On July 2, California lawmakers voted in favor of Senate Bill 549 which would grant the tribes of California the right to sue cardrooms. Should the bill move further forward when the legislative session resumes in August, Californian tribes would finally have standing in the court of law regarding the cardroom dispute.
California is currently the US state with the largest amount of tribal casinos, with a total of 76 casino establishments. In the Golden State, only tribes are allowed to own and operate Las Vegas-like casinos, with both table and slot game options available. As Lewis Humpries points out in this best California online poker site guide, California tribes are not permitted to offer online casino options due to unresolved conflicts. However, Californians can still access crypto games through offshore operators.
However, a loophole in California’s gambling rules permits non-tribal residents to open brick-and-mortar cardrooms – i.e., casinos that feature table games exclusively. Now, tribes want to put an end to this with the passing of SB549 – also known as the Tribal Nations to Justice Act.
The Californian tribes who run the state’s casinos believe that these cardrooms are infringing on their exclusive right to offer gambling facilities. They argue that 80 cardrooms located throughout the state are costing them millions of dollars by offering baccarat, blackjack, and pai gow poker to customers – a right that only the tribes should have.
This view is backed by Senator Josh Newman, who sponsored SB549. If this bill is passed, it doesn’t necessarily mean that cardrooms will cease operating. However, it does mean that tribes will be able to take cardrooms to court, which Senator Newman believes is a good thing.
Previous attempts had been made by tribes to sue cardroom bosses. However, these attempts fell through, due to the tribes’ lack of standing in court, which has left the issue unsolved for many years. The verdict of an impartial court would put the issue to rest once and for all.
Many tribal casino owners have announced their support for the bill, including California Nations Indian Gaming’s James Siva and Pechanga Band of Indians’ Catalina Chacon.
It should be noted, however, that there’s nothing technically illegal about cardrooms. They’ve existed since the 1800s and are regulated by the California Gambling Control Commission under the Gambling Control Act of 1997 – although, cardroom regulations have existed since even earlier than that. Plus, they’ve become part of Californian society over the decades, pulling in many customers and supporting a significant amount of jobs.
If cardrooms were to be rendered illegal, it would impact jobs and communities massively. This is where much of the opposition to SB549 comes from.
The Gardena city mayor Tasha Cerda argued that the closure of cardrooms could result in over 1,200 job losses in Gardena. Her concern was echoed by the California Gambling Association, which stated that SB549 puts millions of jobs at stake. According to the California Cardroom Alliance, cardrooms create a total of 23,000 jobs and have an economic impact of $2 billion.
Further opposition was met by Sergio Jimenez of San Jose City Council. He stressed that California’s cardrooms pull in a significant amount of state revenue and that their loss would impact city budgets across the state massively. He also pointed out that the economy was only just stabilizing after the pandemic, so further destabilization should definitely be avoided.
The bill was also openly opposed by members of the general public, who campaigned against it outside the California State Capitol in Sacramento. Chants such as “We’re not fine with 549” could be heard from the protestors.
Despite this, the bill was voted 15-1, with the majority of votes in favor coming from Democrats. The future of the bill now remains uncertain as the legislative session does not resume until August 5.
The bill still has several committees to pass through before a final verdict is made. This includes the Assembly Appropriations Committee and the Assembly floor. The bill may also need to go through the Senate Governmental Organization Committee.
