Letter in Opposition to Pechanga Band Compact

Please help by sending in a fax or letter to CA Senator Padilla


Senator Alex Padilla
6150 Van Nuys Blvd., #400Van Nuys, CA 91401
Phone: (818) 901-5588
Fax: (818) 901-5562


Dear Senator Padilla:
I write to you today in opposition to the Pechanga Band Compact for which you were reported in the Californian newspaper as being the sponsor.
My opposition to the Pechanga Band's compact is based on several issues. I oppose the Pechanga Band compact based on the Pechanga government's horrendous record of human and civil rights violations. I also oppose the Pechanga Band's amended compact because I do not believe that any government or agency which has committed atrocities against its own people should benefit from the public trust.
First of all, the Pechanga Band and its tribal officials have committed numerous human and civil rights violations since the signing and ratification of their last gaming compact with the State of California.
In 2004, just prior to regularly scheduled tribal elections, 130+ adult members and their immediate families were disenrolled from the Pechanga Band. The members were all descendants of Chief Pablo Apish, a historically significant leader of the Pechanga/Temecula people.
Apish's status as Chief of the Pechanga Indians was extolled on the Pechanga Band's Official website prior to and after his descendants disenrollments. It was not until after a story published in the local newspaper, the very same newspaper that mentioned your sponsorship of the bill to ratify the amended Pechanga Compact, pointed this fact out to Chairman Macarro that mention of Pechanga Chief Apish was deleted from the Pechanga Band's web site.
During the disenrollments, the descendants of Chief Pablo Apish were subjected to the very same actions prohibited by the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("ICRA"). The descendants were denied due process, equal protection of tribal and federal laws, and were eventually stripped of their tribal citizenship when Pechanga tribal officials applied, ex post facto, language claimed to have changed the tribe's membership requirements. This action too violated the ICRA prohibition on bills of attainder.
Unfortunately, Pechanga tribal officials did not stop there criminal ways. In March 2006, an additional extended family of approximately 100 adults was disenrolled when tribal officials determined that the ancestor from whom they are lineally descended from was not an Original Pechanga/Temecula person. This determination was made despite the fact that a report prepared by a well known anthropologist hired by the Pechanga tribal officials concluded the ancestor was in fact a Pechanga/Temecula person. The most recent disenrollment of 100+ adults and children was especially egregious as the General Membership, the Tribe's governing body, had previously passed a law which (1) repealed the Tribe's disenrollment procedures and (2) made it illegal for the Enrollment Committee to disenroll members.
However, several months after the enactment of the tribal law, Pechanga tribal officials, in private session, decided that the rights and protections enumerated in the tribal law applied to all tribal members except for 1 extended family. And, in a memo dated November 29, 2005, the Tribal Council notified the Enrollment Committee that the Committee could commence with disenrollment against the family.
The Tribal Council had a duty, under tribal law (Constitution and Bylaws, Article V), to ensure that the provisions of the tribal law enacted on July 18, 2005 were enforced and applied equally to all members of the Tribe. In violation of its own Constitution and the ICRA, Pechanga tribal officials breeched their duty.
As a result, nearly 100 eligible voting members were stripped of their right to participate in upcoming tribal elections, to receive the benefits and privileges of membership, and to receive allocations from gaming proceeds in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
The Tribal Council's actions are prima facie examples of prejudicial acts intended to deny targeted citizens of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and tribal law.
I mention these violations of the ICRA because, as a matter of record, the California State Legislature supports and is committed to the enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1301 and following). Upon its passage, the ICRA was intended to "… protect individual Indians from arbitrary and unjust actions of tribal governments" and to secure for the individual American Indian the broad constitutional rights afforded all other American citizens.
Despite the prohibitions on tribal governments listed in the ICRA, Pechanga Tribal officials have hid behind the Tribe's sovereignty to escape prosecution and prevent the victims from seeking recourse for the injury and harm which have resulted from the human and civil rights violations. Although the tribal officials may be immune from suit, this does not equate to innocence of action.
Whereas the actions taken by Pechanga Band tribal officials are the very same as those prohibited by the ICRA, Pechanga tribal officials and the Pechanga government find themselves at odds with the California Legislature regarding the rights which should be afforded tribal citizens and citizens of California.
It is because of these gross violations of human and civil rights, that I oppose any further benefits be provided to the Pechanga Band until such time as the California Legislature holds hearings regarding the acts taken by the Pechanga government to deny tribal and California citizens rights guaranteed by law. I strongly believe that no entity that participates in, supports, or otherwise partakes in human and/or civil rights violations should benefit from the public trust.
Can the California Legislature trust the Pechanga government and its tribal officials to uphold the rights of other California citizens when they are so willing to strip and deny tribal citizens of the same rights? Is the California Legislature willing to play Pechanga Roulette with the rights of California's citizens?
I think the answer to both questions is a resounding "NO".
It is my firm belief that the Pechanga Band's amended compact should be denied and the State of California should require that the Pechanga Band go back to the negotiating table and agree to language that protects the rights of all California citizens and prevents the Pechanga government and Pechanga tribal officials from claiming immunity from suit for violations of the human and civil rights of California citizens.
Finally, I hope that you and your fellow legislators will not be held hostage by the money the State would gain under the Pechanga Band's amended compact. Such monetary gains could come at the expense of California's citizens if the State Legislature fails to address the issues listed above. I also believe that such gains are not solely tied to this amended compact but could be realized in an additional amended compact which includes protections of California citizens' rights and a form of redress for violations of said rights.Respectfully submitted,