This case study of Indian gaming’s genesis and development on the Pechanga Reservation highlights profound changes made possible by a coordinated strategy of nation building and economic development in Indian Country. It also highlights the profound influence of coordinating intertribal political and economic initiatives. Examining one tribe’s particular experience with Indian gaming provides insight into the ways federal and state policies actually “play out” at the tribal level. Economic and institutional development at Pechanga has resulted in rapid and profound changes in the quality of life on the reservation. Today, the Pechanga government’s gaming and resort revenues have allowed the tribe to effectively eliminate its reliance on other governments and create opportunities that benefit the entire region. The results are a sense of independence and self-determination among Pechanga citizens and productive and mutually supportive relations with surrounding communities where once there was very little positive interaction between the tribe and its neighbors.
Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976). California Assembly Bill 1385 (1999). Retrieved from http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1385_bill_19990910_enrolled.html
2.
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 783 F.2d 900 (1986).
3.
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987).
4.
Californians for Indian Self-Reliance. (1998, June 23). Nevada casino interests create another front group to oppose Indian gaming. Sacramento, CA: Author.
5.
Cameron, M. W. (1995). A prototypical economic development corporation. In S. Cornell & J. Kalt (Eds.), What can tribes do? Strategies and institutions in American Indian economic development (pp. 61-90). Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles.
6.
Canby, W. C. (1988). American Indian law in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West.
7.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).
8.
Cornell, S., & Kalt, J. (1995). Reloading the dice: Improving the chances of economic development on American Indian reservations. In S. Cornell & J. Kalt (Eds.), What can tribes do? Strategies and institutions in American Indian economic development (pp. 1-59). Berkeley, CA: Small Press Distribution.
9.
Darian-Smith, E. (2000). Indian gaming and sovereignty. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago.
10.
DeArmond, M., & O’Leary, T. (2002, June 12). Tribe moves to save tongue: UCR agrees to assist the Pechanga effort to rescue their vanishing language. The Press Enterprise, Available from http://www.pe.com
11.
Florida Statute § 849.093 (1987). Available from http:/www.flsenate.gov/statutes
12.
Florida Statute § 285.16 (1975). Available from http:/www.flsenate.gov/statutes General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388.
13.
Goldberg-Ambrose, C. (1997). Planting tail feathers: Tribal survival and Public Law 280. Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles American Indian Studies Center.
14.
Hoge, P. (2000, January 15). Indians’ pitch for prop. The Sacramento Bee. Available from www.sacbee.com
15.
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees v. Davis, 21 Cal. 4th 585 (1999).
16.
Husing, J. E. (2000). City of Temecula: Demographic, economic and quality of life data. Riverside, CA: Economics & Politics, Inc.
17.
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
18.
Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823).
19.
Jorgensen, M. (2000). Bringing the background forward: Evidence from Indian Country on the social and cultural determinants of economic development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
20.
Lombardi, M. (n.d.) The long road traveled: Tribal self-sufficiency and the battle for Proposition 1A. Available from www.cniga.com
21.
Lynch, A. (1998, October 25). State propositions: Proposition 5. San Francisco Chronicle. Available from http://sfgate.com
22.
Major Crimes Act of 1885, 23 Stat. 362, 385 (codified as amended in 18 U.S.C. § 1153).
23.
Miranda, A. (2003, January 7). The structure of the Pechanga Development Corporation. Presentation at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
24.
Morain, D., & Gorman, T. (2000, January 14). Indians raise $7.3 million to push casino measure, foes generate virtually nothing. Los Angeles Times. Available from www.latimes.com
25.
National Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (1985).
26.
Parker, H. (1965). The historic valley of Temecula. Balboa Island, CA: Paisano.
27.
Parker, H. (1971). The Temecula Massacre. Balbao Island, CA: Paisano Press.
28.
Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians and San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians v. State of California, California Gambling Control Commission.
29.
Pechanga Gaming Commission. (1998, November). Pechanga Gaming Commission [Materials provided to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission]. Las Vegas, NV: Author.
30.
Pechanga Tribe. (2001, July 2). California tribes compel states to the table [Press release].
31.
Pechanga Tribe. (2002, October 28). Tribes file suit against state for breach of gaming compacts [Press release]. Highland, CA: Author.
32.
Public Law No. 280, 67 Stat. 588 (codified as amended in 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. § 1360).
33.
Red Lake Band v. Swimmer, 740 F. Supp. 9 (1990).
34.
Resort offers rooms to evacuees. (2003, October 28). North County Times. Retrieved from http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/10/28/news/californian
35.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (1983).
36.
Senate Indian Affairs Committee Report 100-446.
37.
Shipek, F. (1987). Pushed into the rocks. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
38.
Sifuentes, E. (2002, October 29). Two tribes file suit against the state over gambling regulation. North County Times. Available from www.nctimes.com
39.
Cornell, S. & Kalt, J. (1998). Sovereignty and nation-building: The development challenge in Indian Country today. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 22(3), 187-214.
40.
Sparkman, P. S. (1908). The culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 8(4), 187-234.
41.
Spilde, K. A. (2004). Creating a political space for American Indian economic development. In M. Fishman & M. Checker (Eds.), Local actions: Cultural activism, power and public life in America (pp. 81-93). New York: Columbia University Press.
42.
Stokes, S. (2002, December 22). From grass-roots to political beast. The Press Enterprise, p. A01-A01.
43.
Strickland, R. (1982). Felix S. Cohen’s handbook of American Indian law. Charlottesville, VA: Bobbs-Merrill.
44.
Sweeney, J. P. (2002, October 29). Two tribes sue state over casino gaming compact. San Diego Union Tribune, p. A4-A4.
45.
Tribal Gaming Ordinance (Act). (n.d.). Unpublished tribal document in possession of author.
46.
Wilkinson, C. F. (1991). Indian tribes as sovereign governments: A sourcebook on federal-tribal history, law, and policy. Oakland, CA: American Indian Lawyer Training Program.
