.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 48. An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 48. A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 48. An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum. Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

Below is information from the State of California Voter Guide, as well as the recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County, that will be in their November 2014 primary election voter guide.

-------

Full text of Proposition 48: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/pdf/text-of-proposed-laws1.pdf#prop48

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/title-summary.htm

Ballot title:Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.

Official summary: The long-form summary reads: “A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a statute that: Ratifies tribal gaming compacts between the state and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe. Omits certain projects related to executing the compacts or amendments to the compacts from scope of the California Environmental Quality Act.”

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/title-summary.htm

The short-form or ballot label summary reads:“A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, tribal gaming compacts between the state and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe.”

Fiscal impact statement: “One-time payments between $16 million and $35 million from the North Fork tribe to local governments in the Madera County area to address costs related to the operation of a new casino. Annual payments over a 20-year period averaging around $10 million from the North Fork tribe to the state and local governments in the Madera County area to address costs related to the operation of a new casino. Increased revenue from economic growth in the Madera County area generally offset by revenue losses from decreased economic activity in surrounding areas. (Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)

Although the following information was not available at the time of this posting, it will be available during the SGA's six week discussion period and will be sent to all SGA members

Legislative Analysis: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/analysis.htm
Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/48/arguments-rebuttals.htm

-------

Yes on 48 campaign site: http://www.voteyes48.com/

-------

Recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County: Proposition 48 - NO Don't approve the compacts

Referendum on Indian Gaming Compacts

This proposition concerns some Indian gaming compacts which would allow a large casino to be built about 4 miles north of the City of Madera -- and NOT on the tribe's reservation. Last year the state legislature barely approved a bill (AB 277) which allowed this project to move forward. (Only 41 out of 80 Assemblymembers voted for it, and only 22 out of 40 State Senators voted for it). After Governor Brown signed the bill, a referendum campaign ensued to overturn the bill, to prevent this casino from being built, and because the referendum qualified for the ballot, it is now before we, the voters. Under California law, a "Yes" vote on a referendum allows the original legislation to remain in force, and a "No" vote overturns that legislation. Therefore, voting "Yes" on Prop. 48 allows this casino to be built, and voting "No" on Prop. 48 prevents the casino from being built.

As we have previously written, we support tribal sovereignty over tribal lands. That's why we supported Prop. 5 in 1998, which was when statewide voters first cast ballots approving of Indian gaming in California. However, the casino under consideration in Prop. 48 is NOT on the tribe's reservation. Rather, the land for the casino was only acquired by the tribe in 2012, following a 2005 request to the federal government to obtain the land for the purpose of gaming. Therefore, the question here is instead whether casino gaming should be allowed in or near cities, as opposed to this being a question about tribal sovereignty over tribal land.

There is good evidence that gambling casinos tend to lead to an increase an crime (see: http://casinofreephilly.org/casino-facts/gambling-and-crime ). There is also good evidence that they lead to an increase in gambling addiction (see: http://www.casinofreephilly.org/casino-facts/gambling-availability-increases-addiction ). Furthermore, as we Greens work to create a more just, humane, and sustainable society, proposals to build gambling casinos (and especially in or near urban areas) don't really fit in with how we'd like to see our future unfold. Therefore, because the main issue here is really about whether gambling casinos should be built in or near cities, we urge you to vote "No" on Proposition 48.

Candidate Information

GPCA endorses Proposition 48

GPCA opposes Proposition 48

GPCA takes no position on Proposition 48

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.

The Voting is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download the 2006 gp-us version here or the 2012 gpca sga version here.

To independently verify a Ranked Choice Vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.