Savvy observers of Indian gaming are looking at five issues of paramount importance this year, according to a recent report by Indianz.com.
The first is internet gaming, with the current action happening in various state capitols as legislatures decide whether to legalize the practice within their borders. The biggest state considering this is California.
Since the Golden State has the greatest number of gaming tribes, they are intimately involved in trying to craft a law that will help rather than hurt their existing casinos. The same can be said of most Indian gaming tribes in the rest of the U.S. One of the biggest pieces of that puzzle is exclusivity, i.e. the ability of tribes to maintain the gaming monopoly that most state tribal gaming compacts guarantee them.
Some tribes are championing a federal solution to this conundrum, but Congress appears to have little stomach to address it at this time.
Off-reservation gaming is another major issue, with the accompanying label “reservation shopping,” that opponents apply to the practice of granting some tribes trust land significant distances from their reservations.
While off-reservation approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is rare, and must always include approval by the state governor, the Obama administration’s openness to making it much easier has aroused hot opposition, including opposition from his own party, such as California’s senior Senator Dianne Feinstein. But many established gaming tribes also oppose the practice, because it allows competition to be dropped right into their back yards.
California voters will decided on one such application by the North Fork Rancheria on Mono Indians, in November. Funding to put the referendum on the ballot was provided largely by an established tribe that doesn’t want the competition.
Compacts in a number of states, including New Mexico and Florida, are approaching their expiration dates, which is prompting those states to attempt to renegotiate compacts that are more favorable to them. In other words, compacts that pay the states more money.
In New Mexico several Pueblo tribes are digging in their heels, and one, the Pueblo of Pojoaque, has sued in federal court claiming that New Mexico is not negotiating in good faith.
In Florida the state is negotiating with the Seminole Tribe, which owns seven casinos as well as the Hard Rock brand.
California’s compacts, most of which were first approved in 1999 and 2000, are also starting to come up for review.
The report by Indianz.com also includes the Florida negotiations as part of the state’s plans to conduct an overhaul of its gaming regulations.
The fifth issue to watch is the large number of tribes that are trying to purge their tribal rolls in order to cut the number of members getting payments from casino profits. As the gaming pie shrinks a bit, the solution proposed is to limit the number of people getting slices.
