Wednesday, July 13, 2005 | 9:02 a.m.
ST. PAUL -- There were endless headlines, hours of debate and a hard push from Gov. Tim Pawlenty himself, but after all that the 2005 legislative session saw no significant changes to the state's gambling landscape.
But few involved in the issue think it's going away anytime soon.
"We know it's not over," said Jake Reint, a spokesman for the Prairie Island Indian Community, which spent almost $355,000 in the first half of 2005 lobbying against efforts to break the tribal monopoly on the casino business in the state.
Prairie Island and other wealthy casino-owning tribes, as well as gambling opponents from across the political spectrum, maintained a united front against efforts by Pawlenty and some lawmakers to expand gambling with proposals including a state-tribal casino, and a private casino at Canterbury Park racetrack.
While backers of expanded gambling retreat to consider their options, tribal groups said they'd try to more effectively demonstrate their current commitment to the state -- and would work to mend some fractured relationships within Minnesota's Indian community brought about by the recent debate.
"We were optimistic that this year was a great opportunity for us to pass the legislation, so we're disappointed it didn't happen," said Randy Sampson, president of Canterbury Park. "But we don't see this as the end of the road. It's just another step in what we're trying to accomplish."
Backers of the so-called racino at the Shakopee racetrack have pushed the project at the Legislature for nearly a decade, to no avail. But Pawlenty upped the ante on the gambling debate toward the end of last year, first with a call for the state's wealthier tribes to contribute a share of their profits with the state in exchange for a continued gambling monopoly.
When they refused, Pawlenty announced that the state would pursue a new, metro-area casino in partnership with three poor northern Minnesota tribes whose isolation largely denied them the casino profits enjoyed by tribes with casinos near the Twin Cities.
The plan went through several permutations, including the brief notion that it would anchor a major expansion at Bloomington's Mall of America. But opposition remained stiff throughout -- from Democratic leaders in the Legislature, from liberal and conservative religious groups, even from many Republican fiscal conservatives traditionally allied with Pawlenty.
Ultimately the governor tried to combine the state-tribal venture with the Canterbury casino, alienating two of the three northern tribes in the process. When that failed, the governor made one last push for the racino alone.
But the final deal with Democrats that ended the session contained not a cent in new money from expanded gambling, and Pawlenty said that failure to achieve what he's dubbed "gaming fairness" was his biggest disappointment of the session.
It's not clear if Pawlenty will continue to use his bully pulpit to push for changes to gambling in the state.
"Gaming fairness is still an issue, and the Legislature's failure to do anything doesn't change that," Tom Mason, a spokesman for Pawlenty, said Tuesday. But, he added, "It's too early to speculate on what may or may not happen in the future."
Leaders of the three northern tribes -- White Earth, Red Lake and Leech Lake -- did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Sampson said Canterbury officials are rethinking their strategy and that the same approach might not make sense during the 2006 election. "We'll still be dealing with the same 201 legislators then," he said.
Another option, he said, is to push for a constitutional amendment that would ask voters to decide if the state should allow more legalized gambling.
Pawlenty's vocal advocacy could still force the wealthier tribes to reconsider their refusal to allow the state a share of casino profits, said Lawrence Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota.
"The tribes dodged a bullet," Jacobs said. "If they're forward-looking and they're smart, if they want to avoid having this same fight over and over again, they're going to cut some kind of deal."
John McCarthy, executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Alliance, predicted that would never happen. He said the southern tribes were moving ahead with plans for a foundation that would make sizable monetary grants to the poorer northern tribes, in part to address the criticism that some tribes are doing better with casinos than others.
"We want to make sure that people understand tribes are doing things to help each other," McCarthy said. "We want to do a better job of explaining that Indian gaming is not a negative for the state. It's a positive."
archive
