New Mexico tribes ask court to dismiss state lawsuit

Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2000 | 8:56 a.m.

In June, Attorney General Patricia Madrid sued the tribes for refusing to make good on their 1997 revenue-sharing agreement and turn over the required 16 percent of their slot-machine revenue to the state.

They include the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache tribes and the pueblos of Acoma, Isleta, Laguna, Pojoaque, Sandia, San Felipe, San Juan, Santa Ana, Taos and Tesuque.

Madrid said revenue-sharing required under 1997 compacts between the state and tribes is legal. But she asked the court to throw out the entirety of the compacts - and not just the revenue-sharing portion - if the judge disagrees.

"We would welcome a federal court decision as to whether or not the 16 percent revenue sharing is legal - we'd live by it," said David C. Mielke, an attorney representing Sandia and Isleta.

"But the state is saying, if they (the state) lose, then the compact is void," he said. "So the stakes are changed. The state is trying to frame it so they can't lose."

Lt. Gov. Gilbert Suazo of Taos Pueblo argued that the current compact with the state amounts to an illegal tax on tribal governments.

"We said that when we signed (the compact) under protest in '97," he said.

As for the lawsuit, Suazo said his tribe would vigorously defend its right to continue operating its casino.

"But we will sit at a negotiating table to bring fair and just resolution to these issues," he said.

"All the tribes have been willing to work government to government," said Taos Gov. Don LightningBow. "But the state has negated that type of relationship."

LightningBow said the Taos casino has had a positive economic effect on the pueblo and the neighboring town of Taos.

"Many casino employees are receiving fair wages and benefits for the first time in their lives," he said.

Assistant Attorney General Christopher Coppin said he was not surprised by Monday's petitions.

"We're confident that the U.S. District Court has the juristiction to hear this case and rule in our favor," Coppin said. "We think the law is clear."

Coppin said the situation the tribes now face was self-induced.

"They opened their casinos before they had a compact and then they continued to operate after the (state) Supreme Court said there was no valid compact with the governor," he said.

Essentially, said Coppin, the tribes have put themselves between "a rock and a hard place" - having either to pay the 16 percent or shut down.

"Right now we're getting nothing, and there's no settlement on the horizon," Coppin said. "We have no option. Our job is to enforce the law, and that's what we're trying to do."