The facts on tribal gaming
Newspaper articles correctly state the Kootenai Tribe and other Idaho tribal governments are concerned about the proliferation of what are referred to as “historical horse racing machines.” Unfortunately, readers have been subjected to a great deal of misinformation.
Mr. Doug Okuniewicz, general manager of the Greyhound Park in Post Falls, is quoted as stating Indian gaming is unregulated. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Indian gaming is governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a federal law that “provides a statutory basis for the regulation of gaming by an Indian tribe adequate to shield it from organized crime and other corrupting influences, to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation, and to assure that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and players.” The Act, referred to by its acronym IGRA, also establishes federal standards for gaming implemented by the National Indian Gaming Commission, an independent federal regulatory authority.
In addition to federal regulatory authority, the IGRA requires tribal governments to create gaming commissions with authority to regulate tribal gaming. The Kootenai Tribal Gaming Commission oversees and regulates our gaming facility. The commission’s duties include issuing gaming licenses to employees and monitoring compliance with laws and regulations. An annual independent audit is also performed to check the commission’s work.
For certain types of games (referred to as Class III games), IGRA requires tribal governments to negotiate with the state and enter into a compact governing the conduct of the gaming activities.
The Kootenai Tribe and the state of Idaho entered into such a compact in 1993 (http://www.indianaffairs.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/OIG/Compacts/index.htm#Idaho). The compact sets forth the agreement between the two sovereigns to ensure the Tribe’s gaming is “completely and fairly regulated on an on-going basis, … [t]o enhance and further develop the official government-to-government relationship between the Tribe and the state and to mutually recognize and re-emphasize the governmental powers of each of them.”
The compact includes a number of regulatory requirements the Tribe must fulfill, including employee licensing, security plans, accounting and cash controls, and independent audits. The Idaho State Lottery director enforces the compact. The Idaho State Police are also involved, providing criminal background checks for gaming employees.
The compact was amended in 2002 through voter initiative, often known as Proposition One. This voter initiative clarified the types of machines allowed under the compact. These tribal video gaming machines must meet strict standards and are independently audited to ensure compliance. The voter initiative also included restrictions on the number of machines and location of gaming operations.
When presented with the facts, it is clear that Indian gaming is extensively regulated by the tribal, federal and state governments.
Statements regarding taxation of Indian gaming also misstate the truth.
Indian gaming, similar to the Idaho State Lottery, is government-operated business that raises revenue through enterprise, rather than through taxation. The revenue obtained through this enterprise is used to fund government programs such as housing, health care, roads, environmental protection, fish and wildlife restoration, and other governmental functions and activities.
It is true that tribal government revenue obtained through gaming is not subject to state taxation. Sovereign governments do not tax each other’s income. For example, the United States does not impose a tax on the state of Idaho’s lottery or liquor income. For the same reasons, the state of Idaho does not tax tribal government revenue.
The Kootenai Tribe’s concerns are not necessarily that the state of Idaho appears to have approved privately-operated casinos. If the Idaho Legislature wishes to allow private casinos within its jurisdiction, then as a sovereign it has the right to do so.
The state should acknowledge, however, that imposing restrictions on tribal government-owned businesses located in our jurisdictions that it does not impose on the private casinos is not only an inappropriate double standard, it is also contrary to the state and the Tribe’s agreement “[t]o enhance and further develop the official government-to-government relationship between the Tribe and the state.”
Respectfully,
KOOTENAI TRIBAL COUNCIL