Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Indian tribes concerned about state efforts on online poker
Lohse called a proposed online gaming bill a "slap in the face" to California's 110 federally recognized tribes.
The proposed legislation, known as the Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act of 2012, would legalize online gaming in California. The measure lays out a price of $30 million for each online gaming license, credited against net gaming revenues for the first three years of operation.
Hart, who represents tribal casinos, said the measure would require tribes to "waive tribal sovereignty" to be licensed in California. He said tribes, which have the exclusivity to operate casinos, will "decline to participate if the waver stands."
Hart predicted tribes would sue if the measure passes as now written.
But if they can get the bill over that hurdle and passed, when the tribes file their suit (which they would surely win) then internet poker is a legitimate federal issue rather than a pork project for NV/NJ.
Congress would need to at least readdress IGRA, possibly/preferably making online gambling class IV - giving states the authority to regulate and/or tax tribal involvement.
Actually, such a suit would probably get a more complex ruling.
However, the threat of the suit, or actually filing it, could be used to put political pressure to obtain concessions in the process of getting such a bill passed. Alternately, filing such a suit could enable them to get an injunction preventing the roll-out of ipoker until such time as the lawsuit is resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokeraddict
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only gives tribes the same gambling rights that exist outside of tribal soil. States can, and have given tribes more, but they are under no obligation. Tribes cannot just open sports book if no sports betting exists in the state without state authorization. The same rule applies here. This is why there are no tribal casinos in Utah, there is no other gambling.
The tribes in California have no right to claim exclusive online poker rights unless their gaming pact with California specifically addresses online gambling in this way which I seriously doubt. Since card clubs are legal outside of reservations, I cannot see how they can claim exclusive rights.
They may have a case with horse tracks, but I doubt that either. As long as state land does not get gambling advantages over tribal land, no federal law has been broken. Maybe the gaming pact says something different, if so, I would love to see what silliness California agreed years ago as it pertains to online gambling they probably never thought would be legal anyway. I doubt there was ever any such agreement.
I did an extensive research project on this not too long ago. As far as I know, no state has given tribes the rights to do any type of internet gambling beyond horse racing.
The one
California compact which I skimmed dealt exclusively with Class III gaming. Even in 1999, it explicitly denied offering such games over the internet "unless others in the state are permitted to do so under state and federal law." However, the brief mention of the internet restriction may be limited to only those games "authorized under state law to the California State Lottery".
Poker is a Class II game. I would consider it unlikely that any of the California State-Tribe compacts granted tribes the exclusive right to operate Class II games. The compact I skimmed did grant the tribe, or other tribes (which could also get a compact), the exclusive right, within the (specified) geographical area served by the tribe, only for Class III games.
Should CA ipoker be passed, the courts, ultimately, would likely end up ruling that the tribes have the right to offer internet poker to people physically on tribal land (as stated in the
IGRA) without being subject to state taxes, but to offer it to people who are not physically on tribal land they must be licensed by the state/feds in accordance with any applicable laws/regulations. Part of obtaining such a license to serve customers not on their land is agreeing to be taxed under the terms of the license.
While not exactly equivalent, an argument that tribes would have the right to offer ipoker to people outside their own tribal lands is analogous to saying: Nevada is sovereign, so their licensees can offer ipoker into California without being licensed, or taxed, in California, and without complying with California laws/regulations. Obviously, in the absence of federal laws explicitly dealing with such an issue, the argument is flawed. This does not mean that the tribes will not argue that it is, or should be, so.
Hart's statement (1st quote above) that "the measure would require tribes to 'waive tribal sovereignty'", is just wrong. The tribes are sovereign on their own land, not everywhere. Passing the measure would automatically give them the right to offer ipoker on their own land (via
IGRA), but not in other areas of California.