Nevada casino owner backing Minnesota gambling bill

Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2001 | 9:54 a.m.

Don Laughlin and some lawmakers critical of Minnesota Indian tribes' monopoly in casino gaming are betting that the Legislature might authorize a state-owned casino, or perhaps schedule a statewide vote in 2002 on a constitutional amendment to authorize one.

But it's an emotionally-charged issue, and the proposal faces long odds.

"I know the bills are going to be introduced, and I know that there is a growing feeling that some competition needs to exist," said House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon.

"My sense is it would be very, very emotional," said Sviggum, who said he probably would vote against a casino bill.

The casino proposal is being pushed by Laughlin, 69, an Owatonna native who once operated slot machines and pinball games in southern Minnesota. Laughlin moved in the 1950s from Minnesota to Nevada, Since 1966, he has operated a large casino and motel complex in Laughlin, Nev., about 95 miles south of Las Vegas.

Last spring, he visited a number of Minnesota legislators to promote his idea for a Minnesota casino run by a private operator that would pay 90 percent of its net profits to the state. Recently he estimated the state's share of the take could be $100 million a year.

To promote his plan, Laughlin hired six lobbyists, including Wayne Simoneau, a former Minnesota lawmaker and state finance commissioner.

So far, only one legislator has publicly said he would sponsor a casino bill.

Senate Minority Leader Dick Day, R-Owatonna, who was an outspoken advocate for the 1997 Canterbury casino proposal, said he told Laughlin's lobbyists that they should try to find a DFL sponsor in the Senate, but that he would sponsor it if no one else would.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Roger Moe has opposed non-Indian casinos. Sen. Jim Vickerman, DFL-Tracy, chairman of the committee that oversees gaming legislation, said no casino bill will get through his committee.

In the House, any casino bill would face opposition from two sides: Democrats who want to protect Indian gaming as an economic development tool for tribes, and Republican religious conservatives who view gambling as morally wrong.

Rep. Jim Rhodes, R-St. Louis Park, chairman of the Governmental Operations committee that would be the first stop for any casino bill in the House, said no lawmakers have talked to him about a casino bill. Nevertheless, Rhodes said he expected a bill to surface and to become a significant issue.

One factor that could turn legislative sentiment toward a casino would be any indication that a casino at the Hudson, Wis. dog track will be approved.

If it appeared that a Hudson casino would draw gamblers across the border, Minnesota lawmakers would be more likely to support a state-owned casino to keep the business at home.

The 18 casinos operating in Minnesota are all owned by Indian tribes. They are operated on reservations and are permitted by federal law and agreements between the state and the tribes.

Private casinos are banned under a provision in the state constitution that has been interpreted to mean that casino games of chance are lotteries and can only be operated by the state.

In 1997, the Minnesota Senate narrowly defeated a proposal for the Minnesota Lottery to build a state-owned casino at Canterbury Park racetrack to raise money for a new baseball stadium. Last year, the Legislature approved a poker room at Canterbury, but a bill authorizing a larger state-owned casino with slot machines and blackjack tables at Canterbury did not receive a floor vote in either house.