During the 1970s, American Indians in California and other parts of the United States faced disadvantages, including unemployment, poverty, deterioration of their homes and unsanitary living conditions. To cope with the situation, some tribes have included gambling (bingo or poker games) in their way of life. The goal of the tribal government was to make the reservation self-sufficient (Weeber 85). Although some tribes have adopted the game, others have not for moral or traditional reasons or because they live in areas far from patrons (Canby 332). As a result, their lives continue to lack electricity, clean water, paved roads, and medical facilities (Barker 155). In this article, I will show how the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians managed to rise out of poverty because they embraced gaming as a form of economic growth. Next, I will explain the internal problem, known as "opt-out", using sovereignty as a backdrop to show why casino tribes (like any other sovereign government) have the right to refuse "membership" to long-time members. Before the Pechanga Band began gambling operations on their reservation, other California Indian tribes exercised sovereignty through poker and card games. The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians conducted poker and card games “in violation” of state laws. The state of California insisted that its laws were being defied by the tribe, so it went after the Cabazon Band by citing Public Law 280 (1953), which had granted the state criminal jurisdiction on Indian reserves. California claimed that the Cabazon Group's small gambling operations were criminal and, for that reason, should be controlled or banned by the state. As a sovereign people, the Cabazon Band responded by pointing to tribal ordinances supported by the...... middle of paper ...... charge of tribal membership could end up being disenrolled (Weeber 91). The registration committee accused Gomez of falsifying federal and local records (Barker 167), then decided that Gomez should be removed from the band's registration book (Barker 168). After Gomez was removed from the Pechanga Band, he filed a civil suit in state court, alleging that tribal officials had failed to follow his constitution (Barker 147). Gomez, like other individuals who were rejected from their tribe, appealed their case to tribal court. (if available), but are generally refused. Then they turn to state and federal courts, but court decisions like Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez prevents the courts from getting involved in the issue at hand. Usually, state and federal courts point the finger at tribal sovereignty as the cause of their non-involvement (Beiser 77).