The South Dakota Senate voted 23-12 against Senate Joint Resolution 9, which would have placed on the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing a casino in Yankton. Supporters said a casino and eventual hotel and convention facility at Port Yankton could give the area an economic boost and bring additional revenue to the state. They said the casino would generate an estimated $3.5-$4.5 million annually for the state government’s general fund. The casino would be located in the former Gurney Seed building.
Previously, the Senate Local Government Committee sent the measure to the full Senate “without recommendation.” Senators voted 18-7 to debate the resolution.
A coalition of South Dakota and Nebraska tribes that operate casinos strongly opposes the Port Yankton Project, claiming a commercial casino would cannibalize revenue that supports tribal services. State Senator Larry Tidemann, the bill’s sponsor, said three rounds of negotiations had been held with tribal governments that operate casinos in the Yankton area. But those talks didn’t produce results, he said.
However, he added the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes expressed interest in the project, but tribes are not allowed to operate gambling on non-reservation land. “Tribes cannot run a casino off the reservation,” he said. Consultant Ross Garelick Bell, an adviser to several tribal governments, noted, “There’s yet to be a feasibility study.” He added five casinos within driving distance of Yankton are operated by tribal governments on the Yankton, Flandreau, Rosebud, Crow Creek and Santee reservations. South Dakota has 36 casinos, of which 13 are Native American owned.
Tidemann added the Port Yankton plan calls for the state license to be held by a nonprofit, as opposed to tribes which operate for a profit.
Officials from Deadwood also oppose the Yankton casino. They recommended that the Yankton developers start a petition initiative to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. Deadwood successfully took that approach in the late 1980s.
State Senator Ryan Maher suggested the “without recommendation” motion. He said, “It puts all sides to continue these talks. It could be the first in that nation to have parties working together for the betterment of the whole area.”
Tidemann stated studies were conducted on the Yankton proposal but they were too late for promoters to organize a petition drive before the deadline for the November election. He pointed out the state constitution also allows the legislature to directly propose constitutional amendments on the ballot, and that’s what the Port Yankton developers chose. They didn’t want to wait for the 2020 general election, Tidemann said, because “two and a half years for an economic development project is a lifetime. Right now the enthusiasm is there for Port Yankton.”
Tidemann moved to reconsider the Senate’s vote at a future date. If six nay votes switch to aye, the bill could move to the House for further action.
