Third California Tribe Opposes Anti-Sweepstakes Bill
A third California tribal nation, the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians, has joined a growing coalition of tribes opposing a bill that would ban online sweepstakes casinos in the state. In a formal letter of opposition, the tribe argued that the legislation, AB 831, threatens its sovereignty and would eliminate a vital pathway to economic development for smaller, rural tribes.
A Threat to Economic Self-Sufficiency
The Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians, which operates in a rural area of Northern California, framed its opposition in stark economic terms. The tribe’s letter details the significant challenges it faces in traditional economic development and argues that digital platforms offer a crucial opportunity for revenue diversification.
“For tribes like ours—operating in rural Northern California communities—traditional economic development faces significant challenges,” the letter states. It goes on to explain that policies like AB 831 “restrict emerging digital commerce opportunities that could provide essential supplemental revenue streams, effectively limiting the economic diversification options available to tribes like ours.”
The tribe highlighted the severe social and economic issues facing its community, including housing shortages, homelessness, and high rates of poverty and food insecurity. The letter argues that “eliminating legitimate, regulated digital enterprise will only deepen the disparities our people face.”
A Flawed Legislative Process
Like the two tribes that came out against the bill before it, the Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation and the Big Lagoon Rancheria, the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians took issue with the legislative process behind AB 831.
The tribe’s letter points out that the bill “has advanced without meaningful consultation of broader tribal interests” and “lacks the alleged unanimous support among California tribes.” This echoes a common complaint that the bill was transformed from a technical measure into a broad ban via a “gut-and-amend” process, a change that occurred without the necessary government-to-government consultation.
A Call to Reject the Bill and Seek Alternatives
The tribe’s letter is a direct appeal to the California Senate Appropriations Committee to reject the bill and to instead “support policy solutions that empower all tribes to diversify economically.” The opposition is not just a call for a pause, but a firm request to defeat a bill that the tribe believes is fundamentally flawed and harmful.
The growing tribal opposition to AB 831 has created a significant hurdle for the bill’s proponents. It has shifted the narrative from a simple debate about consumer protection to a more complex discussion about tribal sovereignty, economic equity, and the proper role of the legislature in engaging with the state’s diverse tribal nations. The unified message from these three tribes is clear: a one-size-fits-all ban is not the right approach for California.
Recommended