Since 2009, Alaska has opposed efforts by the tiny Native Village of Eklutna to open a Class II Indian casino in Chugiak, 20 miles north of Anchorage. Last week, it reaffirmed its opposition, seeking to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the Village asking the U.S. Department to reconsider its decision to block a tribal casino.
Assistant Attorney General Maria Bahr, representing the state, said, “This case has the potential to impact the state’s sovereign jurisdictional, regulatory, and taxing authority interests. Only the state can adequately protect those interests.”
If the Eklutna Village is allowed to open an Indian casino, state lawmakers fear, others will follow.
Assistant Attorney General Lael Harrison of the Special Litigation Division wrote to the district court, saying, “A ruling that the opinion is invalid may open the door to Indian Gaming Rights Act gaming on other properties across Alaska. And this case implicates more than just IGRA. … It is about the territorial jurisdiction of Alaska tribes in general.”
The state’s charitable gaming providers also feel threatened by the possibility of Indian gaming of the kind that’s proliferated in the Lower 48 for decades, but hasn’t penetrated into Alaska—with the exception of one tribal bingo hall at Metlakatla, the state’s only Indian reservation. Unlike other tribes, the Metlakatla Indian Community chose not to participate in the Alaska Claims Settlement Act of 1971, and to retain its federal trust status. It operates an electronic bingo hall.
The state’s taxing authority and the charitable gaming interests coincide in this case, because while Alaska can and does tax charitable gaming (it took in $2.6 million in 2018, while charities raked in $35 million), Indian gaming isn’t subject to state taxation. The Department of Law declared that if the Village succeeds, it would be competing against state-licensed gaming that benefits all state residents. Except for charitable gaming, other forms of gambling are illegal in the Last Frontier. Many of the charities that benefit are Native American-based.
Sandy Powers and her husband John are the owners of Big Valley Bingo and president of the Alaska Charitable Gaming Alliance (ACGA). She old GGB News the ACGA is “a trade association collective of non-profit charities ranging from veterans and law enforcement organizations, to youth, anti-domestic violence and faith-based groups, all of whom receive proceeds from statewide charitable gaming revenues in Alaska.
“Our membership is steadily building, with over 75 initial committed non-profit representative members and a new board forming this week. We anticipate a majority of permittees joining or participating in ACGA in some manner during 2020 and beyond.”
Several weeks ago, when the Anchorage Assembly scheduled a vote on a resolution establishing governmental relations with the Village of Eklutna, ACGA spent thousands of dollars on ads opposing that resolution, which “recognizes there are inherent rights, opportunities, protections, and obligations that come with self-governance,” and is seen by some as opening the door to a casino.
But Christopher Constant, one of the three members of the Assembly who sponsored the action, told GGB News, “Literally what we did had nothing to do with gaming. The intent behind the resolution has nothing to do with the gaming lawsuit” by the tribe against the federal government.
Constant said the AGCA’s reaction “was really something to watch. The money they brought to bear. Our action was connected with gaming only in the minds of those who want to make money on gaming.”
Constant added, “It was surprising to see a $10,000 ad in the Anchorage Daily News. A full-page ad loaded with falsehoods and misdirection. It said the resolution had to do with allowing a casino. Nowhere does it say that. I didn’t even know the Eklutna Village had a lawsuit. It was very successful in ginning up opposition to the resolution.”
The lawmaker said that all opponents needed to do was read the resolution to see what was in it. Constant added that Eklutna Village is a federally recognized tribe, and the city’s wishes for or against a casino won’t be taken into account.
“If the federal government recognized they have this right, then we have no position to tell them no. We would have to negotiate with them the terms, because we would be forced to provide services,” he said. “If the determination was made that gaming wasn’t allowed—for the purposes of our municipality and our relationship with the tribe, we still should do in the resolution because we have reasons to work together.”
Powers explained ACGA’s opposition, saying Eklutna “is currently suing the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs for the approval to build and operate an Indian casino on the Ondola Land in Birchwood,” a suburb of Anchorage. “One of the underlying reasons for the federal government’s denial of Eklutna’s proposed casino is because the land is not deemed ‘Indian Country.’ There are ‘no established government to government relations’ over the privately owned Ondola land.”
Powers discounts assertions that the resolution had nothing to do with Indian gaming. “The resolution’s language suggests otherwise. In fact, the municipal resolution attempts to define one of the significant deficits in the Eklutna lawsuit, namely that Eklutna is sovereign and a tribe on tribal land.”
ACGA is “strongly opposed to Indian gaming in Alaska,” said Powers. “Our industry members operate under, and are designated as, Class II Gaming. Bingo game payouts are limited to $1,000 per game and pull-tab prizes are limited to $500 max payout. The percentages of net proceeds paid to the charities are defined and regulated by the Alaska Department of Revenue/Gaming Division. We have found neither gaming abuse, nor drug and alcohol abuse problems or prevalence, in our members’ establishments thanks to Alaska’s efficient system.”
According to Powers, Class II Indian gaming is “dramatically different.”
“If approved, Eklutna’s new casino would have electronic versions of bingo and pull-tab games that have jackpot payouts exceeding $100,000 and capping at levels as high as $1 million. The electronic versions of these games are incredibly close to Class III slot machines.” These differences would make it impossible for charitable gaming operations to compete, said Powers. “It may also open the door for a conflagration of Indian casinos across Alaska, ultimately decimating charitable gaming in the state.”
Powers sees “tremendous pressure from out-of-state gambling organizations and big money donors pursuing casino opportunities through an Indian Tribe/Land federal dynamic. ACGA fears our Alaskan Native brothers and sisters are being taken advantage of by profit-minded investors who care little about the charitable gaming model and Alaskan communities, and more about personal gain and revenue.”
She adds, “A new casino like the Native Village of Eklutna is proposing will take money from non-profits, reduce state payments, benefit a very few, reduce service jobs in charitable gaming, reduce flights and hotel accommodations and food service in Lower 48 states that offer casino play, and it will more than likely entice the criminal element and possible addictive outcomes with Alaskans who can’t control themselves.”
The Department of the Interior turned down the Village’s request to put a bingo-style casino on land it leases from tribal members because, it said, the land doesn’t meet the legal definition of “Indian lands.” The tribe’s lawsuit seeks to reverse that decision.
Last year, Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz sent a letter to the Department of the Interior, advocating for the tribe to operate electronic bingo games. “The Municipality of Anchorage supports the (Native Village of Eklutna’s) goals of economic determination and believes both the tribe and the surrounding community will benefit from the jobs and related economic development the project will bring,” he wrote.
The mayor was available for comment. A spokesman stated, “The mayor doesn’t have further comments beyond what he has stated previously, and affirms his recognition of Tribal sovereignty and the right to economic self-determination.”
