Connecticut Speaker of the House Joe Aresimowicz last week said the chances of a casino being built in Bridgeport or elsewhere in the state were “zero” without a nod from the federal government.
He was referring to both the Bridgeport casino proposed by MGM and the East Windsor casino the state authorized the state’s two gaming tribes to build—but which has been held up by lack of action on an amended tribal state gaming compact by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Speaker told the press: “The idea of an additional casino being built in Connecticut without Bureau of Indian Affairs approval is zero. It is not going to happen. We need to move forward with a comprehensive plan of what gambling looks like.”
His remarks echoed those of Attorney General George Jepsen the day before. Noting that the BIA has yet to answer the tribes’ request to publish revisions to the compacts in the Federal Register, Jepsen said that it would be “imprudent” for the tribes to try to open the casino.
The Speaker then turned to the bill being considered by lawmakers that would open casino bidding to commercial bidders. MGM, which has called for an open bidding process open to all, has said it wants to build a $650 million casino in Bridgeport.
He said he is open to exploring such a casino, but hasn’t seen a concrete proposal from MGM as yet.
MGM spokesman Uri Clinton commented, “We reassert our view that the fastest, most effective way to achieve those goals, and modernize the state’s decades-old gaming structure, is to move forward with a competitive process, which legislators from Bridgeport, New Haven and the region continue to advocate.”
Clinton added, “The competitive process bill was overwhelmingly approved by a legislative committee weeks ago, and it deserves a vote in the House and Senate before the legislature adjourns on May 9.”
The Attorney General in his opinion earlier in the week warned that the state risked losing all of its tribal casino revenue if it followed the advice of some to assume that the amendments to the tribal compacts were “deemed approved” because the BIA did not reject them at the end of the normal 45-day review period.
Jepsen wrote, “Our view of the risks of proceeding without federal approval of the amendments is unchanged. Indeed, subsequent events and actions of Interior only reaffirm our view that approval of the amendments is highly recommended to protect the State’s interests under the Compacts and the MOUs.”
The AG added, “To take action on the assumption that the State and Tribes will succeed in the ongoing litigation would be highly imprudent.”
Because the BIA has taken no action, the state and the tribes have sued in federal court to force it to do what they claim it is required by statute to do.
If the tribes were to stop paying their 25 percent, as they currently do under the compacts, the state would lose $260 million a year.
Although the tribes have claimed that their compacts also give them exclusive rights to offer sports betting should the U.S. Supreme Court lift the current federal ban, Jepsen disagrees.
He wrote, “The Compacts set out a list of authorized games. Sports betting is not listed as an authorized game. By contrast, for example, pari-mutuel betting on horse and dog racing and jai alai games are authorized games. The exclusion of sports betting from the specific list of authorized games is compelling evidence that the Compacts do not presently authorize it.”
