Indian gambling measure defeated

Scott Thomsen

Thursday, May 23, 2002 | 9:31 a.m.

PHOENIX -- Members of the House have rejected a plan to extend casino operations on Indian reservations, which is likely to put the issue before voters this fall.

On a 28-25 vote Wednesday, the House defeated a bill (SB1001) that outlined a deal negotiated by Gov. Jane Hull and 17 tribes. The vote fell short of the majority needed to pass the bill, but the tribes had been hoping for a two-thirds majority to protect the bill from a referendum election challenge.

"Gambling is a disease," Rep. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, said. "The percentage of people who are going to be harmed by it is going to be larger than we know."

The Legislature may not be able to stop an initiative, he said, "but we can make our statement now."

While the tribes were scheduled to review their options this morning, it appears unlikely lawmakers will reverse their decision. That means the tribes' best hope rests with an initiative that would ask voters to approve essentially the same deal presented to the Legislature.

"If we can't get 40 votes in the House, it's time for us to move forward with the initiative," Arizona Indian Gaming Association Executive Director David LaSarte said. "It's very disappointing to us that something we spent 2 1/2 years on trying to make it a good deal for everyone in Arizona couldn't get through."

Hull, who met individually with legislators this week to rally support for the bill, was angered by Wednesday's vote and the effort by horse and dog racetrack officials to kill it. Track officials fear an expansion of Indian casinos and want slot machines of their own.

"This bill wasn't defeated, it was mugged by track lobbyists who want casino gaming to spread off reservation," Hull said. "It was a sound policy for the future of Arizona. I trust the people of Arizona to make the right decision at the ballot in November."

Under the bill, tribes would have been able to put more slot machines into play and offer Las Vegas-style blackjack. The state would have received regulatory oversight and up to 8 percent of the gross revenues. The deal would have lasted up to 23 years.

Proponents said it would have limited the scope of casino gambling, kept it on reservations, provided regulation and given the state a share of the profits.

Critics said it was too long, didn't give the state enough money and kept the public from seeing how much the tribes made. Some also opposed a "poison pill" that would have eliminated revenue sharing and limits on the number of slot machines and card games if anyone outside the tribes was allowed to operate gambling.

"I don't think the agreement is appropriate for all the concerns of the state and all the concerns of the tribes," Rep. Steve Huffman, R-Tucson, said. "I think we're giving up everything that we negotiated."

Without a bill from the Legislature, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Tucson, said Arizonans will have to sort through a complicated initiative campaign with competing proposals and millions of dollars in advertising.

"Shame on us," she said. "Now, we are confronting our voters with at least three initiatives. Where is the leadership?"

In addition to the proposal from the 17 Indian Gaming Association tribes, the racetracks and the Colorado River Indian Tribe are collecting signatures for initiatives.

The Colorado River Indian Tribe proposal would allow a wider range of table games such as craps and roulette while only sharing 3 percent of the profits.

The racetracks' plan would allow them to operate slot machines and require Indian casinos to share a flat 8 percent of their gross gambling revenue.

"It's clear that the voters want to decide this and they'll have a number of choices," said Jeff Sandquist, an attorney for American Greyhound Racing, which operates tracks in Phoenix and Apache Junction.