Creating Strong Economies.  Empowering Indian Communities.

BRIEF TIMELINE: Indian Gaming IN THE U.S. and Arizona

• Tribes could engage in forms of gambling that were not expressly prohibited by the state in which the tribe is located.
• If a state regulates gaming, in any form, then gaming falls under civil law for which Indian tribes cannot be prosecuted and the state is obligated under federal law to enter into compact negotiations with a tribe.
• If a form of gambling sought by a tribe is expressly prohibited by the state under criminal law, then the state can refuse negotiations for particular games on that basis.

• In response to California vs. Cabazon ruling, IGRA was passed to create a balance between the tribe's right to conduct gaming on their reservation and the public interest of the states in which the tribes are located.
• IGRA provided for the conduct of Class III gaming on Indian lands if tribal-state compacts are entered into and only if similar games are offered in that state.
• Stipulates that if a state refuses to negotiate in good faith with a tribe, the tribe can sue the state.
• Stipulates that the Secretary of the Interior can offer alternative compacting if regulations are in place and a state refuses to negotiate in good faith with a tribe.
• Identifies the ways in which Indian gaming revenues can be spent.
• Identifies three regulatory systems: the tribal regulatory office, State Department of Gaming, and the National Indian Gaming Commission.

• Governor Fife Symington was granted legislative authority (H.B. 2352) for negotiating and signing compacts.
• U.S. Attorney's office begins to seize slot machines on Arizona Indian reservations.
• May 12, 1992 Fort McDowell refuses to turn over machines and a stand off begins.
• Because of public outcry in favor of the tribes, Symington signs first gaming compact with Yavapai Prescott awarding them 250 slot machines. Other tribes follow with signed compacts.

• Finds that slot machines are permitted in Arizona and that tribes must have a compact with the state of Arizona.
• 16 tribes sign compacts with the state of Arizona.

• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that "a state need only allow Indian tribes to operate games that others can operate, but need not give tribes what others cannot have."
• Governor Symington refuses to sign 17th tribal compact with Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, claiming that Rumsey prohibits him from signing.

• Seminole tribe of Florida is denied a tribal state gaming compact from the state of Florida. The state refuses to negotiate in good faith and the lawsuit goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court rules that if a state refuses to negotiate in good faith, the tribe cannot sue the state.

• Initiative allows the five remaining tribes (Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, San Juan Southern Paiute and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) to have a gaming compact if they choose one.
• Prop 201 wins by 64% of the vote.

• A lawsuit is filed again Salt River and Governor Fife Symington prohibiting the provision of Prop 201 from being implemented, even though Symington signs 201 into law. The State Supreme Court rules in favor of Salt River.
• June 1998, Governor Jane Hull signs a compact with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

• Arizona legislature fails to pass S.B. 1001 by two votes, forcing tribes to take their ballot measure to the voters.
• 17 Tribe Indian Self-Reliance Initiative (Prop 202) is placed on ballot after two and one half years of negotiation.
• Prop 202 initiative represents more than 90% of all Indians living on reservations in Arizona and more then 240,000 Arizona citizens who signed petitions to place in on the state ballot.

• Voters approve Prop 202
• Ensures that gaming on Indian land continues providing jobs and generating vitally needed funding for such basic services such as education, housing and health care.
• Provides a mechanism for non-gaming tribes located in more remote areas of the state to benefit from gaming revenues.
• Shares a portion of gaming revenues with the State of Arizona and local governments. Initiative stipulates that 12% of gaming revenues are contributed each year to the Arizona Benefits Fund, which is earmarked for city, town and county government services and for Department of Gaming administrative and regulatory costs.
• Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the Arizona Benefits Fund is dedicated to local school districts for statewide dropout prevention programs, school readiness and reading programs, and classroom reduction programs; emergency services and trauma centers, wildlife and habitat conservation, tourism promotion and education, prevention and treatment of problem gambling.
• Provides additional regulatory oversight by the Arizona Department of Gaming.
• Allows gaming tribes to continue to make voluntary donations to local charities, community programs and the state university system. To date, these contributions have totaled millions of dollars each year.

• First revenue sharing payments made to State.
• As of FY 2004 (July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004) tribal governmental gaming contributed $37,957,013.01 to the Arizona Benefits Fund.