Tribal casinos and card rooms set to escalate dispute in Sacramento

• The tensions are rooted in California law, which mandates that card rooms give all players an equal chance at serving as the dealer via rotations.

Why it matters: Tribal nations' ability to operate casinos independent of the state was an arrangement made with the federal government in a bid to attain more control over their economic development.

• The change led to increased employment and lower mortality among Native Americans after California voters backed a constitutional amendment to enshrine it in law in 2000.

Be smart: The key distinction between card rooms and tribal casinos is the games they're allowed to run.

• Federally recognized tribes have the freedom to offer slot machines, lottery games and "banked" card games — like traditional blackjack, in which the casino acts as the bank handling wagers.
• Card rooms can only provide "player-dealer" games, including poker and pai gow.

Context: In recent years, tribal casinos have alleged that card rooms — including some in San José — are violating gambling law and infringing on their exclusive right by offering "banked" card games.

• The bill replicates Proposition 26, which California voters rejected last November.
• Both sides are expected to pump a lot of political money into their campaigns as the Legislature reconvenes this week, CalMatters reports.

The big picture: California is considered the birthplace of tribal casinos largely due to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, which affirmed that tribes have the sovereignty to operate casinos on reservation lands that fall outside state jurisdiction.

• Today, over 70 of the state's tribes own gaming casinos. Tribes without them receive a portion of the revenue through a shared trust fund.