The New Politics of Indian Gaming: The Rise of Reservation Interest Groups

Introduction: The Rise of the First Nations in State Politics

Within the last twenty years, legalized gambling on Indigenous reservations has become a major source of economic development for many of the First Nations and is now calculated to be a multibillion dollar industry.1 Indigenous-owned casinos earned $26 billion in 2007, with an average 5 percent growth rate. This is compared to earnings of $12.85 billion in gaming revenue for Nevada casinos (500 Nations). What is less well known is that almost overnight a concomitant level of political power has taken shape as the people of Indian Country seek to preserve their recent economic gains. Both developmental and political successes have added a new dimension to the conflict over sovereignty between U.s. states and tribal governments. In the preface to their edited volume that explores the relationship between tribal governments and the states, Brad Bays and Erin Fouberg (2002) suggest that in this new era of encroachment by states on reservation jurisdiction, tribal governments essentially have only two choices: litigate or cooperate. The courts have historically been the preferred avenue for First Nations seeking redress but are typically slow, frustrating, and often Introduction The Rise of the First Nations in State Politics kenneth n. hansen and tracy a. skopek 1 2 t h e n e w p o l i t i c s o f i n d i a n g a m i n g unfriendly to Indigenous issues. This is not to say that litigation no longer happens, because it can be very effective at times. However, the recent trend of devolution of federal responsibilities to the states that culminated in the Indian Gaming Regulatory act (igra) of 1988 has rendered this avenue increasingly unproductive. Cooperation with states as now prescribed by igra requires negotiation to take the form of gaming compacts between tribal governments and the states in which they wish to operate a gaming establishment. Reservations appear to come to the negotiating table at a distinct disadvantage, with the states holding all the cards. some states like Texas and Wyoming have been unwilling to negotiate gaming compacts at all, arguing that the state constitution forbids casino gaming. Under the law there was very little recourse to force states to even come to the table. However, in 2004 the Northern arapaho Tribe won their federal court case against the state of Wyoming, the district court ruling that the state had acted in bad faith for refusing to negotiate, which allowed the arapaho to strike a compact with the Department of the Interior. This illustrates that the often contentious relationship between states and tribes has proved to be problematic for many reservations in a variety of areas, but none more than gaming. We argue that because of this, tribal governments have begun pursuing a third option to those suggested by Bays and Fouberg. First Nations have engaged in venue surfing similar to that of other more typical interest groups as described by Baumgartner and Jones (1993). They also employ both “inside” and “outside” political strategies (Walker 1991) in a sophisticated, strategic manner. With the substantial economic interest in gaming as a catalyst and because of the often unfavorable view of gaming , tribal governments are seeking access to non-Indian political institutions , such as state governments, as never before to expand and protect their interests. We analyze the hypothesis that as the First Nations become wealthier, they will employ more calculated political tactics, similar to those of interest groups that have more longevity in the political system. For reservation governments , this is matter of survival for their people. The First Nations have three main political goals that are sought through interest group behavior : (1) to reacquire ancestral lands, (2) to maintain or increase economic gains through a favorable regulatory environment, and (3) to preserve tribal i n t r o d u c t i o n 3 sovereignty (LaDuke 2001; Bethel-Fink 2006).2 We certainly are not the first to make this argument (see Mason 2000). Our purpose is to expand the relatively small body of literature on Indigenous gaming, governance, and federalism, particularly as it concerns the sovereignty dilemma between tribal and state governments. the need for indigenous gaming research In 1999, steven aufrecht published an article in the American Review of Public Administration that decried the lack of basic information about tribal governance in the U.s. public administration literature. James Ortiz (2002) did much the...