Add It All Together . . .

Thread: Off-Reservation Gaming

. . . and it’s apparent that the state has a huge amount of control over whether an off-reservation casino will open within its borders.

Most obvious, of course, is the governor’s veto power over the “best interests” exception, explained earlier. The governor can just say no. Period.

Both state and local government influence come into play at other points, too, from beginning to end. State public policy determines whether, and to what extent, Indian gaming will be legal in the first place. The federal land-into-trust process includes state and local input, as well as an appeals process. The federal Interior Secretary is required, under the best-interests exception, to consult with local and state officials. And for casino-style gaming, the state negotiates the terms of a tribal-state compact. (For a detailed discussion of the politics of the tribal-state compact requirement, see our first book, Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. For a straightforward and thorough discussion of the legal requirements for tribal-state compacting -- arguably separate from the politics, although not in practice -- see our second book, Indian Gaming Law and Policy.)

That’s why, to us, the arguments that states do not have control over off-reservation gaming seem disingenuous. Nevertheless, the specter of off-reservation gaming carries political clout.

Next up in this thread: The “real deal” on Senator John McCain’s proposed legislation on off-reservation casinos –- or why “too much success” is a problem.