I saw your comment on the blog about my vote on the bill to repeal the law allowing ‘historical racing machines’.  For me, the bill was not about supporting or not supporting the Tribes. It was about being fair.   In fact, I visited with a lobbyist for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe late Monday afternoon. The lobbyist said they supported the original bill and had no problem with it and would not have a problem now if the machines were those which the original bill called for.  I said, then why don’t we simply amend the law to clarify that?  Why don’t we put a maximum number of machines in law? Why don’t we enforce the law that says the machines have to be associated with a track?  According to the lobbyist “it was too late for that now”.  Well that seems strange: it was okay with the Tribes when first passed and the type of the machine is the problem and rather than make the effort to fix the problem we’ll just do away with it altogether?

Sounds like more of a market share turf war than an effort to look for a win-win solution.

And, that is why I voted no today.  If it is the wrong machine, then let’s fix that.  Why throw out the entire law, place the state – and the taxpayers – in danger of inevitable lawsuits and potentially lose Idaho’s horse racing industry and associated economic benefits that brings? Why not look for a middle ground that reduces the competition to the Tribes but allows what we originally approved and what the Tribe said they were okay with?

I know you are always interested in the full story and so offer this perspective to you!

Thoughts?

---

---