The proposal in the North Dakota House for the state to own up to six casinos could cause more friction between the legislature and the state’s tribes, who are already unhappy over the battle over the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
Some lawmakers feel that Rep. Al Carlson’s idea is a way of punishing tribes for the law enforcement expenses the state had to incur over the Standing Rock protests associated with the pipeline, which brought in thousands of protesters last year.
There are five tribal casinos in the state and the tribes that own them feel that the proposal threatens their reservations’ economies.
Despite the accusations that his proposal is payback for the protests, Carlson insists he wants to create “destination-oriented attractions” to help cut sales tax and corporate income tax.
Some of Carlson’s colleagues think that the only real effect of the proposal will be to further damage relations with the tribes. The legislature has previously passed bills that made it a crime to wear a mask at protests and that increased penalties for rioting and trespassing—as a direct result of the protests.
Patrick Packineau, general manager of the Four Bears Casino, has a more practical reason for opposing Carlson’s bill: he believes it will dilute the effectiveness of the existing casinos. “Additional casinos would only cannibalize the market even further,” he told Yogonet.
Carlson’s bill would put a proposed constitutional amendment before the voters. Recently inaugurated Governor Doug Burgum opposes the bill. “The state should not be getting into the casino ownership business,” he said last week.
