Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning. We'll go ahead and get started. We have two bills today. Where's my script? Three bills. Okay. Sorry. Okay. For each Bill today, there will be the opportunity for two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition to each provide a total of 10 minute testimony. Sergeants, please call the absent Members. And noticing the absence of a quorum, we will begin as a Subcommitee. Establishing a quorum requires 12 Members and.

Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? Oh, I'm sorry. When the quorum is present. Thank you. And then we have announcements. Assemblymember Jones Sawyer is absent today. Assemblymember Hart is substituting for Assembly Member Jones Sawyer. And measures on consent we have SB 536, Senator Rubio. Thank you.

Senator Rubio, would you like to come up and present your Bill? This is item number three. Senator Rubio. Hold on just a second. The mic is off.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Much better. Hello and good morning to everyone. Today, I am honored to be here presenting SB 1230, the stop and seize the illegal tobacco product. As all of you know, I'm a teacher, and my goal has always been to keep tobacco products away from our children and our youth. And so today, I'm here once again with the Bill, trying to ensure that our students, our kids, don't fall into this very ugly habit that's very difficult to break. We also know that, you know, the health risks. I think we're all aware of what happens when we start smoking early on.

And, you know, how many people have died due to tobacco use. So today I have a very simple Bill that just tries to prevent the illegal distribution of products already banned here in California. So, again, these illegal products continue to make their way into our stores in California. SB 1230 will strengthen enforcement of California anti tobacco laws and ensure that flavored vapes are kept off the shelves, which are clearly meant to attract our youth.

And usually they will do so through some very creative means of advertisement, as well as flavored tobacco that are bubble gum and other things that I don't think adults would care about. But anyhow, they continue to sell these products, and this Bill is really just meant to tackle those bad actors.

They continue to fail to follow the law and continue to try and hook our children into tobacco use. So my Bill does one very important thing, which it authorizes employees of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to seize and destroy favored tobacco products discovered during a regular inspection of tobacco retailers and warehouses.

Again, it's already illegal, but now we're just giving them the authority to seize and destroy them. The Department already does this, as mentioned, but this also now includes a very modest fee. It's a simple, easy, effective way of tackling this very large issue. SB 1230 also includes a reasonable civil penalty imposed to retailers for breaking the law.

The fine amount hasn't been changed in 20 years, so this modest increase goes a long way towards making sure that they're following the law. The Stop and Seize Illegal Tobacco Product act is sponsored by the Coalition of Public Health Organizations, including the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and the Bill has no opposition.

Again, very modest. Fine. And it only tackles those bad actors. And with me, I'm proud to have a student who's been an advocate, Amri Abu Marquia, who will be presenting on behalf of our youth. And I also have Tim Gibbs for technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Amri Abu Marquia, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of SB 1230. I recently graduated from Granite Bay High School in Placer county, and I'll be attending Yale University in the fall. I've been actively engaged in tobacco prevention efforts both locally and statewide.

One of my most recent projects involved creating a policy handbook for California tobacco retailers to promote compliance with the law and reduce underage tobacco access. Growing up, I've witnessed addiction firsthand through my dad. Car rides with my dad always meant his cigarette smoke would be blowing into my face, and even a hug meant inhaling those harmful chemicals.

I eventually learned that my dad's 34 year old addiction had been fueled by misinformation, social norms and manipulative marketing tactics. As a result of my dad's choices, my entire family shares a part of the burden via secondhand smoke. But secondhand smoke is not just exclusive to my family, it affects our youth at large.

In reality, the smoke I inhaled at home was the same smoke I had to endure on my school campus. Only at school, the smoke tends to carry an artificial scent. Every time I enter the school restrooms, I am met with the sight of students huddled together sharing a vape along with the remnant smell of artificial flavors.

I sometimes even see it in the hallways between classrooms, and I'm also aware that students will often leave in the middle of class to vape in the restrooms not only does this inhibit these students learning, but it also affects everyone else on campus, regardless of whether they personally choose to smoke or not.

Of course, there are resources to help students quit smoking, but the most productive approach is addressing the root cause, which is the availability of these products.

If we don't get these flavored or otherwise illegal tobacco products off the shelves today, this cycle of addiction will only perpetuate, leading to more lifelong smokers like my dad and more young people like myself, who will have to face the consequences. The ultimate goal of my advocacy is to live in a world where no one is robbed of a smoke free life. And that's why I urge the Committee to vote I on SB 1230. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Okay. Yes. Anyone in the audience wish to come up in support?

Good morning. Jamie Morgan, on behalf of the American Heart Association, proud co sponsor of the. Bill.

Tim Gibbs with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, also co sponsor.

Autumn Ogden Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also proud co sponsor here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kesa Bruce, American Lung Association proud sponsor.

Thank you.

Joe Saenz with the County Health Executives Association, representing local health departments, in support.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public in support? Thank you. Are there any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll go ahead and open it up to the public. Anyone in the public in opposition? Okay. Do any Members have any questions or comments? Miss Davies?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really quick, Senator, I want to say thank you so much for bringing this up. You know, I've been working when I was on City Council as well as now when it comes to the vaping. And so many people don't realize that one cartridge is like smoking a pack of cigarettes.

And we are going to be seeing so much lung disease coming up with, you know, with our young people. So I want to say thank you very much for being such an advocate. And I would go ahead and make a motion.

We don't have a quorum yet, but as soon as we do, we'll open it up. Thank you. Any other comments from the Committee? Okay, thank you.

You may close. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee. Well, first of all, I never lose an opportunity to share with parents. I know there's a lot of parents in the audience that I've been trying to tackle this issue for the last five years as a teacher.

I have been in a library where some of our students were vaping, and you don't even know that we have now markers that are vaping devices, highlighters, including clothing, for example, sweatshirts with a little string that now is a smoking device. And none of the parents would know this.

We tend to go into a room looking for the actual vaping device. You're never going to find it. And so there's so many products that are now used to vape, and parents are really not in a position to understand all these products. Our goal is to ensure that there's no flavored tobacco out there that they can use.

So again, just be aware for parents out there listening, that there's so many things. And I would just go online to try to see what these tobacco products are, the vaping devices that your kids are doing. And also, the unfortunate part is that they're vaping, and some products are vape. You cannot smell them.

So that's another issue that we have to contend with. But thank you for being advocates, along with myself. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I really appreciate the Bill coming up. I know you have been working on this, and as a teacher as well, I can tell you that sometimes we don't know what happens in the back of the room. So I really appreciate it. And we don't have a quorum.

