Hundreds of protestors recently held a rally at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa to show their opposition to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange’s recent raids and closures of four bingo halls, resulting in the loss of 1,000 jobs. The protestors also said Strange’s actions infringed on their voting rights, since Greene County voters approved a state constitutional amendment authorizing electronic bingo in 2003. But state law enforcement has raided Greenetrack and other gaming facilities three times since 2010. Strange has said the electronic bingo machines are illegal slot machines.
State Senator Bobby Singleton said, “This is not about a plant that closed down and decided to move somewhere else. This is the Alabama state government that has put our people out of jobs. This is way bigger than bingo now. This is about a fight for our people’s right to vote.”
State Rep. Terri Sewell added, “I am proud to stand with my constituents in Greene County and surrounding areas to express our concern about voting rights being ignored and the loss of jobs associated with these raids. The people of Greene County have been repeatedly targeted by the State in politically motivated raids in violation of their constitutional rights.” Sewell recently wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting the Justice Department investigate possible voting rights violations in Greene County.
Also in Alabama, last month U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins ruled that the state of Alabama cannot interfere with casinos on tribal land. The case involved the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, which operates three class III casinos on tribal lands; only class II facilities, electronic games of chance, are allowed in the state. Watkins said the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 supersedes Alabama state law and that the three facilities are permitted under the federal act. “The bottom line is that even if the tribe is operating illegal class III gaming at the Poarch Band casinos, IGRA does not provide the state authority to prohibit such gaming,” Watkins wrote.
The ruling has implications in the dispute between the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the state. Last year, the Martha’s Vineyard tribe said it planned to convert a community center to a casino facility on land it owns in Aquinnah. In December Governor Deval Patrick filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Judicial Court to block the tribe from building the gaming facility. The state claims the tribe breached a 1983 land claims settlement agreement by taking steps to allow gaming in Aquinnah, including organizing a gaming commission and passing a gaming ordinance. The Aquinnah town counsel also said the tribe waived its sovereignty rights in the settlement agreement, which states that the tribal lands are subject to state and local laws. The sovereignty agreement later led to the tribe being granted federal recognition.
In 2004 the agreement was upheld by the state Supreme Court in a landmark case that ruled the tribe was bound to follow local zoning laws. The tribe said IGRA supersedes the settlement agreement and moved the current case to federal court in January. The state has petitioned to have the case remanded back to state court.
Immediately following the latest federal court, the Vineyard tribe filed a supplementary brief stating, “The district court’s analysis in this case of the preemptive impact of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on state laws affecting Indian gaming supports the preemption exception. The District Court dismissed the state’s complaint, concluding that Congress intended IGRA to preempt all state-law claims that ‘interfere with tribal governance of gaming.’ ”
In a response, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said the Alabama case is irrelevant to the Vineyard tribe’s petition. “The tribe is wrong. Any comparison of Poarch Creek Indian Gaming to this case is unfounded,” she wrote, adding while Alabama and the Poarch tribe both agreed that IGRA applied to the lawsuit, the question of whether IGRA applies at all is disputed in the Vineyard case.
