Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf
I-poker sounds much more like a a card game than an electronic facsimile of a game of chance or a slot machine. Especially when one reads that bingo (clearly a game of chance), including electronic bingo, is explicitly permitted. It is pretty clear to me that the desired goal was to classify electronic versions of banked games (craps/blackjack/roulette/etc) as Class III games.
|
Banked card games are already Class III, irregardless of being in electronic format, or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf
I suppose some nitty lawyer could make an argument about the exact wording, since it is a little ambiguous. Whatever.
Poker can be played electronically, without the internet, or even an intranet. Some card rooms utilize e-tables and others have at least experimented with them. Whether such tables "catch on" or not is totally irrelevant. They represent a potential technological improvement to gaming facilities.
Do you really think that Congress intended to strip the abilities of the tribes to take advantage of technological improvements?
|
Actually, yes. Given the wording of
25 USC § 2703 (7)(B)(ii) it appears to be Congress' specific intent to not permit technological improvement if the "improvement" moved the game from being a card game to that of being an electronic copy of a card game (any game of chance).
Keep in mind that a considerable portion of the definition of class II games is obviously, and specifically, intended to handle grandfathering games that were already being played (e.g. 25 USC § 2703 sub sections (C), (D), (E), and (F)). Basically, bingo and non-banked card games (i.e. poker) were already being played/run by Indian tribes at the time. The intent, generally, was to let them keep doing that, but to put most new/additional stuff, or house banked games, in Class III where it would be subject to Tribal-State compacts.
It should also be noted that if Congress desired, it would have been quite easy to have the same carve-out for electronic, computer, or other technological aids for card games as there is for bingo. It is, however, clear that this carve-out does not exist for card games.
NOTE: Determining the actual intent of Congress is a
much more involved process than any effort I have put in. In other words, I could be completely off-base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf
Of course the state of WI is trying to shake down a tribe for offering poker in their card rooms via e-tables. They might actually get something. Such is the way of the world. It is often more efficient to cut a deal with a bunch of shysters than to bear the enormous legal costs of fighting it out in court.
|
Yes, unfortunately, that is often the case.
Keep in mind that using e-tables is not something that
any tribe must do to run poker. Using e-tables instead of a live dealer is something that is a cost/benefit trade-off. E-tables don't take up as much room and do not need a dealer, and probably other staff, present at all times. When I have seen e-tables used is in order to not have a full poker setup take up room more profitably occupied by slot machines.
The tribe you mention could have chosen to use a live dealer. If they had, then there would be no ambiguity as to needing to have a compact cover the use of the e-tables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf
I see nothing wrong with the state of CA enforcing it fees and regulations on a company that provides a poker platform, even if it is in a partnership with one or more tribes. But the tribes themselves must be able to keep their sovereignty.
|
Actually, that was my main issue. The Ipoker being class II/III issue was merely something I noted while investigating around the issue of having (at least) two significantly different regulatory environments within the State.
The original wording in SB1463 which stated that this bill was to regulate Ipoker "on both tribal and nontribal lands" was totally unacceptable.
The current wording is not good. It currently states "throughout California". Frankly, if I were in charge of a tribe and this bill passes with that wording I would certainly litigate.
Better would be "throughout California except tribal lands", or "in California except on Indian lands as defined in 25 USC § 2703 (4)."
This would dump the entire issue on each tribe separately and/or on each licensees. Arguably, this is where the State should put it. The tribes have sovereignty. It is not the State's responsibility to help them enforce their rights. It is the State's responsibility to not itself usurp those rights.
Potentially even better would be something like "throughout California, except tribal lands unless authority for licensees to operate on specific tribal lands is granted by the tribe sovereign on those lands."
Then define tribal lands as those included in the definition of Indian lands in 25 USC § 2703 (4).
If it is the choice of the State to pursue getting agreement from each tribe to extend the area of operation of licensees onto tribal lands (i.e. as part of each compact negotiation) then the commission/department needs to be directed to handle keeping track of, and informing licensees, as to on which tribal lands operation is permitted.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