So as soon as the quorum is present, we'll go ahead and make a motion and take a vote. Thank you. Thank you. Item number two, SB 549, Newman. Thank you, Mister Newman. You may begin. But just for clarification on this item, we have opened up two witnesses in support for a total of 10 minutes.

So that you have plenty of opportunities to discuss, the opposition will have the same. And if Members of the audience, when you please come up to your do your me toos, please keep it to name, name and position. Thank you, Mister Newman. you may begin.

I appreciate that indulgence, Madam Chair. Madam Chair. And Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 549, the Tribal Nations Access to Justice Act, which will provide Californians, Indian tribes a limited avenue to seek in state court a declaration on the legality of specific games operated by California's licensed card rooms.

Prior to the year 2000, California law, as articulated in the state's constitution, explicitly prohibited the operation of Nevada and New Jersey type casinos with regard to card games. State law prohibited the one, several specific card rooms, such as 21. Two, so called banked games where the house has a stake in the outcome of the game, and three, percentage games where the house enjoys better odds than the other players at a table.

In the year 2000, the voters of California were explicitly asked under Proposition one a on the ballot that year whether Californians Indian tribes should be granted an exemption to those constitutional prohibitions. With their vote, a convincing majority of 64% of California voters chose to grant to the tribes the exclusive right to offer slot machines, lottery games, and bank and percentage card games like Blackjack and baccarat. State law has always allowed licensed card rooms to operate any card game that is not otherwise prohibited.

Typically, card room players pay a fee on a per hand or per hour basis to play these games. Over the course of the more than two decades since the passage of Prop 1A, however, California's card rooms have steadily added to their offerings a number of games which are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from the card games offered to at Las Vegas and tribal casinos.

It has long been the tribe's contention that the offering of such games is in direct conflict with the provisions of Prop 1A. But because of the tribe's lack of standing in California courts, no court has been able to opine on the extent or implications of that constitutional grant.

This lack of clarity has formed the basis for the long standing dispute between California's Indian tribes and California's licensed card rooms. Prior attempts to resolve this dispute through the regulatory and legislative processes or by electoral initiative, have failed.

SB 549 seeks to definitively resolve this dispute by granting California's Indian tribes circumscribed, time delimited legal standing to seek a declaratory judgment on whether certain card games offered by card rooms and banked by third party Proposition player service providers are in violation of the California Constitution.

The central question of this Bill is actually not about which games card rooms are or should be allowed to offer. Rather, the central question of this Bill is simply whether to allow the opportunity for a court of law to address this now decades old question purely on its merits and pursuant to the voter approved provisions of Prop one A. To be clear, SB 549 does not take a side in this regard.

It neither vindicates nor codifies the arguments of the tribes, nor does it declare card rooms in violation of any law. Moreover, there is no guarantee as to how a court might rule in this matter. But if the Legislature refuses to grant the legal standing needed for the courts to weigh in, we remain no closer to a resolution on this longstanding dispute.

With me to testify today is James Siva, Vice Chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Chair of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, and Catalina Chacon, Councilwoman of the Pechanga Tribal Council and Vice Chair of the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations. Also with us today to answer any technical questions is Tuari Bigknife, Attorney General for the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Witnesses in support.

Good morning. You got me. Thank you. Good morning. Chairwoman Rubio and Members of the Committee. My name is James Siva, and I have the honor of serving as the Chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, which represents 52 tribal governments.

I am here today on behalf of the largest coalition of tribal governments supporting a single piece of legislation since the passage of SCA 11 by the California Legislature and the passage of Prop 1A in 2000, which amended the constitution to permit slot machines and bank to percentage card games exclusively operated by tribes on Indian lands.

64% of California voters supported gaming exclusivity provided to tribal governments under Prop 1A. Immediately following the ratification of our tribal-state gaming compacts and the passage of Proposition 1a, several card rooms filed lawsuits challenging the validity of Prop 1a and the games authorized by our tribal gaming compacts.

Those lawsuits were not dismissed on procedural grounds. After years of litigation, the card room secured a decision on the merits. The 9th Circuit ruled that tribes were operating lawful games, thereby providing clarity to card rooms on what types of games could be authorized to be played on tribal lands.

It should be noted that if the card rooms had been successful in their litigation, many tribes may still be living in abject poverty today. While the card rooms were able to receive clear guidance from the courts on what games were permitted on tribal lands, tribes have been denied the same access to justice.

You can change that today by supporting SB 549. For over a decade, California tribes have engaged in considerable efforts to defend our constitutionally guaranteed exclusive gaming rights and stop what we believe is illegal gaming activity by card rooms. These efforts include the initiation of federal and state lawsuits. Unfortunately, each of those lawsuits were dismissed solely on procedural grounds without addressing the merits thereby.

Nine tribal access to Justice SB 549 is a straightforward measure that provides a fair and reasonable pathway to allow an impartial court to decide once and for all whether certain games operated by card rooms constitute banked card games that violate California law and tribal gaming exclusivity.

The sheer length of the Committee analysis on a two page Bill underscores the complicated nature of gaming laws and highlights the need for judicial review. This is good public policy. If card rooms are confident in the legality of the games they operate, they should welcome the chance to prove it in a court of law.

We recognize the significance that gaming has on local governments and surrounding communities. For tribal governments, gaming is oftentimes the sole source of meaningful revenue to Fund our tribal governments. The reality is that card room casinos have existed in California for over a century and they will continue to exist after this legislation passes SB 549. Nor a decision by an independent judge can invalidate any card room game that are of found to be legal under California law. Those games will continue.

Many persons outside of Indian country have forgotten that as recently as 1991, not even a generation ago, the State of California, at the direction of Attorney General Dan Lundgren, ordered raids on tribal reservations. Despite the state's lack of authority, the State of California attempted to close tribal casinos throughout the nineties.

That dispute was resolved after years of costly litigation and the eventual signing of tribal state gaming compacts and the passage of Proposition 1A. As a tribal leader, as an Indian person, I am frustrated and saddened by the disproportionate treatment of tribal governments and these commercial operators who seem to scoff at the laws of this great state.

Historical treatment of Native American people is fraught with atrocities. On June 18, 2019 Governor Newsom formally acknowledged the past atrocities and issued a formal apology for the state sanctioned genocide of native people. Governor Newsom's apology promised a new path going forward for the State of California and the tribal nations within its borders.

