Setting the Rules for Native Gaming

1. Setting the Rules for Native Gaming Native Gaming: The Political Frame The Political Frame By Shalin Hai-Jew

2. Abstract: • The political frame uses a legal, policy and procedure focus to approach the regulation of Indian gaming. With relevant external laws and internal tribal ones, this political frame asks readers to consider important tribal leadership structures and policies to support effective Indian gaming. Native Gaming: The Political Frame

3. Learning Outcomes • Understand the long-term view of where Indian gaming may be headed • Consider the possibilities of global Indian gaming • Explore the principles of sovereignty and land use in Native gaming • Understand some of the legal issues at play with Indian gaming (restrictions, land use, etc.) Native Gaming: The Political Frame

4. Learning Outcomes (cont.) • Explore the tribal decision-making process in starting and maintaining casinos • See the need for the “engineering of consent” with the larger population through lobbying and surveying; understand the lobbying efforts of the Native American gaming lobby • Understand the three classes of gaming (Class I, Class II, and Class III). Native Gaming: The Political Frame

5. Learning Outcomes (cont.) • Describe leadership structures on reservations in terms of tribal governance; understand how these structures may have evolved with the advent of tribal gaming • Understand the principle-based rationales by the various stakeholders in Indian gaming. • Project where governance issues re: Indian gaming may go in the future Native Gaming: The Political Frame

6. Learning Outcomes (cont.) • Understand the litigation issues around Native American gaming • Describe some policy needs and changes once casinos open. Native Gaming: The Political Frame

7. Native American Sovereignty • “Tribes’ ability to govern their members and territories stems from their inherent powers as pre-constitutional sovereign nations. As the original inhabitants of North America, indigenous peoples governed themselves without external influence. The federal government’s establishment of a legal relationship with the tribes meant that they continued to exercise extra-constitutional authority over their members. This authority translated into the right of self-governance. Under the doctrine of reserved rights, tribes maintain rights they have not specifically ceded to the federal government through treaty or agreement. Because it implies such broad powers, ‘the right of self-government may be (tribes’) most valuable reserved right’” (Light and Rand, 2005, p. 19). Native Gaming: The Political Frame

8. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) • The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). In 1988, the Supreme Court passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA, or Public Law 100-497) in response to a court case California v. Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians. This ruling was widely seen then as the preemption of state law by the federal government’s interest in tribal self-sufficiency and economic development. Native Gaming: The Political Frame

9. Expensive Bids for Federal Recognition • Documentation by lawyers, anthropologists, linguists, and others Native Gaming: The Political Frame

10. Change in National Culture towards Gaming • “benign prohibition” by the federal government • limited allowances through IGRA Native Gaming: The Political Frame

11. Three Classes of Gambling: Class 1 Class I “Traditional”: Includes social games played for low-value prizes and traditional forms of tribal gaming associated with native American ceremonies (exclusive tribal jurisdiction and not subject to IGRA requirements) Native Gaming: The Political Frame

12. Three Classes of Gambling: Class 2 Class II “Bingo”: Includes bingo and other games similar to bingo, such as lotto, pull-tabs, and punch boards, if played in the same location as bingo, and non-banked card games (within tribal jurisdiction but with NIGC oversight, subject to IGRA requirements) Native Gaming: The Political Frame

13. Three Classes of Gambling: Class 3 Class III “Casino-Style”: Includes all games not within either Class 1 or Class II, such as slot machines, banked card games, and casino games (within tribal and state jurisdiction, with NIGC oversight and negotiated tribal-state compact / agreement, subject to IGRA requirements) Native Gaming: The Political Frame

14. Unique Challenges for Tribal Leadership • Stable institutions and policies • Fair and effective dispute resolution • Separation of politics from business management • A competent bureaucracy • Cultural “match” (Cornell and Kalt, n.d., Sovereignty and nation building…, p. 12) Native Gaming: The Political Frame

15. Role Playing • Scenario: The scenario is Washington, DC. A tribal lobbying group is meeting before the Senate or the House that is considering a bill to rollback (or greatly restrict / redefine legal) Native gaming. The lobbyists need to present their various arguments: • ·Historical • ·Legal (principle and case precedence) • ·Economic • ·Policy, and others. Native Gaming: The Political Frame

16. Roles and Stances • Have learners choose various roles. Have them research what an individual or group in their role may think, and have them argue a coherent stand. Allow room for changes and shifts in ideas if particular aims are met. Have them keep the aims private generally unless they feel it’s strategically helpful to share that with the group. See what sort of final agreement the various individuals may come to. Native Gaming: The Political Frame

17. Roles • Identify which groups (without stereotyping) may fit into the anti-Indian gaming lobby. Identify which groups (without stereotyping) may fit into the pro-Indian gaming lobby. • Anti-Indian Gaming Lobby: • Pro-Indian Gaming Lobby: Native Gaming: The Political Frame

18. Conclusion Native Gaming: The Political Frame