 |
ARTICLES | > | EDITORIALS | COMMENTS | ADVERTISE | SUBSCRIBE |
|
Native American Press/Ojibwe News Tribal-state casino faces many obstaclesJanuary 31, 2003 One of the bills, H.F. 2799, was “authorizing the director of the state lottery to establish a state-run gaming facility; providing a process to allow native American governments to receive a share of the net profits.” H.F. 2799 was strongly supported by the tribal governments of Red Lake and White Earth reservations, and strongly opposed by MIGA (Minnesota Indian Gaming Association), which represents the bands and communities with substantial gambling revenues. This year, looming state deficits and the anticipated budget cuts by the federal government because of the war on terrorism and the expected war in Iraq are putting severe financial constraints on tribal, state, and local governments. That, and the state’s interest in participating in casino gambling proceeds, have sparked yet another round of grandiose plans, lobbying, and deal-making. This year’s go-around with casinos is going to be much more intense than last year’s. The whole environment at the Legislature has changed, with the new governor and administration, an increased Republican majority in the House and Republic presence in the Senate. Also, some former bulwarks of the Legislature like Roger Moe of Erkine, Doug Johnson from Cook, and Dave Bishop from Rochester, who sponsored or were instrumental in supporting gambling bills last year, retired and are no longer in office. Governor Pawlenty has already made his opposition to any expansion in gambling clear. He seems to be supportive of the agenda laid out by Shakopee and other wealthy gambling tribes, and opposition and probable veto of any gambling bill would require that any state-tribal casino or other gambling expansion have the support of two-thirds of the Legislature to override the governor’s veto. That level of support for expanded gambling is doubtful. MIGA is arguing that Indian agreement to partner with the state in a state-tribal casino project “jeopardizes” the compacts, and even the most carefully crafted bill is “subject to change” by the Legislature, and potentially even further expansion of gambling. Slot machines in every bar would obviously be seen as a financial nightmare by Indian tribal governments. State involvement in the casino industry, even in partnership with Indian tribal governments, would most likely be subject to the Minnesota Constitution, which outside of the compacts, only authorizes a limited form of gambling in Minnesota. Article XIII, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution, as amended on November 8, 1988, reads: “Prohibition of lotteries. The legislature shall not authorize any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, other than authorizing a lottery and sale of lottery tickets for a lottery operated by the state.” Section 5 raises obvious legal barriers, and it’s highly questionable whether any state involvement in casino operations, whether in partnership with Indian tribal governments or on its own, would be constitutional. Minnesota Statute § 349.12 limits “lawful gambling” to “the operation, conduct, or sale of bingo, raffles, paddlewheels, tipboards, and pull-tabs.” Without significant rewriting of state statutes, off-reservation casino gambling is illegal in Minnesota, and it could well be necessary to amend the state constitution. Amendment of the Minnesota Constitution requires a majority vote of each house in the Legislature, but it’s probable that Pawlenty would let an amendment expanding gambling be decided by a vote of the people. There is no “quick fix” to urgent and pressing tribal
financial problems through a state-tribal casino. It’s not
going to happen without a long and difficult process lasting several
years. The first time that a referendum could be put to the people
in Minnesota would be in the next general election in 2004.
|