Native American Press/Ojibwe News

Lawsuits focus attention on Indian gambling

by Bill Lawrence

Although the filing of the multiple lawsuits by the tribes to block access to casino audits wasn’t a surprise, the recent flurry of legal actions raises a number of questions regarding what kind of advice tribal officials are getting—and following—from their attorneys.

It is understandable that the tribal establishment wants to maintain the status quo, but it is doubtful that the status quo is in the best interests of Indian people.

In view of what is going on in Arizona regarding the legality of Indian gambling, and in light of recent federal court decisions limiting tribal jurisdiction, striking down tribal courts as illegal, and even limiting Indian tribes’ sovereign immunity: tribes ought to be looking more to the future than to the past.  Rather than trying to maintain the status quo, tribes would have been better off talking to the State of Minnesota and expressing a willingness to make concessions to the state in order to extend their monopoly for another five or ten years: cutting the state into a share of casino revenues, ensuring that casino patrons have rights, and ensuring casino accountability.

According to what Press/ON has heard, Governor Ventura had a staff meeting on the audit issue late Wednesday afternoon, and legislators are presently meeting to draft changes in legislation affecting the state-tribal compacts and Indian gambling enterprises in Minnesota.

It appears that the controversy and lawsuits will focus a lot of media attention and public discussion on Indian gambling, and that it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  This will probably result in major changes being made with respect to Indian casinos in Minnesota, including the likelihood of political pressure forcing renegotiation of the compacts, as well as increased lobbying from interests who would like to break the Indian tribal governments’ monopoly and compete in the high-stakes gambling business.

Questions regarding the legality of video slots, keno, and poker could be raised—and the way that Indian casinos are conducting these games in Minnesota could be challenged.

The decision by tribal attorneys to try to block the release of the casino audits could very well prove to be not in the best interests of Indian tribal governments or their gambling enterprises.

The arguments raised by the tribal attorneys in their motions for temporary injunctions and other complaints indicate a serious lack of solid legal grounds, for which the tribal attorneys have attempted to compensate by a shotgun approach raising any conceivable argument, and some that would be inconceivable to anyone except an Indian tribal attorney.

I think that most of the arguments have already been litigated and rejected by the federal courts in the Siletz and Chehalis cases.  In addition, most of their arguments have already been proven to be frivolous by former Shakopee tribal chairman Leonard Prescott’s release of audited financial statements to the Star Tribune, which published lengthy news stories based on that information, and by this newspaper’s publication of Red Lake and White Earth audits.

It is unfortunate that the tribes are expending large sums of money on legal fees to try to block public access to Indian casino audits.  It seems to me that by being open and accountable, the casinos would generate more public support in the communities in which they reside, and also with the State.  If they are using this money for good purposes, the best way to show it would be to make the audits publicly available.