2014 California Proposition 48

none Proposition 48 Indian Gaming Compacts November 4, 2014 California 2,702,157 4,219,881 6,922,038 300px County results For #B6C8D9 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid Against #8B8B54 70–80% 1px #AAAAAA solid #BCBC83 60–70% 1px #AAAAAA solid #DEDEBD 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid 2014 California Proposition 48, also known as Prop 48 and the American Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum, was a California ballot proposition in 2014 intended to uphold legislation AB 277. Legislation AB 277 ratified a gaming compact between the state of California and the Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California and another gaming compact between the state of California and the Wiyot Tribe. It would allow the Northfork Tribe to use land in the Central Valley to build a casino. It was defeated in the 2014 November California elections.California Proposition 48, American Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum (2014) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_48,_American_Indian_Gaming_Compacts_Referendum_(2014) 2023-07-25 Ballotpedia en Supporters of Prop 48 included the California Democratic Party,Wayback Machine http://www.cadem.org/admin/miscdocs/files/Resolutions-report-FINAL4.pdf 2023-07-25 https://web.archive.org/web/20140811173427/http://www.cadem.org/admin/miscdocs/files/Resolutions-report-FINAL4.pdf 2014-08-11 Jerry Brown (who was governor at the time), the Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians, Station Casinos and Plumbers and Pipefitters U.A. Local #246.2023-05-27 Wayback Machine https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2328&context=ca_ballot_props 2023-07-25 https://web.archive.org/web/20230527095258/https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2328&context=ca_ballot_props 2023-05-27 Supporters argued that the proposition would create thousands of jobs in the Central Valley area, help tribal economies and protect regions that are environmentally "sensitive" from project development. Opponents argued that this proposition would be in conflict with an agreement made by tribes in the past which was to keep Indian gaming to tribal lands. They also claimed the casino would be too close to existing Central Valley communities and it would cause even more casino proposals to be created.2014-09-05 Proposition 48 https://igslibrary.berkeley.edu/library/elections/proposition-48 2023-07-25 Institute of Governmental Studies - UC Berkeley en Opponents of the bill included Potrero Hill Democratic Club,Potrero Hill Democratic Club » Endorsements for the November 4, 2014 General Election https://www.phdemclub.org/?page_id=2930 2023-07-25 en-US CREDO Action,CREDO Action urges NO vote on Prop. 1, the California Water Bond https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/10/16/18762935.php 2023-07-25 Indybay en Chukchansi Economic Development Authority, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, Table Mountain Rancheria, Riva Ridge Recovery Fund and Brigade Capital Management. Result +ResultVotesPercentageYes2,702,15739.04No4,219,88160.96 References Category:2014 California ballot propositions Category:Gambling ballot measures in the United States