Idaho narrowly vote against ‘anti-tribal gaming bill’

House State Affairs Committee voted to kill the ‘anti-tribal gaming bill’, carried by Rep. Tom Loertscher. The bill was intended to amend the law permitting tribal casinos enacted by Idaho voters in 2002, limiting the types of gambling machines the tribes could offer.

A total of eight representatives (Monks, Crane, Palmer, Holtzclaw, Armstrong, Manwaring, Smith, and Jordan) voted in favour of killing the bill, outnumbering the seven representatives (Loertscher, Luker, Barbieri, Harris, Giddings, Zito and Scott) who voted against the motion.

Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, comments on his decision to vote in favour of the motion: “We’ve heard two days of testimony. I think based on everything we’ve heard, I just don’t believe that the purpose is to only reconcile Idaho Code with the Constitution. I don’t think there’s a policy matter to fix. I think there’s a lot of confusion out there. I think it does threaten the tribes. I think it would be the most reasonable and prudent thing to do to hold it in committee.”

As another committee member who voted in favour of killing the bill, Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, comments: “I think the state of Idaho has recognised that the tribes are a good partner, and we have entered into a contractual obligation with a partner.”

However Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, argues: “HB 127 is not about banning tribal gaming. There’s nothing contained therein that does anything of the kind.”

Loerstcher maintains that if the casinos’ machines are in compliance with the law “this bill will have no effect. If not, then the machines will have to be brought into compliance. Even in that circumstance, gaming will continue with machines that are found to be in compliance with the Constitution.”

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens argues that the bill was intended to introduce regulatory laws on gambling machines in tribal casinos: “This is not an attack on the tribes, nor is it an attack on gaming. The issue here is whether the Legislature is going to assure the authority of the state to investigate inquiries regarding the nature of the machines.”

Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, says: “The fact is, we’ve been hearing testimony by very intelligent people on both sides of this issue. The way I’m going to vote today does not represent how I feel about the situation. I am against gambling. I do not think that we should have gambling.”

“I believe that the machines from the lottery, the machines that have been removed from the horse tracks, the machines on the reservations, are unconstitutional,” Palmer continues. “I believe they are a representation of a slot machine. They’re advertised as a slot machine. They are a machine that you gamble with. If I thought this piece of legislation would in any way help us to remove those machines, I would be in support of it. However, I do not think that that is what this piece of legislation will accomplish. I believe it will put us into a lawsuit that we will not win. Therefore, I feel an obligation to the residents of the state of Idaho and their tax dollars not to put them through that in a losing situation.”

Rep. Paulette Jordan, D-Plummer, a member of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, believes that the discussion should be taken to the Idaho Indian Affairs Council, which includes tribal leaders, state lawmakers and representatives of the governor who she believes are able to deal with this matter adequately. “The history of both the state and the tribes has been muddled, especially for some new folks. I have reached out to some and really appreciate their time. … I would hate for this to go to the courts for them to decide what is to come down to impact our economy and our communities who very much rely on the resources that the tribes provide.”