House State Affairs rejects anti-tribal gaming bill, 8-7
The House State Affairs Committee has voted 8-7 to kill HB 127, the anti-tribal gaming bill, which sought to amend the law Idaho voters enacted by initiative in 2002 permitting tribal casinos. That law has been upheld in both state and federal courts.
Here’s how the vote broke down:
Voting yes to kill the bill: Reps. Monks, Crane, Palmer, Holtzclaw, Armstrong, Manwaring, Smith, and Jordan.
Voting against the motion: Reps. Loertscher, Luker, Barbieri, Harris, Giddings, Zito and Scott.
Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, made the motion to hold the bill in committee. “We’ve heard two days of testimony,” he said. “I think based on everything we’ve heard, I just don’t believe that the purpose is to only reconcile Idaho Code with the Constitution. I don’t think there’s a policy matter to fix. I think there’s a lot of confusion out there. I think it does threaten the tribes. I think it would be the most reasonable and prudent thing to do to hold it in committee.”
Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, the bill’s sponsor, said, “HB 127 is not about banning tribal gaming. There’s nothing contained therein that does anything of the kind.” He said if Idaho Indian tribes’ gaming machines are in compliance with the law and constitution, as the testimony reflected, “this bill will have no effect. If not, then the machines will have to be brought into compliance. Even in that circumstance, gaming will continue with machines that are found to be in compliance with the Constitution.”
Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, said, “The fact is, we’ve been hearing testimony by very intelligent people on both sides of this issue. The way I’m going to vote today does not represent how I feel about the situation. I am against gambling. I do not think that we should have gambling.”
“I believe that the machines from the lottery, the machines that have been removed from the horse tracks, the machines on the reservations, are unconstitutional,” Palmer said. “I believe they are a representation of a slot machine. They’re advertised as a slot machine. They are a machine that you gamble with. If I thought this piece of legislation would in any way help us to remove those machines, I would be in support of it. However, I do not think that that is what this piece of legislation will accomplish. I believe it will put us into a lawsuit that we will not win. Therefore, I feel an obligation to the residents of the state of Idaho and their tax dollars not to put them through that in a losing situation.”
Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, argued in favor of the bill, saying it would give the state more authority to check up on the types of machines tribes use in their casinos. “This is not an attack on the tribes, nor is it an attack on gaming,” he said. “The issue here is whether the Legislature is going to assure the authority of the state to investigate inquiries regarding the nature of the machines.” He added, “It’s a fact of life that lawsuits are filed.”
Rep. Steven Harris, R-Meridian, said, “This is simply making a bad law to (be) put into compliance with the Constitution, so this needs to go forward, this needs to pass.”
Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, spoke against the bill. “I think the state of Idaho has recognized that the tribes are a good partner,” he said, “and we have entered into a contractual obligation with a partner.” If there are concerns in that situation, he said, “you don’t go around” the negotiated compact and change the rules. “You go to that individual, and you say, ‘You know what, there seems to be some issues, some ambiguity in the contract, and we would like to clear that up, and could we get together and could we renegotiate that compact.”
Rep. Paulette Jordan, D-Plummer, a member of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, said, “It does go back to the relationships that are built among the state and the tribes.” She noted that Idaho has an Indian Affairs Council that includes tribal leaders, state lawmakers and representatives of the governor. “I believe that is where we should push this discussion to,” she said. “The history of both the state and the tribes has been muddled, especially for some new folks. I have reached out to some and really appreciate their time. … I would hate for this to go to the courts for them to decide what is to come down to impact our economy and our communities who very much rely on the resources that the tribes provide.”
