Now that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has declined to rule on the question by the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians whether the tribe has the right to operate a casino with the consent of the state, the tribe is mulling its next move.
Tribal Chief Clarissa Sabattis told the press last week that the tribe will no longer send a tribal representative to the legislature. The legislature forwarded the tribe’s question to the high court. Each tribe has a non-voting representative in the legislature.
After the court declined to answer the question, the tribe’s Rep. Henry Bear commented, “Efforts to gain local, state support for our legitimate, but modest, tribal economic development plans was never legally required under current international, treaty, federal or state law.”
He said the tribe had made the request as a courtesy “toward those who are seemingly unknowing of the law and now find themselves among us as our neighbors as we pursue our modern-day goals of self-determination and economic self-sufficiency.”
The state constitution gives the option to state officials to ask the justices to render opinions on important questions of law. However, the high court in this instance responded that the question wasn’t urgent or particularly important.
The tribe has long sought to operate a casino on its reservation. The legislature has never mustered enough votes to authorize it to do so and it has also failed to convince the voters to authorize one. It is moving toward the position that it can do so without a state gaming compact.
It cites the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians decision as its justification as well as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988.
Bear hinted that the tribe may file a lawsuit or try to force a compact negotiation on the state and noted that the state already has two commercial casinos operating. “State gaming studies confirm a tribal casino in Aroostook County does not impact Oxford and barely (3 percent) impacts Bangor’s Hollywood Casino. The only ones pleased by this behavior are the out-of-state-owned casinos and their teams of lawyers and lobbyists at the state capital,” he said.
