 |
 |
 |
|
I. Nelson Rose
Professor I. Nelson Rose is an internationally known public
speaker, writer and scholar and is recognized as one of the
world's leading authorities on gambling law. A 1979 graduate
of Harvard Law School, he is a tenured full Professor of Law
at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa, California, where he teaches
one of the first law school classes on gambling law.
Professor Rose is the author of more than 200 articles, books
and chapters on the subject. He is best known for his internationally
syndicated column, Gambling and the Law®, and his landmark
1986 book by the same name. His most recent book -- just released
-- is a collection of columns and analysis on Blackjack and
the Law.
A consultant to governments and industry, Professor Rose has
testified as an expert witness in administrative, civil and
criminal cases and has acted as a consultant to major law firms,
licensed casinos, international corporations, players, Indian
tribes, and local, state and national governments, including
California, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Washington, and the
federal government of Canada.
With the rising interest in gambling throughout the world, Professor
Rose has been called upon to discuss gambling and the law before
such diverse groups as the National Conference of State Legislatures,
Congress of State Lotteries of Europe, National Academy of Sciences
and the United States Conference of Mayors. He has presented
scholarly papers on gambling in Nevada, New Jersey, Puerto Rico,
England, Australia, Portugal, Argentina and the Czech Republic.
Gambling
And The Law
rose@sprintmail.com
Current Article by I. Nelson Rose:
Other Articles by I. Nelson Rose:
Nevada A.G. Finds Free Internet Gambling is Still Gambling
Who Won the 2000 Election?
Federal
v. State Governments
America
Boldly Outlaws (and Quietly Legalizes) Internet Gambling
Is it a Crime to Give a Casino
a Bum Marker?
Attempted Robbery By Lawsuit
Defining Slots-For-Tots
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Gambling and the Law®:
Will California Licenses Monster?
by I. Nelson Rose
A little-noticed provision of California's proposed casino law threatens to close down most of the state's Indian gaming. It may also jeopardize the licenses of some non-tribal casinos and suppliers in Nevada and other states.
This obscure section of the proposed Tribal-State Gaming Compact would allow tribes to issue licenses to convicted felons and members of organized crime.
In other states, these individuals would be found undesirable and barred from having anything to do with gaming. Under California's proposed Compact, they may work in, or even manage tribal casinos.
The Compact will not become law unless Californians approve an amendment to their state Constitution at the ballot box in March. A provision authorizing the licensing of felons and gangsters could obviously have an enormous negative impact on voters.
If voters reject this Compact, tribal casinos throughout the state will be faced with federal court orders to get rid of their slot machines or be closed down.
If voters approve this Compact, tribes may then license gangsters. Any Nevada gaming company working with a California tribe may face the loss of its license for associating with organized crime.
There can be no doubt that the Compact provision was designed to license felons and members of organized crime. Section 6.4.4.(c) specifically states, "the Tribe may retain in its employ a person whose application for a determination of suitability, or for a renewal of such a determination, has been denied by the State Gaming Agency."
The only requirements are that the person has a gaming license issued by the tribe, does not work for any other gaming operation, has been employed by the tribe for at least three years, and that "the denial of the application by the State is based solely on activities, conduct, or associations that antedates the filing of the person's initial application..."
This means the felony or association with a member of the Mob
took place before the person applies for a state license for
the first time. To uncover the true meaning of this Compact
provision, we need to know what "activities, conduct, or associations"
can be the basis for the state denying a person's "application
for a determination of suitability." The grounds for a finding
of unsuitability by the state are found primarily in section
19850A of the California Business & Professions Code. Of the
seven grounds listed, three cannot apply:
|
Number (1) -- the applicant fails to prove he is suitable -- obviously
cannot be something that "antedates the filing." Ditto for number
(2) -- the applicant lies or withholds information during the application
process.
Number (7) -- the applicant is less than 21 years of age --
is not an activity, conduct, or association.
|
But there are four other grounds listed for a finding of unsuitability
by the state. The question is why would a tribe want to hire
someone who:
|
(3) Has been convicted of a crime as serious as a felony?
(4) Has been convicted of "any misdemeanor involving dishonesty
or moral turpitude"?
(5) Has associated with "with criminal profiteering activity
or organized crime"?
(6) Has willfully defied an "official investigatory body of
any state or of the United States, when that body is engaged
in the investigation of crimes relating to gambling; official
corruption related to gambling activities; or criminal profiteering
activity or organized crime"?
|
California's Gambling Control Act contains a few other grounds
for denying a license. But why would a tribe want to license
someone who has violated campaign disclosure or contribution
laws? (Section 19960.2A). Or who made an illegal contact with
a government licensing official? (Section 19858.7A).
The provision brings the entire Compact into question. It rejects the standards the state uses in denying a license, but does not tell the voters what standards will take their place.
An applicant applying for a state license has the burden of proving he is qualified "having due consideration for the proper protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the State of California and the declared policy of this state." (Section 19847A (a)).
The state examines his "general character, integrity, and ability to participate in, engage in, or be associated with, controlled gambling." (Section 19847A b)). The state must reject an applicant if issuing him a license would be "inimical to public health, safety, or welfare..." (Section 19847A (c)).
I do not know if there is any way to amend this Compact before it is put before the voters in March. But I would strongly suggest doing so, if it can be done.
The final ground for a state finding of unsuitability says it all. The voters of California are not going to like a Compact that contains a provision allowing a tribe to overrule the state in this last case. How, in fact, can anyone justify allowing an individual to manage a tribal casino, after the state has denied his application, declaring that "issuance of the license will undermine public trust that the gambling operations with respect to which the license would be issued are free from criminal and dishonest elements and would be conducted honestly"?
Casino Executive #57 ©Copyright 1999, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law® is a registered trademark of Professor I. Nelson Rose, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA.
|
