Indian gaming bill tabled by House committee
Pub Date: 3/1/2007
The House Business and Labor Committee tabled HB146 February 16 which could have allowed, depending on the Governor's assent, open Class III gaming on Montana's Indain resrvations.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joey Jayne, (D) Arlee, was heard in committee February 12. It was supported by representatives of a number of Montana tribes, but was opposed by groups that object to expanded gambling.
The bill, a product of the interim Committee on State/Tribal Relations, would have given the Governor the power to allow tribes to take total jurisdiction over all gambling within reservation borders.
A technical note attached to the bill cautioned that it could be unconstitutional for the Legislature to delegate It's authority over gambling allowed in the state to the Governor.
The bill also carried a fiscal note that Rep Jayne said she would not sign because she disagreed with its conclusions that the bill could cost the state general fund over $2 million annually by 2011.
Sen. Carol Juneau, (D) Browning, led the proponents' testimony. She told the committee that tribes needed expanded gambling as a strategy to build reservation economies and improve the welfare of tribal members. She was echoed by representatives of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Blackfeet, Crow, and the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine of the Ft. Belknap Reservation.
Among proponent comments were: many Montana reservations are removed from tourism corridors so need tourism draws'; gaming taxes would help tribes improve health and elder care'; don't want to have to continue to beg federal government for program funding'; Indian gaming would help non-tribal neighbors'; tribes could share revenues with local governments'; tribes currently relying on only Class II gaming (bingo and derivatives) have found it not to be a great opportunity and its future is threatened by pending federal decisions.
They also said: tribal gaming compacts in Montana are the worst in the nation'; tribes operate 600-700 Class III gaming machines compared to 17,000 operated by the 1,700 non tribal licensed businesses'; tribes have jurisdiction in many other areas so why not gambling, too?'; current levels of tribal gaming aren't enough to attract outside investors.
And: a large casino at the Big Horn Battlefield would be a good tourism draw'; tribes currently have to compete with non-tribal private operators'; the state lottery is a precedent that should allow tribes to offer unlimited gaming'; other states have allowed tribes to offer gaming not allowed elsewhere.
Opponents included representatives from the Montana Family Foundation (Focus on the Family), Don't Gamble With the Future, Montana Values Alliance and the Eagle Forum.
They argued against expanded gambling on the grounds that it creates a menu of social ills including crime, poverty, bankruptcy, addiction, child abuse and so on.
Some questioned the constitutionality or appropriateness of the Legislature abdicating to the governor the power to authorize gambling expansion while others said the tribes should be satisfied to offer the same gaming as non-tribal operators. One opponent suggested the tribes should instead turn to resource development to build reservation economies and another questioned the economic damage that might be done to Montana's small licensed business owners.
One characterized the move as a "power grab" by the governor (though no evidence was presented to support that contention) and said granting the tribes full jurisdiction would be disrespectful of native peoples. Another opponent said tribal expansion might prompt other non-profit entities to seek equity.
In the question and answer session, one tribal representative said tribes could go to court to assert the state has negotiated in bad faith and, if successful, could then approach the Secty. of the interior for special consideration, circumventing state oversight.
The spokesman also said in other jurisdictions tribes have had legislative approval for full casino gambling and in still others tribes had used the initiative process, both options open to tribes here. Â Â
Source: The Montana Tavern Times, March. 2007, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.