Tribal gaming: compact ratification.
Summary
Existing federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law ratified the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, executed on September 2, 2009, but that compact was later rejected by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill would repeal the ratification of the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, executed on September 2, 2009, and would ratify a new tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, executed on March 17, 2011. The bill would provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions may not be deemed projects for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. By imposing additional duties on a lead agency with regard to the implementation of CEQA requirements, this bill would increase the service provided by a local agency, thereby creating a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Jun 2011
Assembly Passage
May 2011
Senate Passage
Jun 2011
Signed into Law
Jun 2011
Introduced Feb 18, 2011
Signed Jun 13, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Jun 9, 2011 · Assembly May 23, 2011
How they voted
35–0
Passed
Total votes 35
Jun 9, 2011
D
Democratic23
100% Yea
R
Republican12
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
7
Committee
6
Amendments
1
Jun 13, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Jun 9, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0)
senate
Jun 9, 2011
Lower · Passed
In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.
lower
May 23, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (68-0-4)
assembly
May 18, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 18).
lower
May 9, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 4, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 4).
lower
Apr 4, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
Feb 20, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
lower
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1020
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1020. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline