Babbitt on a tight rope on gaming

Thursday, April 18, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

INTERIOR Secretary Bruce Babbitt must have mixed emotions over the latest Supreme Court ruling.

After the court dropped the hot issue of Indian gaming on his shoulders, Babbitt now has the troublesome responsibility of resolving disputes between the states and the tribes.

The court passed the volatile issue to the secretary about a month after it ruled tribes cannot force states to accept reservation gaming through federal litigation. The March ruling was hailed as a victory for the states, some of which have chafed under court orders permitting casinos on reservations within their borders. The states have taken a beating in federal court under the 1988 Indian Gaming Act.

Many states have little or no permitted gaming, but have found themselves powerless to limit or regulate reservation casinos. The Supreme Court's first rule seemed to give the states more power. Closer scrutiny raised doubts about who would be the final arbiter. Those doubts were realized this week when the Supreme Court said the Interior Department has sole responsibility for gaming on reservations.

As Interior nervously puts together new rules to regulate gaming -- and it appears to be in no hurry to do that -- states are wondering where they stand in all this. Babbitt has been sympathetic to states' rights and to the economic needs on the reservations, which translates as Indian gaming.

Whether Babbitt will lend a sympathetic ear to the states when hearing the disputes is the big question.

Also in doubt is whether Babbitt will now initiate reasonable regulation of casinos on reservations. That has been noticeably lacking in the eight years Indian gaming has been allowed. Attempts in Congress to instill enforcement have run into stiff resistance from the tribes. The last attempt died in 1994.

We also wonder if Interior's rules will provide a working framework that will prevent wild swings in enforcement by succeeding secretaries. If Babbitt handles the Indian gaming issue as well as he has the Colorado River allotments, neither Indians nor states have much to fear. His reputation for fairness should quiet most disputes.

But we're not sure about his successor. That's why consistent regulation is in order, one that will survive presidential administrations. Otherwise, neither the tribes nor the states can have much confidence in the future.