Chapter 12 Indian Lands Gaming
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

94 2011 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition 94 P.510, n.3. Add the following to the end of the footnote: See generally Allison Sirica, A Great Gamble: Why Compromise is the Best Bet to Resolve Florida’s Indian Gaming Crisis, 61 Fla. L. Rev. 1201, 1201–31 (2009) (examining in detail the two-decade clash between the Seminole Tribe and Florida over the operation of class III gaming in the state); Matthew G. Struble, Seminole Gaming Compact Part II: Whether Senate Bill 788 Satisfies the Compact Process Requirements as Written, 34 Nova L. Rev. 296, 315–20 (2009) (reviewing history of the dispute between the tribe and state and examining whether new compact framework drafted by Florida legislature will meet IGRA requirements and resolve conflict). P.511, n.5. Add the following to the end of the footnote: In 2008, more than 240 of 562 federally recognized tribes engaged in gaming . Press Release, Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, NIGC Announces 2008 Revenues (Jun. 3, 2009), available at http://www.nigc.gov/ReadingRoom/ PressReleases/PressReleasesMain/PR113062009/tabid/918/Default.aspx (last visited Jul. 1, 2009). Current statistics on the number of gaming tribes and gaming revenues can be found through the website of the National Indian Gaming Commission at www.nigc.gov. P.511, n.6. Add the following to line 3 of the footnote after the period: Tribal gaming revenue for 2008 totaled $26.7 billion, a 2.3 percent increase over the prior year. Press Release, Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, NIGC Announces 2008 Revenues (Jun. 3, 2009). The total gross gaming revenue for tribal gaming remained stable in 2009 at $26.5 billion. Press Release, Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 2009 Indian Gaming Revenues Remain Stable (Jun. 11, 2010). The above press releases are available at the website of the National Indian Gaming Commission, www.nigc.gov. See also Aaron Drue Johnson, Comment: Just Say No (To American Capitalism): Why American Indians Should Reject the Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act and Other Attempts to Promote Economic Assimilation, 35 Am. Indian L. Rev. 107 (2010/2011) (review of tribal economic development options, noting in 2005 that only 254 of 560 tribes Chapter 12 Indian Lands Gaming 95 Indian Lands Gaming had gaming operations and arguing gaming cannot be relied upon to lift all tribes out of poverty). Add the following to line 7 of the footnote after “See”: Marcia A. Zug, Dangerous Gamble: Child Support, Casino Dividends, and the Fate of the Indian Family, 36 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 738 (2010) (examining the “consequences of permitting casino dividends to eliminate an Indian parent’s child support obligation” in light of the increased wealth of certain gaming tribes); Suzianne D. Painter-Thorne, If You Build It, They Will Come: Preserving Tribal Sovereignty in the Face of Indian Casinos and the New Premium on Tribal Membership, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 311 (Spring 2010) (discussing the growth of tribal gaming operations and the resulting growth in tribal membership disputes, acknowledging lack of recourse for excluded members and proposing intertribal appellate court to provide independent review of tribal membership decisions); Audrey Bryant Braccio, Special Feature: How the AntiGaming Backlash is Redefining Tribal Government Functions, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 171 (2009/2010) (review of caselaw interpreting tribal government functions during post-IGRA period of expanded tribal gaming, concluding that increased anti-gaming sentiment coincides with “gradual infringement on the tribal governmental sphere through a redefinition of what constitutes tribal government functions”); Ezekiel J.N. Fletcher, Negotiating Meaningful Concessions from States in Gaming Compacts to Further Tribal Economic Development: Satisfying the “Economic Benefits” Test, 54 S.D. L. Rev. 419, 421 (2009) (noting that the majority of tribal gaming revenue is generated by only one-third of the tribes); Alan P. Meister, Kathryn R.L. Rand & Steven Andrew Light, Indian Gaming and Beyond: Tribal Economic Development and Diversification, 54 S.D. L. Rev. 375, 380–96 (2009) (discussing the growth of Indian gaming since IGRA’s enactment in 1988, the related economic and fiscal impacts and current economic trends, and recommending tribal economic diversification in the face of an uncertain future for Indian gaming); P.511, n.7. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see generally”: Guadalupe Gutierrez, Note, Jurisdictional Ambiguities Among Sovereigns: The Impact of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on Criminal Jurisdiction on Tribal Lands, 26 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 229, 250–58 (2009) (reviewing economic and social effects of gaming...