A vote in support of SB 549 aligns with the intent and the spirit of Governor Newsom's apology adds actions to his words and honors the promises made under Prop one a by affording tribes the fundamental right to access justice and defend our exclusive gaming rights. California tribal governments stand humbly before you today to ask for your support.

We are not asking you to choose whether tribes or card rooms will ultimately win this decade long dispute. That is for the courts to decide. Thank you for your time and your attention to this matter of critical importance and respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. We will stop for a moment to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

I have a motion by Bryan. A second by Assembly Member Wallace. Madam Councilwoman, you may continue. We have. You are very good. Five minutes and 29 seconds.

Chairman Rubio and Members of the Committee Mayuyum notoon. Catalina Chacon, Pichangayam good morning. My name is Catalina Chacon and I'm a tribal Council Member of the Pechanga Band of Indians and vice Chairwoman of the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations, which you may know as TASIN. I also serve on the California Tribal Families coalition as well as serving on the California Commission on the Status of Women and girls.

TASIN is made up of 13 federally recognized tribal governments throughout Southern California, including the Agua Caliente Band of Kuia Indians, the Augustine Band of Kuia Indians, the Kaweah Band of Kuia Indians, the Cabazon Band of Kuia Indians, the Chimawebe Indian tribe, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pachanga Band of Indians, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of Kaweah Indians, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the Taurus Martinez Desert Kaweah, and the 29 Palms Band of Mission Indians.

We thank Senator Newman and all the co authors for your leadership in SB 549. At its core, this Bill is about rights and our ability to protect our tribal rights in court. That is why we are pleased that the Bill passed without any no votes in the Assembly Judiciary Committee almost a year ago.

We understand the significance that gaming has on the local governments and surrounding communities. But for tribal governments, gaming is oftentimes the sole source of meaningful revenue to Fund our vital government services. The reality is that card room casinos have existed in California for over a century, and they will continue to exist after this legislation passes.

And even if an independent judge agrees with tribes, we are not asking you to render a judgment on the legality of the games in question. We are not asking you to pick winners and losers. We are simply asking that we be allowed access to an independent court to present our case to an impartial judge.

This Bill is a sensible solution to a long standing dispute that has put many of you in a difficult position year after year. There was a period in time, a long and dark period, in which our rights were consistently thwarted, undermined and denied. And sometimes this even happened at the hands of the state.

It is not lost in us that the first Governor of California, Peter Burnett, said in a speech that a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct. End quote. The Burnett Administration also fought efforts by the Federal Government to save some native land rights.

In 1875, our people were evicted from our ancestral lands at gunpoint. Because we could not enforce what we knew, what we knew to be true. That the lands that we had called home for thousands of years were indeed our lands.

As a result of the inability to access the courts of California, we lost vast acreage that held great tribal history. And that, for generations, have provided sustenance for our people. Over a century later, we are still recovering from this massive land theft. Sadly, as you know, our story is not unique.

Tribes have many similar stories up and down this state. Back then, the laws of California prohibited our ancestors from accessing state courts. And therefore, they were unable to protect our land rights. And we forever lost thousands of square miles. Today, we are in a position to protect our gaming rights.

And today, California has a different set of values with tribes. We refuse to allow injustices to be repeated. We have a fundamental obligation to honor and protect our rights. For our children and for our future generations to come. This Legislature has stood up for the rights because rights matter.

We are here asking you, the Legislature, to give tribes the right to go to a fair and impartial California court. To have an opportunity to present our case about the games in controversy. Nothing more. In fact, the Bill is limited to just one action. And all complaints will be compiled into one decision.

In closing, the choice in front of you today is whether or not California tribes should be allowed to protect our rights in a California court. Every one of us should want to avoid more repeats of past exploitations. Thank you. We thank you for your consideration. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll bring it up to the public. Those in support. oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. I skipped the opposition. Yes, the main witnesses in opposition may come up. Let's hear from the main witnesses first, please. Thank you. Thank you. You all have 10 minutes as well.

Oh, that one. There we go. You think I'd know that by now. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Hawaiian Gardens Casino, and here on behalf of all card clubs across the state and all those people behind me and out in the hall who work in card clubs.

First, thank you to all the Committee Members and to yourself, Madam Chair, for spending inordinate amount of time with us and listening to us and talking to us about the bill and the issues at stake and the importance. And Mr. Hart, welcome to the party. So we appreciate it.

A year ago, when this bill was a gut-and-amend, an education bill that had popped up in the Assembly, it was heard in the Judiciary Committee, where it skated out by one vote, I might add.

Mr. Bigknife was testifying and talked about the reason for the bill and was also interviewed and published an article where he talked about the fact that during the pandemic, when California was shut down, all venues, restaurants, movie theaters, card clubs, the tribes made an extra $100 million.

And that that was really the genesis of this bill, an $11 billion industry. And that that showed them what would happen if card clubs were shut down. That's what this bill is about and that's unfortunate. And the reason it's unfortunate is card clubs have been around since the 1800's.

The games we currently play, we played since at least the 1980s, many longer than that. And we are regulated by the California gaming statutes and explicitly authorized, and we've shared these code sections, to play the games we play under the manner we play them.

Every single game we play is specifically authorized by the Bureau of Gaming in the Attorney General's Office. The most important thing, though, is the real life impacts, the impacts on real people and real workers.

She couldn't be here today, but one of our main, who would have been one of our main witnesses is Shavon Moore-Cage with AFSCME Local 36, and she published an opinion in the Sentinel. I'll just read a piece.

"These card rooms provide over 30,000 jobs across the state, with more than 13,000 of them located in LA County alone, while generating over 2 billion in total economic impact and 500 million in taxes statewide. Our members who are employed in these cities are the backbone of these communities.

They work as librarians, firefighters, lifeguards, park maintenance employees, bus drivers, custodians, crossing guards, and many others who dedicate their careers to public service. Their work is not hypothetical. It is real, tangible and vital. I speak from personal experience when I say that the closure of card rooms directly impacts city workers.

I was laid off when our local card room had to close during the pandemic. I have seen the hardship it brings. I do not want my union brothers and sisters to suffer the same fate." So that's a real life experience. It's not a hypothetical. This is a dangerous precedent.

