But voters have been confronted by unpopular plans to expand brick-and-mortar gaming. And customers in at least one high-profile instance have been confronted by an all-too-literal conflict within tribal casino owners.

Both cases have underscored a new reluctance among Californians to treat Indian gambling operations with the degree of generosity extended by Sacramento.

Earlier this month, voters rejected Proposition 48 — a measure designed to approve the state’s legal authorization for a new, off-reservation casino.

AP reported Gov. Jerry Brown signed off on the plan because it would have precluded putting the casino on “environmentally sensitive” locations in Humboldt County.

It would have allowed the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians to construct a massive, 2,000-slot building 40 miles away from its reservation. It lost, 61-39.

But according to AP, Prop. 48 backers blamed “opponents — including wealthier tribes with competing gaming interests” that “had confused voters by construing the ballot measure as a referendum on the limits of gaming statewide instead of the one-tribe compact it was.”

Regardless, the tribe’s spokesman Charles Banks-Altekruse told AP the failure of Prop. 48 would simply lead to another deal at a later date. “What’s next is we’ll go back and get another agreement and we’ll build the casino with another compact,” he said.

The ordeal reflected a potentially rancorous political situation, where voters struggle against lawmakers — ultimately unsuccessfully — to impose limits on California gaming. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, California’s Indian casinos generate nearly $7 billion in revenue per year, a figure that makes up a fourth of gaming totals nationwide.

Winners and losers

The combination of big money and government regulation that drives Indian gaming expansion well could turn voters who won the fight against Prop. 48 into losers.

According to Jeff Heiman, the Southern California managing director of Tribal Financial Advisors, the defeat of Prop. 48 actually works to the advantage of a troubled casino. The Chukchansi tribe, currently feuding over its Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino in the town of Coarsegold, recently sent patrons fleeing as a former tribal leader staged an armed raid of the property last month.

The shocking attack, however, was just the latest twist in a factional fight that closed Chukchansi last month. As Heiman suggested to the Fresno Bee, the big financial interests with a large stake in Chukchansi and other Indian casinos will be more apt to work out a deal since Prop. 48 hasn’t put another massive gaming project on the table.

Now temporarily closed (the above image is of the front page of its website), Chukchansi has cost the tribe millions in lost revenue — an especially large poker chip to swallow given the unfavorable terms the tribe had worked out with its creditors.

As the Bee noted, the tribe agreed in 2011 to restructure its debt at an interest rate of 9.75 percent.

In fact, the Bee reported, the October raid was launched to “recover financial records” about audited financial statements from the past two years. Because the audits were late, the National Indian Gaming Commission slapped Chukchansi with an order imposing the temporary closure.

As ABC reported, “Chukchansi’s financial losses are unclear because Indian casinos are not required to disclose earnings.”

Trickle-down benefits

The trouble faced by Chukchansi has exposed the way the economy surrounding Indian gambling often allocates revenues more to financial concerns than to tribal members.

Generating some $100 million a year, the Bee calculated, only about $12 million a year from the casino went to the Chukchansi tribe. The remainder was divided between bond payments, payroll and operating costs.

As a result, tribes face continued pressure to expand casino operations, especially into online gambling.

Robert Martin, chairman of the Morongo tribe, told the Review-Journal that as “tribes come together” on Internet betting, “the opportunity for success grows.”

Yet online gambling faces major high-stakes opposition not only in California, but nationally. Forbes reported:

“Sheldon Adelson, the nation’s 11th richest person and chief executive of casino company Las Vegas Sands, says he is determined to stop online gambling in America and he will go to great lengths to battle the corporate interests pushing for it. ‘I am willing to spend whatever it takes,’ Adelson said in his first interview since The Washington Post revealed that he had hired an army of lawyers and lobbyists to try to convince Congress to ban online gambling.”

As a Republican, Adelson will wield even more clout when the GOP takes over the U.S. Senate in January.

