Other Tribes Critical Of Indian Gaming Measure Some Fear Initiative Proposed By Three Tribes Could Threaten Current Casino Operations, Expansion

A proposed Washington state initiative by three tribes to legalize wide-open casinos with slot machines has drawn an odd, but predictable, partnership of opponents: charity gambling groups, the Christian Coalition, tavern owners and the horse-racing industry.

But backers of Initiative 651 weren’t counting on outspoken criticism from other tribes who portray the ballot measure as a high-stakes political bet that - win or lose - could threaten both the tribal monopoly on casino gambling and efforts at expansion.

“I think the political fallout could be enormous,” said Richard Purser, a councilman of the Suquamish Tribe on Bainbridge Island. “If it passes, the state will be backed into the corner. This isn’t the way to expand our rights.”

Initiative 651, backed by the Puyallup, Spokane and Shoalwater Bay tribes, would allow them to run casinos with slot machines and other electronic games now prohibited. It also would remove current state limits on bets, the number of tables and hours of operation.

In exchange, 10 percent of the take from the slots would go directly back to registered voters in the form of annual checks.

Organizers say they are on track to collect the 181,000 signatures needed by July 7 to qualify for the November ballot. The Puyallups and Spokanes have spent $200,000 each - among the largest contributions ever to an initiative campaign - to help hire a professional signature-gathering firm.

Virtually every tribe supports the goal of the initiative: allowing sovereign Native American tribes, not the state, to set the parameters of the gambling industry and to operate lucrative slot machines.

“This is about sovereignty and economic development,” said Mike Turnipseed of the Puyallup Tribal Council. “There’s not another business in the country that isn’t allowed to grow.”

But while Turnipseed was predicting confidently last week that all 26 of the state’s tribes would eventually “come aboard the initiative,” the opposite is happening.

Leaders from eight tribes, many of which operate or are planning casinos under negotiated agreements with the state, had put out press releases last week opposing Initiative 651. At least two tribes - the Lummis and Tulalips - had earlier given the initiative money.

Ron Allen, chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, blasted Initiative 651’s plan to cut voters in on the take as “a buy-a-vote approach.”

In Congress, some Republican law makers are pushing for new restrictions and even a moratorium on new casinos.

Another threat may exist in the Legislature, where passage of the initiative would undoubtedly revitalize lobbying efforts to let non-Native American businesses install slot machines and video poker games, or even full-scale casinos.

“There would be tremendous pressure to open up more gambling off the reservations and end their monopoly,” said state Sen. Mike Heavey, a West Seattle Democrat and the Legislature’s most vocal gambling critic. “The other direction might be to make sure some of the revenues go to the state.”

Russell LaFountaine, a Puyallup tribal attorney who is campaign manager for Initiative 651, believes a big share of opposition from other tribes is motivated by a desire to protect their own casinos.

Tribal opponents of Initiative 651 ha ven’t decided on their next step.

Purser said the Suquamish and other tribes will wait to see whether Initiative 651 makes the ballot before deciding whether to actively campaign against it.

For several months, some tribes have talked about running their own initiative to expand gambling.

Allen said it would include dedicating revenues from slot machines to education and health programs, and salmon and wildlife restoration efforts. It also might call for stronger controls than are included in Initiative 651 and prevent tribes from building more than one casino apiece.