And let me talk about what the proponents didn't say about how this bill ignores the will of the voters and ignores precedent in California. First, a PAGA provision very similar to this was rejected by the voters in Prop 26.

Overwhelmingly, we provided all of the Committee Members a series of editorials from around the state that demonstrated why it was rejected. And these editorials were specific to the PAGA provision and in particular the Orange County Register, who echoed many of the same thoughts, said "tribes will have tools to harass their longtime competitors, card rooms, by following lawsuits challenging the legalities of the game they offer. This is a raw money grab and has nothing to do with self reliance or responsible gaming."

That was echoed by the Desert Sun, the Riverside Press Enterprise, the LA Times. So the voters have rejected this. Several critical issues. One, sovereign immunity. This would be the first time in the history of the State of California, you'd be given access to the courts for a sovereign entity to sue individual companies in California who are legally operating and have no recourse because they would not be able to sue the sovereign entity in court. That is not justice.

Second, they changed the standard of review for regulations in California for the first time to make it a de novo standard. Think about this. Drinking water standards, air quality standards. When those agencies regulations are challenged, they get deference. This changes it. It rigs the deck to empower the courts.

Lastly, the bill would destabilize not only us, but local governments. And with that, I'll close.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Rubio and members of the Committee. My name is Sergio Jimenez and I'm a San Jose City Council Member. And San Jose is proud to be the home to two card rooms, Bay 101 and Casino Matrix, which have been operating for generations.

These two card rooms are important members of our business community and are vital economic engines for our city. I'm here today in staunch opposition to Senate Bill 549, which jeopardizes the city's general fund budget and threatens the existence of the city's two card rooms and the livelihoods of approximately 2000 local residents they employ.

The card rooms generate close to $30 million in annual tax revenue that provide critical services to our most vulnerable populations, including support to programs that provide emergency services to homeless residents, help to transition people from unsheltered homelessness to transitional housing, responding to priority one police calls and allowing fire to respond to health emergencies and structural fires.

This infusion of 30 million equates to funding 150 police officers, 133 firefighters, the cost of 911 call-taking and police dispatch, or the annual operating cost for providing 750 beds for a homeless population.

Furthermore, it's important to note that the City of San Jose continues to assume this revenue as it has for years in budget forecast, and its loss would have ongoing impacts to basic city operations.

The card room industry continues to be one of the California's most highly regulated industries, and the Attorney General's Office has individually approved every game played played in the state's card rooms.

Nonetheless, SB 549 gives unique status to California tribes to sue individual card clubs for doing nothing more than playing card games previously authorized by their Attorney General.

Having failed in all other venues, SB 549 would give gaming tribes a new private right of action to challenge the validity of card room games that have been approved and played in card rooms for decades. If passed, SB 549 would open up litigation by tribes in our card rooms and every card room in California.

The litigation costs alone would jeopardize the economic viability of small card clubs like those in San Jose. And importantly, supporters of SB 549 previously went directly to the voters through Prop. 26 in 2022, which would have given the tribes a private right of action to sue the card rooms. However, this approach was rejected.

The courts and the voters have denied them. So now they ask the Legislature to sidestep basic equity and fairness. SB 549 essentially resurrects this rejected proposal.

Furthermore, this bill would inject uncertainty into city budgets across the strait at a time when revenue levels and economic activity are just beginning to stabilize after Covid-19 pandemic to protect city revenues, honor the will of the voters of California, and to protect thousands of jobs statewide. I respectfully ask for your opposition to SB 549. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and open it up for public in support please. State your name and position.

Hello. Chairwoman Sherry Treppa on behalf of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake tribe, in support.

Chairman John Christman, Chairman Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, sponsor of the bill, in support.

Good morning. Mike Lopez, Vice Chairman of Santa Ynez Chumash Indians in Santa Barbara County, in support.

Chairman Jack Potter of Redding, California, and Shasta County, in support.

Raymond Welch, Chairman of Barona Band Mission Indians, in support.

Reid Milanovich, Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, in support.

Good morning. Joshua Muse, Vice Chairman, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, in support.

Good morning. James Kinter, Senior Advisor to Yocha Dehe Tribal Council, here in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Seth Low. Tribal Member, Council Member at large, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Wright, Chairman, Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, in support.

Good morning. Isaiah Vivanco, Chairman for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, here in support.

Michael Vasquez, in support.

Michelle Heredia-Cordova, Tribal Charwoman, Table Mountain Rancheria, here in support.

Good morning. Jenna Gosselaar, Table Mountain Rancheria, Tribal Council Secretary/Treasurer, in support.

Good morning. Bryce Baga, Tribal Delegate for the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut tribe, here in support.

Good morning. Leo Sisco, Chairman, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut tribe, in full support.

My name is Olivia Flanagan and I am in strong support.

Shawn Flanagan, lobbyist, on behalf of Sycuan, in strong support. Thank you.

Members of the Committee. Chris Gallardo, on behalf of Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians, Enterprise Rancheria, the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk and Chicken Ranch Rancheria, in support.

Madam Chair. Kirk Kimmelshue, on behalf of Chairman Greg Sarris and the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria, in support.

Richard Armstrong, tribal attorney, on behalf of Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, the Big Valley Rancheria, and the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation, in support.

Good morning. My name is Melvin Espe. I am the Vice Chairman of Picayune Rancheria, Chukchansi Indians, and we're in full support.

Elena Sanders, Tribal Council Treasurer for the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, in support.

Mike Shinido, Tule River, Tribal Vice Chairman, in support.

Michelle Lee, on behalf of the Mooretown Rancheria Band of Maidu Indians and also myself as a tribal member and attorney for the Pit River Tribe. We both stand in support of 549. Thank you.

Natalie Rodgers, representing the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, in strong support.

Pamela Lopez, on behalf of the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian tribe, in support.

Carolyn Veal-Hunter, on behalf of Chairwoman Regina Cuellar and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, in support.

Paula Treat, on behalf of Pechanga Indian and the Calusa Indian communities.

Mandy Isaacs-Lee, here, on behalf of Tejon Indian tribe, in support.

Susan Jensen, Executive Director of the California Nation's Indian Gaming Association, representing 52 tribes, in strong support.

Andrew Govenar, on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, in support.

Danielle Cirelli, Executive Council Member from the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, in strong support.

Carol Muñoz, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, strong support.

Veronica Krohn, member of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, strong support.

Michael Marcks, also member of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, tribal member, strong support.

Frank Molina, on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in strong support.

