San Jose’s two cardrooms are upset at Evan Low, the local House representative in the California State Assembly. Low (above), now running for Congress, voted twice in favor of a bill that allows tribal casinos to sue cardrooms.
Bill SB 549, which was passed on Aug. 31, would enable casino-owning tribes to challenge the legality of cardrooms via lawsuits if it is signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. It was presented to the governor on Sept. 11. He has until Sept. 30 to sign it.
The California cardrooms upset with Low, Casino M8trix and Bay 101, even paid for a billboard near the San Jose Airport that rebuked the Assemblymember for supporting the bill.
To add more drama to the controversy, Low received support from the San Diego-County-based Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in the form of $60,000 in radio ads. The ads came after Low’s yes votes on SB 549, raising eyebrows among government watchdogs, including Sean McMorris, a program manager for California Common Cause.
“Even though there was probably no coordination between Evan Low and this [political action committee],” McMorris said to Cal Matters, “I can probably guarantee you they wouldn’t have spent that money if Assemblymember Low didn’t vote for their interests.”
Viejas tribe denies vote-buying
The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians owns Viejas Casino in Alpine, located 35 miles east of San Diego and about 478 miles south of San Jose. The casino is in the 48th California district. Low represents the 26th California district that covers the Silicon Valley region.
Why would a tribe not located in Low’s district support his campaign? Passage of SB 549 would, presumably, be in the tribe’s best long-term interest.
The tribe has denied McMorris’ insinuation that it was trying to buy Low’s vote, saying its backing of Low was based on a long-time connection. And, Low has also received campaign funds from cardrooms, as well. Though, the amount is far less than his campaign has received from the tribes.
Tauri Bigknife, the tribe’s attorney general, told Cal Matters: “It’s not payback. It’s not buying a vote. It’s none of those things. There’s no there, there, okay? It’s supporting someone that we’ve had a longstanding relationship with.”
Still, the issue does raise the question of why Low would vote for a bill that could possibly have a significant negative economic impact on San Jose and its surrounding towns in Silicon Valley.
If the tribes succeed, how could it affect San Jose?
San Jose is among several cities in the state that rely on millions in tax revenue from cardrooms.
Statewide, the California Gaming Association estimates cardrooms support more than 32,000 jobs. They also generate more than $500 million in tax revenue. San Jose collects over $15 million in taxes from its two cardrooms in taxes yearly.
The cardroom tax revenue helps support essential services like public safety, infrastructure, and community programs in San Jose. Cardrooms also generate indirect economic activity by attracting patrons who also spend money at nearby hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and other local businesses. In addition, the two gambling venues also contribute 1,000-1,500 jobs to the local economy. They also make significant charitable donations to the community.
What does SB 549 allow?
Earlier this summer, PlayCA took a closer look at SB 549 and how it could affect California’s tribes and cardrooms.
In short, the bill allows California tribes to take legal action against cardrooms to determine if they infringe on the tribes’ exclusive gambling rights. However, state Sen. Josh Newman said in a statement:
“It’s important to note that this bill does not presume to resolve this long-standing issue directly. Instead, it simply provides a path for the courts to rule [on] whether or not cardrooms are infringing on the tribes’ right to offer the games exclusively. California tribes deserve an opportunity to achieve clarity by simply having their day in court.”
The bill’s passage does not mean all California cardrooms are illegal and will be shut down. It simply means the tribes are within their rights to challenge them. And considering the history between the two, there’s a near certainty of that happening.
Congressional race between Low and Liccardo is tightening
Low is running against Sam Liccardo, the former mayor of San Jose, to replace retiring Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in California’s 16th Congressional District. Licardo has sharply criticized Low’s SB 549 votes.
Low and Liccardo rose to the top of the Congressional race after a crowded spring primary of 11 people. A run-off saw Low earn a spot on the Nov. 5 general election ballot.
As for the race itself, a Lake Research Partners poll conducted in late June showed Liccardo had an 11% advantage over Low. However, a Tulchin Research poll taken in late July showed Liccardo only had a two-point advantage over Low in terms of favourability. That same poll found Liccardo was found to be nine percentage points more unfavourable than Low, suggesting a tight race.
