Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but this is all predicated on a determination that Class III gambling is malum per se, which is a difficult argument to swallow given that Class III gambling is permitted in other states.
|
I don't think so. I think before the state is even obliged to enter into good faith negotiations with a tribe, Class III gaming must be permitted by the state. Then once Class III gaming is permitted by the state, the state is required to enter into good faith negotiations with the tribe to negotiate the terms of the compact, which can include a portion of the revenue being paid to the state.
So the fact that a neighboring state makes Class III gaming illegal or legal is irrelevant under the law. All that is relevant is if a particular state makes it legal or illegal. If it is legal, then the state is required to negotiate in good faith a compact with the tribe, the terms of which govern the tribe's class III gaming activities.
Bottom line - a state can get a percentage of the class III revenues earned by a tribe if the state negotiates it.