David Quintana on behalf of the Cahuilla Band of Indians, in support.

Thank you. Now we'll have open it up to the public in opposition to 549. Please come up.

Madam Chair and Members Trent Smith, on behalf of Artichoke Joe's, in opposition.

Chair and Members Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson Advocacy here on behalf of the City of Inglewood, in opposition.

John Park, ParkWest Casinos, in opposition.

Matthew Stream, proud first time father of a seven week old, strongly opposed.

Michael Vasey, with ParkWest Casinos, oppose.

Ernie Hernandez, City of Commerce and California Equity Association and opposed.

Mayor Emma Sharif, City of Compton I oppose.

Marcel Rodarte, Executive Director, California Contract Cities Association, strongly opposed.

Low Sei Chow Stones Gambling Hall in Citrus Heights, California, in opposition.

Joe Olivieri, Seven Mile Casino, strongly oppose.

Aaron Strauss, Seven Mile Casino, strongly opposed.

Mike LeBlanc, Ace and Vine Casino, opposed.

Mark English, L.E. Gaming, opposed.

Heather Guerena, general counsel for Elevation Entertainment Group, oppose.

Masis Kevorkian, on behalf of Seven Mile Casino, strongly opposed.

Kermit Schultz, Stones Casino, on behalf of the Saloon, strongly oppose.

Yeding Chen, ParkWest Casino Manteca, opposed.

Naomi Vardy, ParkWest Casinos, opposed.

Jonathan Baron, ParkWest Casinos I oppose.

Brett Spadoni, ParkWest Casino 580, opposed.

Nick Mcdonald, ParkWest Casinos, opposed.

Thomas Romero, ParkWest Casinos, opposed.

Joy Harn, on behalf of Commerce Casino, strongly oppose.

KayCee Tooker, ParkWest Casinos, oppose.

Mike Duran, Night Adventures, strong oppose.

Carlos Villalobos, Night Adventures I oppose.

David Kaleski, Night Adventures oppose.

Aluli of ParkWest Casinos and I oppose.

Alexandra Palmer, ParkWest Casinos I strongly oppose

Roy Choi, Knighted strongly oppose.

Brian Lungren, on behalf of the Communities of California card rooms, representing over 40 small to medium card rooms, opposed.

John Griffo, Commerce Casino, strongly oppose.

Jarrett Blahnion, on behalf of Lucky Chances Casino, the Players club in Ventura and Golden West Casino in Bakersfield opposed.

Clark Rosa, owner, Capital Casino an operator, strongly oppose.

Keith Sharp, Hawaiian Gardens casino, strongly opposed mayor Victor Farfan, representing the City of Hawaiian Gardens, also representing the Golden Age Club from Hawaiian Gardens and Eagles soccer, strongly opposed mayor Hugo Argomedo, representing the City of commerce, strongly opposed. Thank you, Ensign Nguyen Nguyen. Park West Casino, strongly opposed Mulan Luang, Parkwest casino and I strongly oppose Jennifer Van Parkway Casino, strongly opposed David Hong, Pagwas Casino, strongly opposed Scott Siebach, 19 year employee of carrooms, on behalf of Park West Casino, strongly imposed Brian Bowling, General manager of Park West casinos, strongly opposed Sean Yapel, on behalf of hustler Casino and lucky Lady Casino, strongly oppose Vincent Omos, Park West Casino, strongly opposed David Fang, Park West casino, strongly opposed David Schindle, with players edge services, strongly oppose Josh Wagam, Park West Casino Lodi, strongly opposed Charles Martin, Park West Casino, strongly opposed Richard Schindle, Kings Card Club, strongly opposed Apollo Boas, ace of Vine Casino, strongly opposed.

John Goodwin, representing the Town of Colma is mayor, strongly opposed.

Andrew Risinger, Players Edge Services, Fresno, California, strongly opposed.

Jason Brisby, Kings Card Club, strongly opposed.

Cesar Brega, Kings Card Club, opposed.

Christian Rodriguez, Ace and Vine, opposed.

Mark Pickens, Ace and Vine Casino, Napa, strongly oppose.

Fabiana Arellano, Two Kings gaming, oppose Brittany Hudson Asen, vine, strongly opposed.

Ayanna Ward, ace Hamaya, casino, strongly opposed.

Quentin Vasquez, Ace and Vine, strongly oppose.

Francisco Navarro, Ace and Vine, strongly opposed.

Ryan Searles, Ace and Vine Casino, strongly opposed.

Kendra Serone, Ace and Vine, strongly opposed.

Joel Horazi, Ace and Vine Casino, strongly opposed.

Danielle Gard, Casino Merced, Casino Madera and the 500 club, strongly oppose.

Kerry Mullins, West Lane and Kings card Club, strongly oppose. Brian Soria, Kings Card Club, strongly opposed.

Brandon King, Kings Card Club, strongly opposed.

Mayor Tasha Cerda from the City of Gardena. We strongly oppose.

Geordie Carter, Kings Card Club. How? We oppose.

Carlyn Shelby, on behalf of the Cities of Tracy and Livermore, in opposition.

James Mullins, Kings Card Club, West Lane Card Room, strongly opposed.

Leo Soto, Kings Card Club, strongly opposed.

Greg Valdivia, Kings card club, strongly opposed. Rudy Bermudas, representing California City's gaming authority. Representing the interests of small cities. Cities with small card rooms throughout the state, strongly oppose.

Robert Lindo from Casino Matrix in the City of San Jose, oppose.

Madam Chair and Members Adam Keglin, on behalf of Bay 101 casino in San Jose, in opposition. Hi, my name is Sai Pong Zwa, stone casino, strongly opposed.

Kyle Seychelles from stones gambling hall. I strongly oppose.

Honorable chair Members. Esther Sanchez, mayor for the City of Oceanside, respectfully, strongly oppose. Thank you.

Michael Gossman, City of Oceanside, oppose.

Elisa Arcidia Kono, on behalf of the City of Emeryville, in strong opposition.

Morning, Janice O'Malley. AFSCME California here. On behalf of Members from the Cities of Commerce, Compton, Inglewood, Bell Gardens, Oceanside, Hawaiian Gardens and San Jose, all in strong opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members awid Kadani, on behalf of Hollywood Park Casino and the beautiful City of Inglewood, in strong opposition.

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the California Cities for Self Reliance Joint Powers Authority, representing over a thousand public service employees, in opposition.

