Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise (review)

A great deal has been written about Indian gaming, but precious little could be called scholarly in any meaningful sense. Most often the authors are reporters discussing the Indian gaming conflict du jour and reciting uncritically the positions of the competing parties. Steven Light, associate professor of political science and public administration at the University of North Dakota (UND), and Kathryn Rand, associate professor of law at UND, have gone much further with a readable and well-researched discussion of the state of Indian gaming.

The book is notable in several respects. First, it points out forcefully that the portrayal of Indian gaming in the popular media bears little resemblance to the reality of Indian gaming in most circumstances. Not every tribe is rich from gaming income and not every Indian—or group of people claiming to be Indians—may establish a casino. Though somewhat humorless in critiquing the portrayals of Indian gaming in satires like South Park and King of the Hill, the authors effectively show that Indian gaming is not fairly, or even realistically, presented by the media, especially the news media.

Second, the book presents a great deal of evidence concerning the impacts of Indian gaming on both tribal communities and nearby non-Indian communities. Traditionally, discussions of impacts are absurdly disingenuous, with opponents of gaming claiming that it creates rampant crime, drug abuse, prostitution, and bankruptcies, and proponents talking only about high-wage jobs, increased tax revenues, and charitable contributions by gaming developers. Professors Light and Rand do much better, presenting a fair summary of the research that is available and concluding that, while troublesome issues require more attention, the overall picture indicates that gaming has been generally good for Indian communities and their non-Indian neighbors.

The third important point of the book is that most of the tribes engaged in Indian gaming are not enjoying the spectacular success of tribes in New England and California. Indeed, most Indian gaming establishments are quite modest, generating profits that, while not spectacular, produce important increases in discretionary tribal income, which in turn produce improved and more ambitious tribal service programs. The comparison in chapter 5 between the hugely successful Mashantucket Pequot casino and the modest gaming operations of tribes in North Dakota is effective in making the point that the Pequot's fabulous wealth from gaming is the exception, not the rule.

The book does not succeed in other respects. The authors promise in the Introduction to show how "indigenous perspectives" on tribal sovereignty should govern Indian gaming policy in the future. The authors assert that, "from a tribal perspective," federal Indian gaming policy resulted from one-sided negotiations and supports the unilateral imposition of state and federal law on tribal governments. This is simplistic. First, it ignores the fact that a good many tribes wanted federal legislation and supported the compromise embodied in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Second, "indigenous perspectives" vary widely. How does one choose the perspective worthy of the label "indigenous"? Third, the phenomenal growth of Indian gaming in the years since passage of the IGRA strongly suggests that the tribes got the better of the compromise, or at least that the compromise was not "one-sided." The benefits the tribes have reaped from Indian gaming indicate that federal policy on Indian gaming has been a success.

Finally there is the question of why the "indigenous perspective," if such a thing exists, is any better than other perspectives on this issue. Indian gaming would not exist were it not for its millions of non-Indian patrons, and therefore it serves no one to pretend that Indian gaming has no impacts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the tribes. The logical representatives of this non-Indian constituency are the states and the Congress. The authors do not explain why the "indigenous perspective" is superior to those of elected state and federal officials. No doubt state and federal officials are less solicitous of tribal interests than are elected tribal...