Washington state tribes in battle over gambling

Paul Queary

Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2002 | 9:52 a.m.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- With hundreds of millions of dollars in gambling profits at stake, Indian tribes and non-tribal gambling interests are pouring money into political races and gearing up for a fight in next year's Washington state Legislature.

On one side, the tribes hope to retain their exclusive right to operate slot-machine-like games that have pumped millions into tribal coffers in recent years. On the other, non-Indian card rooms, bingo halls, bars, restaurants and bowling alleys want access to the lucrative machines, and they're promising the cash-strapped state a fat new source of tax money for the privilege.

"It's going to be very tempting for some folks because we're going to be having some pretty hard times financially," says veteran Sen. Margarita Prentice, whose Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions Committee deals with gambling issues.

But expanding gambling in Washington is a tall order -- even with state government hungry for money. It takes a 60 percent vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of Gov. Gary Locke, who's generally opposed.

The issue will likely cut across party lines in the Legislature. On one side, those who oppose gambling for moral reasons will ally with tribal advocates. On the other, lawmakers worried about finding money to avert drastic spending cuts may join up with champions of non-tribal gambling.

So both Indian tribes and non-tribal gambling interests are actively playing in races that will decide the makeup of the new Legislature. Members of a new lobbying group called the Entertainment Industry Coalition -- which includes card rooms, restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, charitable organizations, and horse-racing interests -- have donated more than $43,000 to dozens of candidates from the Legislature. The coalition itself has more than $100,000 in the bank.

The group's pitch? Allow as many as 18,900 new gambling machines in bingo halls, card rooms, race tracks, bars and restaurants. The machines, it argues, would jump-start businesses all over the state and pour hundreds of millions into the state's economy. A similar proposal died earlier this year.

"Give us the same machines under the same rules," said Lincoln Ferris, executive director of the coalition and a longtime lobbyist. "When you ask people: Is it fair that the state sanctions a monopoly in the most popular form of gaming? The answer is no."

If the coalition succeeds, it could roughly double the number of such gambling machines in the state.

Under current law, non-tribal minicasinos can only offer poker and several variations on blackjack. The profits of such games are limited because of dealers' wages and the possibility that skilled players can beat the house.

Legalized gambling at bars, bowling alleys and other establishments is restricted to pull-tabs and punchboards. Along with bingo, interest in such games has fallen off in recent years as tribal gambling grew.

Electronic tribal lottery machines -- think slot machines without the lever -- have no such disadvantage. They operate automatically with little supervision, and they always win in the end.

"It's not a game that requires a lot of skill like a lot of the table games," said Brian Cladoosby, Chairman of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, which operates the Northern Lights Casino in rural Skagit County. "People feel more comfortable at the machines."

Tribal officials argue that income from the machines -- which isn't subject to state taxes -- is transforming Indian country and reducing the state's costs by providing jobs and allowing tribes to pay for their own government services.

"We have the snowball effect here of taking care of ourselves, which is relieving the state government of the burden of taking care of Indian country," said John McCoy, an official with the Tulalip tribe who is seeking a seat in the Legislature.

The tribe's casino outside Marysville, which houses more than 1,000 machines, fuels dozens of government programs and tribal enterprises, McCoy says, including QuilCeda Village, a 2,000-acre commercial development that has attracted retailers including Wal-Mart and Home Depot.

They worry that increased non-tribal gambling, which isn't tied to sometimes remote tribal land, could undercut the tribes' market. Tribes with gambling operations have plowed more than $55,000 into campaigns for the Legislature, a tiny fraction of their gambling proceeds, estimated in a recent study at $892 million per year.

Ferris contends there's room for much more gambling in Washington and points to ambitious plans for new and expanded tribal casinos as proof.

"The gaming market continues to grow at double-digit rates every year," Ferris said.

Tribal officials argue their advantage is essentially a government monopoly, like the lottery or state liquor stores, with all the proceeds earmarked for worthy causes.

"When the law was written, it was written so only governments could operate these machines," Cladoosby said. "The money goes to government services from offering reduced utility bills for our elders to providing $12,000 scholarships to our kids when they graduate."

Proposals to tax or expand non-tribal gambling to help balance the state budget circulated in the waning days of this year's Legislature, and they could do better next year -- especially if the alternative is a general tax increase.

"It could be close," said Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, one of many lawmakers who oppose increased non-tribal gambling. "There's a lot of envy of the tribal casinos, how well they've done."

Along with sympathetic votes in the Legislature, tribes are counting on Locke. They say Locke promised them exclusive rights when the machines were introduced in return for limiting their numbers.

"The governor assured us that while he was in office he would not sign any bill that would allow our machines to go into private for-profit businesses," Cladoosby said.

Roger Nyhus, Locke's spokesman, said the governor remains opposed to expansions of gambling, but wouldn't confirm an outright promise to the tribes.

"Many issues were discussed during the final negotiations, and that was not what we took away from the meeting," Nyhus said.