Alejandro Solis, on behalf of Association De Guatemaltecos emigrantes, Casa Del Diabetico, California human Development and La Copperatia, Campesina, California, all respectfully opposed.

Kelly Roberson, Stones Gambling Hall, strongly opposed.

Nicole Meriwether, Stones Gambling Hall, strongly opposed.

Rochelle Gordon, Stones Gambling Hall, I oppose.

Tara Allen, stones gambling hall, strongly oppose.

... for Crystal Casino and Oceans 11 strongly opposed. Bill Tan, Ace and Vine casino, strongly opposed.

Sheena McNampo, Ace and Vine, strongly opposed.

Jacqueline Chavo, Ace and Vines Casino, strongly opposed.

Rosentan Hasting, vine casino. I, strongly opposed.

Mike Safell, Chief of Police, Gardena Police Department, strongly opposed.

Clayn Asorio, city manager, City of Gardena, strongly opposed.

Michelle O'Keeffe, Park West casino, strongly opposed.

Nikki Chow Nguyen, Park West casino. Lotuse, strongly opposed.

Kelly Lieb, park West casino. Lotus, strongly opposed.

Dennis Albioni, club, one casino, Fresno, California, opposed. Thank you.

David Gutierrez, Capitol casino, strongly opposed. Rick Cook, Capital Casino, City of Sacramento, strong the polls.

Mark Florendo, Capital Casino. I, strongly oppose.

Justin Cooper, Capital Casino, strongly opposed.

Christopher Linger, Capitol Casino, strongly oppose.

Pablo Gutierrez, Capitol Casino, strongly opposed.

Good morning. On behalf of the Youth Advisory Commission, the first state foundation senior Citizen Club, Central Valley Opportunity Center. A respectful. No request.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public wishing to rise in support or in opposition? Okay, thank you. I would like to invite the two main witnesses in support back up to the diet. So I'm bringing it up to our Members for questions. Okay, Members of the Committee, questions? Comments?

Assemblymember Cervantes and then Assembly Member Baines and then Assemblymember Haney.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start off by first thanking every single individual who's in this room today, whether you're testifying in support or opposition of this measure. I have a statement to make as it relates to the Bill before us. I do want to start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for the sovereignty of our tribes and their ability to host gaming. I also understand the important role that card rooms do play in our communities across our great state.

However, it is very obvious that the status quo is no longer tenable for our tribes, and the sovereignty they understandably hold sole dear is at risk. Ultimately, I do believe that we need the Attorney General to step up and to not only do a better job enforcing our existing gaming laws, but provide better guidance and clarity to card rooms about which of their games are allowable under the law. Until the AG. AG.

AG's office does that, I believe the tribes must be allowed to seek recourse in the courts to protect their rights. This Bill is narrowly tailored policy that provides a very limited and short timeframe for the tribes to seek relief at the Superior Court of Sacramento county.

It is my hope that providing our tribes with this one time opportunity to defend their rights will further help end this long standing struggle between our tribes and card rooms. It is my sincere hope that ending this division will allow both tribal casinos and card rooms to flourish in our great state. Again, I do urge the AG to double his efforts in his role as a regulator of gaming and help us enforce policies, procedures, and statutes.

Thank you. I have Assemblymember Bains, then Haney. Assemblymember Bryan after.

So I've only served on this Committee for a short period of time. But what has become abundantly clear to me after multiple meetings with both both sides and stakeholders on both sides of this issue is that the questions around banked games at issue in this Bill have become simmering for decades.

As Assemblymember Cervantes stated, multiple attorney generals have avoided addressing these issues with the clarity that they require and deserve. That failure to regulate is not behavior this body accepts from Cal, EPA, or the CPUC. So why do we accept it here?

I'm not normally someone that believes lawsuits solve problems, and I have a lot of concerns about the use of litigation to harass and extort small business owners through the imposition of onerous legal expenses. So I'm very glad that this Bill explicitly prohibits a claim for monetary damages and attorneys fees.

But I also take tribal sovereignty very serious, and I do not believe that your sovereignty should be weaponized and used to treat you like second class citizens. You are the descendants of people who were intentionally pushed aside and excluded from American society.

Providing every other business owner the right to protect their business interests in court, while denying you the same right, perpetuates that historical exclusion. I also care deeply about the economic contributions that card rooms provide to local communities. And I don't fault card rooms for maximizing the gaming opportunities afforded to them by their regulator.

Frankly, I don't know how a court will decide the banked gaming questions put forward by this Bill. I don't know that anyone in this room knows how the court will answer those questions, and that really is the point. Those questions should have been answered by the regulator a very long time ago.

But decades have gone by, and we have more and more questions, and the answers remain unclear. If the State of California has permitted gaming that violates the compacts and exclusivities committed to tribes, I, for one, really want to know that. And this Bill seems to be the only option or opportunity to get those answers.

Thank you, Assemblymember Haney.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank also everyone who came forward today, and I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. You know, as my two colleagues who just spoke, I think quite eloquently to this question, we do have in front of us a disagreement.

There are differing perspectives on the banked games and whether the law is being followed, and there is a dispute over that question. And all this Bill does is provide a narrow avenue to help to resolve that dispute and that question in our courts.

To me, that narrow opportunity to bring this forward in a fair, objective, judicial way is the best path that we have forward to what is clearly something that there is still very strong disagreement on. We don't know what the outcome of this will be.

If, as we've heard, the card rooms believe and understand that they are completely following the law. This shouldn't impact a single dollar. It shouldn't impact a single job. It should not affect any city's budget. This simply gives them the opportunity to prove that they are following the law and have a determination moving forward of what that law is and how to follow it.

To me, that is the fairest way to move forward, not to dictate one outcome or another, but to give everyone an opportunity to demonstrate that in front of a court. We've talked about other ways to determine this, and there's questions of the Attorney General and their role. Clearly, what we have right now is not helping us understand clearly how to move forward and have clarity for all involved.

And I do want to say, and others have said this in particular, our responsibility, considering the history of our state and the commitments that have been made to tribes and their sovereignty and the role that they play in gaming, this should be something that we take incredibly seriously.

If it is being violated and there isn't right now, the path for that to be adjudicated, for us to have a way for that to move forward and to do it fairly, I think is a responsibility that we have to the tribes and to the citizens and actually, frankly, to the card rooms and everyone involved to be able to actually adjudicate this question.