The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians recently contributed $1 million to oppose Proposition 48, a controversial compact that would pave the way for off-reservation casinos in California. In the tribe’s view, the state’s agreement with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians would set a “bad precedent” and violate the spirit of Proposition 1A, the measure approved by voters in 2000 that authorized gaming on reservation land.

“Proposition 48 would allow a Nevada gambling company to use a rural tribe to build a casino on off-reservation land,” Mark Macarro, the tribal chairman of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, tells voters in a new ad. “48 would set a bad precedent — allowing off-reservation casinos.”

The tribe’s opposition to Prop. 48 is notable in that it has no vested financial interest in the outcome. Tribes with nearby casinos commonly use ballot measures and legislative approval of compacts as another front in their battle for the $7 billion tribal gaming market. In this case, Pechanga’s popular resort and casino in Temecula would be unaffected by the North Fork’s plans to build a casino in the Central Valley.

Its opposition to Prop. 48 seems motivated by an interest in preserving voter support for a system that has allowed the tribes to lift themselves out of poverty.

Referendum of controversial North Fork compact

In 2013, the Legislature narrowly approved Assembly Bill 277, a gaming compact that authorized the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to build and operate a casino with up to 2,000-slot machines. The 305-acre site is conveniently located off Highway 99 north of Fresno — nearly 40 miles away from the North Fork reservation.

That location would give the North Fork tribe a competitive advantage over the Table Mountain Rancheria tribe, which “played by the rules” and built a smaller casino on its reservation lands.

“Years ago, California Indian Tribes asked voters to approve limited casino gaming on Indian reservation land,” opponents of Prop. 48 write in their ballot argument. “While most tribes played by the rules, building on their original reservation land and respecting the voters’ wishes, other tribes are looking to break these rules and build casino projects in urban areas across California.”

Last week, the Table Mountain Rancheria, along with Pechanga, contributed $1 million to the No on 48 campaign, according to Capitol Weekly. In all, Table Mountain Rancheria has spent more than $10 million to oppose Prop. 48.

Prop. 48 bankrolled by Station Casinos

The North Fork tribe says that the land located off Highway 99 was associated with the tribe centuries ago.

“We’re getting back to the historical land that served as a reservation for our tribe in the 1850s,” Charles Banks-Altekruse, a spokesman for the tribe, told the Associated Press.

In addition to its controversial site, the compact would exempt the project from the state’s environmental regulations and benefit its Las Vegas casino operator, Station Casinos. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Las Vegas-based casino company would “reap 30 percent of the profit.”

Unsurprisingly, Station Casinos has bankrolled the “Yes on 48” campaign. After the North Fork tribe, Station Casinos is the biggest contributor to the Yes on 48 campaign. According to state campaign finance disclosure reports, the Las Vegas-based casino giant has spent $375,000 to convince voters to approve the compact.

“Prop. 48 is not about Indian gaming,” Macarro said in a statement to the Press-Enterprise. “It is about a Las Vegas casino corporation making an end run to locate a casino in an urban area.”

Prop. 48: “Transforming California into Nevada”

Station Casinos’ support for the measure validates criticism that the North Fork compact could pave the way for Nevada-style gaming in California.

“Now, the North Fork tribe aims to change the face of tribal gaming, effectively transforming California into Nevada, where casino gambling is permitted practically anywhere and everywhere,” the Orange County Register wrote in its editorial against Prop. 48. “If that is what is to become of California, the issue should be put clearly before the state’s electorate and not by a ballot measure that does not inform voters that they are being asked, effectively, to ratify the precedent of off-reservation tribal casinos.”

If approved, the compact would provide the state with a one-time payment of between $16 million to $35 million, followed by $10 million annually over the next 20 years. The compact also requires the North Fork tribe to contribute less than 4 percent of slot revenues to the Wiyot Tribe, which has agreed not to build a casino on its nearby land.

Prop 48: Ballot Summary

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, tribal gaming compacts between the state and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe. Fiscal Impact: One-time payments ($16 million to $35 million) and for 20 years annual payments ($10 million) from Indian tribes to state and local governments to address costs related to the operation of a new casino.

No on 48 ad: “Honoring the Trust”