So I appreciate everyone who's built a business, who's created a job, who provided revenue to this state, and we are going to continue to, I'm sure, have tremendous opportunities for card rooms and others, but I don't think anybody benefits from the lack of clarity that we have right now.

And I want to thank the author and the sponsors and everyone for giving us the opportunity with this Bill to be able to get some clarity and to have an avenue to have this be adjudicated. And for that reason, I'm a strong supporter of this Bill.

Thank you. I have Assemblymember Bryan, then Assemblymember Addis, and then Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank the author for jumping into this issue. I've sat on this Committee my entire time, the Legislature. I've never seen this room as full as it is right now. And that speaks to the importance, the weight of this issue.

And as was mentioned earlier, the status quo is just not sustainable. There's a long history in California and a history with our country's first peoples, but it's unique in California. In many other states, there was push out. There was relocation in California because of the coastline.

We have a specific and unique genocidal history with the first people of our state, and we haven't done nearly what we need to do to remedy that. But one of the things we did was we granted exclusivity over certain types of gaming. And it's clear to me that tribal communities feel like that is being abused.

Now, I recognize there's a longstanding history of the card rooms that predates that exclusivity over gaming. So the real question here is about certain types of games. I also recognize the revenue generation is incredibly necessary for local jurisdictions.

I would also point out, though, that if that is revenue generated from what would be illegal games, and that's revenue lost to the tribes. And I remember being down with my brothers and sisters in Verona not that long ago, looking at their water infrastructure, having conversations about how they didn't have electricity until the 1950s.

We're even looking now about making sure tribes are included in the bonds that we're considering passing out of this body, because there are deep infrastructure needs that could have been met if those revenues belonged to the tribes. So whether it's building the city, building the tribes, I think the state has an interest in all of it.

And I also don't think the Legislature should be making the decision. It's actually not on us to decide what's an illegal game, what's not in a legal game. There's a regulator who's been playing a role, who I believe, as was mentioned earlier, should play an even bigger role in making the final decisions here.

But granting this one time exemption for the courts to weigh in, I think, is one of the reasons we move this conversation forward. It's something we have to do. It's something that's necessary. I'm proud to be a co author of this measure, and I respectfully ask my colleagues, who may still be on the fence, to support access to justice for California's first peoples.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the witnesses, the me toos, all the folks, the advocates that have come today, not just today, but have contacted me over months, being a new Member on the Geo Committee. And I will say that the incoming information has been prolific. It's also been helpful.

And I want to thank you for your investment in this issue. And it's understandable, given the long history that we've heard today of how long this has been. A problem where I'm coming from is that access to justice has really been a core value of mine since the day that I was sworn in.

I have started working on issues of access to justice, and many of my colleagues on this dais have supported me in creating more access to justice for folks that didn't have that access.

And one thing I will say about getting access to the justice system and to the court system is that we've talked a lot about the need for clarity. But having access to the courts also provides something else. It allows people to be heard. And in many cases, what I've been told is that it allows people to heal.

And I do think that it's time for people to have their voices heard in the court system, regardless of how the decision is made. This decision may not fall in the way of the tribes, and that's real. But having your story heard is critically important.

And folks have already talked about California's very horrendous treatment of First Nation and indigenous people. And I think some of those problems obviously continue to exist today. We just heard about lack of water access, but there's other ways, lack of healthcare, lack of being able to stand up for oneself simply because the economics aren't there.

And so with that, I would also say it's essential that tribal nations have this access to justice. In my own work with opening up the justice system, what I also know is that we don't want to inadvertently hurt people. We don't want to inadvertently cause more economic harm or other kind of harm to individuals.

And that's why it's been important to me to hear the stories of how much this Bill has been narrowed. And I would encourage the author, if there's anything else you can do to narrow this Bill, I would encourage you to continue to look at that. We've had hundreds of people come up and talk about how important this is, but I didn't come to this decision lightly. It took me a lot of thought and a lot of listening. However, I will be supporting this today.

Thank you, Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you very much. And I just want to start off by thanking everyone who is here today. This is a very tough Bill. I have friends on both sides. I've already heard this Bill in Committee in judiciary last year, and it was a very tough Bill.

But like I mentioned in judiciary, at the end of the day, I have to vote my district. I have bell Gardens within my Assembly District, and we have a card room within my Assembly District in Bell Gardens. And I am concerned how Bell Gardens would be impacted. And so because of that, unfortunately, I cannot support this Bill.

It is a very, very, very tough vote, and I feel for both sides. At some point, I would love to see both sides just come to the table, have more discussions, and hopefully everything can be worked out. But at the end of the day, I do have to vote my district.

These are the voters, the constituents I represent. And so at the end of the day, I have to do what's best for my district. But I truly, truly, truly appreciate everyone who is here and just know that I care about the issues that are important to both sides. So thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member McKinnor. Assemblymember Low.

Yes, same here. I agree with the Assembly Member, Assembly Member Pacheco. This is a very, very, very hard vote. This is a very hard decision. But I too represent Inglewood and Gardena for many, many years. Inglewood would have gone into bankruptcy if we did not have those card rooms in our district, and they literally saved that city.

So this is just very, very hard. But I too, will be voting no. I will be voting my district. But I do understand and I do sympathize.

Thank you, Assemblymember Low.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and hello, Council Member Jimenez from the City of San Jose, to which the district I also represent in the jurisdiction itself, too, to that of your testimony was quite compelling, of course, your obligation to the wellness of the city that we represent, acknowledging also the loss of the fiscal, I should say the fiscal impact specifically.

And so maybe perhaps to the author, Senator Newman, in addressing the concern from specifically a councilmember in his fiduciary obligation, also to the entirety of the city, you might be able to address the impact in helping to alleviate and or address the concern from not just the City of San Jose, but from many other local jurisdictions as well.

I will try. So I will say, I am personally very sympathetic to the impacts as expressed by all of the cities. To include the witness, let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say in a different sphere, there was a company that sets up shop in a small town, and they build a booming business.

But it turns out later, it turns out that that business is built on either an infringement on a patent or a trademark, and a court rules thus that they do not have the right to engage in that business.

It would be unfortunate, but it would be kind of a neutral question from the court if that business ceased to engage in that activity and the revenues that were generated were no longer available. But that is essentially what we're talking about here. This is not a subjective matter.

Moreover, to some of the points made by some of your Members, what we're asking here is not for you folks to make a ruling, but simply to allow the courts to hear this issue and to assemblymember Pacheco's point him in that instance, it is absolutely true that both sides will come to the table and the court will hear both arguments and the court will rule.

And what we're endeavoring to do is to take the subjectivity out of this. And insofar as the court makes a judgment, it will go either way. It will either go in favor of the courtrooms or the tribes. But for the purposes of this legislation, while I'm sympathetic, I would point out to you that's not the operative question here.

Senator, Do you hear loud and clear that a number of jurisdictions and cities are recipients, and many,

And I appreciate that. And the truth is, those card rooms were in existence, active, probably prosperous, prior to 2000, the passage of Prop 1A. There's nothing about this measure that would prevent them from continuing in their business.

There's nothing about this measure that would prevent them from innovating in that business to offer games or other amenities that might increase their business as long as it didn't infringe upon the exclusive franchise of the tribes.

Again, just to hear the acknowledgement, though, that the number of cities.

I'm happy to acknowledge that. I'm happy to acknowledge that. But again, as a matter of law, that may be an inescapable consequence, and it may be in their best interest to reconsider a card rooms, the offerings that they provide. But be to those cities the extent to which they're dependent on a single source of revenue, in this case, card rooms.

And I think part of that also, not just the revenue that has been generated, but also that of workers, many of who are here in this Committee room and this capital as well, too. And the concern that here, very loud and clear about the loss of jobs, but also, again, as the author the openness to address and acknowledge some of those concerns.

Again, I am happy to acknowledge that, and it pains me to consider that possibility. But it is our job here to look beyond that toward the more important issue. And the question is whether or not the card rooms are offering games that violate the provisions of Prop 1A.

Sure. And just to conclude, Madam Chair, and hearing from the author specifically acknowledging some of those issues, I do have concern, especially hearing from the representative from the city that I also represent, about the potential for the loss of revenue and also the loss of jobs. This is also the policy hearing.

And should this potentially not be amended, I should go to the floor. I would also Reserve the right, but this is the policy Committee that we're on here as well, and I would vote in support of this measure. But I do want to, for the public discourse, acknowledge that that is of a significant concern. And hopefully we'll be able to address that should it move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from Members? Yes, Assembly Member Pacheco.

So I had a question to the author. I know you mentioned your example, but in your example, somebody's bringing a lawsuit forward. Wouldn't, in this situation, wouldn't it be the Attorney General that would be the appropriate person to bring a lawsuit forward?

It depends on the scenario. So if it's patent infringement, I wouldn't, no, no.

In this situation, like, wouldn't it be the attorney general's responsibility to bring this litigation?

I'll defer to my technical witness here. I think many efforts have made in the past to try to achieve that goal, and that has failed. Go ahead.

Yeah. So nobody would disagree that the Attorney General has the ability to bring criminal enforcement. We're seeking civil enforcement of that through this measure.

I don't know if the opposition wants to respond.

Yeah. So this is sort of the equivalent of a local government giving land use permit to Starbucks. Starbucks opens up, operates, but the coffee shop down the street doesn't like it, and so they want to sue Starbucks instead of the city government that gave him the permit.

The Attorney General, and no one has disputed this, the Attorney General has authorized the penal code, specifically talks about how our games are played, third party Proposition players, continuous and systematic offer of the deal. Everything raised is in the code and authorized by the Attorney General.

If someone has a complaint about the fact that we operate games approved by the Attorney General, you would sue the Attorney General, right. You don't sue the Starbucks because the local government allowed them to open and gave them a permit. So in answer to your question, the answer, of course, is yes.

And the Attorney General has civil enforcement authority, criminal enforcement authority, and regulatory authority to pull permits and licenses from any card club that is operating outside the law. Their argument is not that we're operating outside the law. Their argument is we're operating consistent with the law, but they don't like the law.

Let me add. I don't think coffee is the best example. Let me give you a better example. Medical devices, right? So company sets up shop, and they're making medical advice. It turns out that advice, that device, nobody argues with their ability to do that business.

But if that device infringes upon the patent of another company, that would be wholly appropriate for civil action. That's what we're discussing here. The tribes have no issue with card rooms engaging in their business or their historical business practices. It's the infringement upon the exclusive franchise granted to them by a Proposition that was passed by the voters.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No. Okay. I will invite the author to close.

So, Members, I truly appreciate the robust discussion here and as well as the comments and insights of the Members. To Assembly Member Cervantes point, this is a narrowly tailored measure, deliberately so, providing a one time, very circumscribed opportunity for the tribes to be granted standing and take this matter to a court of law.

To Assembly Members Haney's point, it is indeed the responsibility of the state to ensure that we adhere to the provisions of our Constitution and the obligations that it creates. To Assembly Member Addis point and the points made by others. Nothing about this Bill will inhibit card room's ability to continue in business.

It will simply make clear as to which card games they may offer and which they may not. And to Assembly Member Baines Point, nobody knows how the courts will rule. Very important to consider. And so what you are doing today is not making a decision that favors one side or the other.

You're simply allowing for the tribes to have standing to go to a court of law in California to ask that court to rule on this question, and that ruling will be final. That ruling will. That process will be consolidated so it doesn't expose card rooms to endless litigation, as has been asserted.

And at the end of this, we'll have clarity. And that clarity is desperately needed to solve a decades long dispute. With that, I ask respectfully for your. I vote today.

Thank you. Well, to say that this issue is complex would be an understatement. I think many of my colleagues on the Committee now understand why this longstanding debate has persisted for more than a decade plus years.

My goal from day one back in January when this Bill was referred to this Committee, was to give all of the interested parties the needed time to educate each Member of this Committee on the bill's content and General history. I was abundantly clear to all stakeholders with my directive over the past several months.

There are many key factors and considerations in play with SB 549, including the Constitution, the Gambling Control act, the penal code, sovereignty, tribal state compacts, judicial decisions, lack of standing and immunity, and pending regulations currently worked on by the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

At the heart of it all will be the impact this legislation would have on the gaming interests that operate within or adjacent to our respective communities. As chair, every Member of this Committee had the opportunity to hear the case made by both sides.

With that, while taking into consideration the determining factors, I maintain a non reco on this Bill. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the motion has 15 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Please don't leave. We have consent calendar and another Bill, too. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you. Can we take up the consent calendar, please?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And we'll go ahead and leave the roll open for another 10 minutes. Assembly Member Gipson said he was going to return. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you.