As reported by: Casino Man Observer
(Doug Bandow of San Diego Tribune) American Indians make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. They tend to earn less and die earlier than the rest of us. But many of them now profit from the $17 billion American Indian gambling industry.

Federal law creates an Indian gambling monopoly in states where other gambling is banned. Private gaming interests recently unsuccessfully challenged the monopoly in federal court.

As of the end of 2003, 222 tribes ran 356 gambling operations in 30 states. Negotiations over state approval often are contentious.

For instance, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed compacts with five tribes granting casino licenses in exchange for 25 percent of the profits. But two complicated initiatives affecting existing agreements ­ which have set gaming tribes against the state in one case and against other gambling interests in the other ­ are on the state's November ballot.

The Indian gambling monopoly has created a curious form of tribal shopping, where gaming interests partner with landless Indians. For instance, Garden Grove city officials recently considered using public funds to subsidize a casino near Disneyland backed by Las Vegas casino developer Steve Wynn and a tribe located 120 miles away.

Public opposition caused Garden Grove's City Council to vote no. But Detroit-based BarWest similarly approached the Los Coyotes Indians about opening a casino in Barstow, 125 miles away from reservation land.

Tribal chairwoman Catherine Siva Saubel explained that the ancient Cahuillas wandered the state, including Barstow. More to the point, Saubel's nephew, a tribal spokesman, commented that BarWest "is paying for it. They can put it wherever they want."

The city of Barstow hoped for a revenue windfall. But why choose the Los Coyotes?

Another tribe, the Chemeheuvi, had proposed its own initiative. That nomadic tribe often lived in the Barstow area before members were settled on a reservation near Lake Havasu, Ariz.

Barstow approached the tribe a decade ago about building a casino. The Chemeheuvi began planning development and seeking political approvals from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington and the Governor's Office in Sacramento.

Even though the Chemeheuvi bid was more advanced, Barstow decided on exclusive negotiations with the Los Coyotes and in July approved a municipal services agreement for the prospective casino. However, city and industry scuttlebutt now suggests that the BarWest/Los Coyotes bid is dead, effectively if not formally.

Barstow spokesman John Radar explains that the project is "stalled out," though the city still hopes for gubernatorial approval. Tom Shields, representing BarWest, says "We're continuing to move forward with this proposal," with Schwarzenegger's office the next stop. But a top political source in Sacramento says, "There are no negotiations going on and none are planned."

Some observers suspect that embarrassed (and re-election-minded) Barstow politicians fear admitting that the deal is stillborn after promising to bring in jobs and money.

In fact, as Shields acknowledged, off-reservation projects "are a little trickier" than cases where tribes build on their own land. Radar acknowledge that Schwarzenegger has "indicated in the past that he does not want to see off-reservation casinos," though Radar contends that rural casinos raise fewer concerns than urban ones.

The Chemeheuvi seem to have stronger historic ties to Barstow. Deron Marquez, chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians near San Bernardino, favored the Chemeheuvi over the Los Coyotes for any Barstow project because the former had ancestral lands nearby.

The interior secretary is to consider the interest of nearby tribes when deciding whether or not to approve putting off-reservation land in trust.

Radar simply says "We in the city don't get into claims of ancestral rights."

Sharing more geographic roots seems likely to encourage greater cooperation. In September, Chemeheuvi tribal Chairman Edward "Tito" Smith argued that tribe members and Barstow residents had the same vision of prosperity and self-reliance.

The argument for granting Indians a gambling monopoly grows ever thinner when tribes essentially become fronts for distant commercial interests seeking to locate in urban areas with no Indian presence. Some states allow tribes to establish casinos by claiming "origination" rights where they allegedly roamed.

But not California ­ so far.

Tribal attorney Howard Dickstein notes: "The problem with those approvals is that they would create a precedent for scores of other tribes that are stuck in uncompetitive or commercially unusable locations."

The issue of Indian gambling monopolies raises a host of critical state and federal issues that won't be resolved in one election or one court case. But the experience in California and elsewhere suggests that a good starting point might be to more strictly limit Indian gaming to reservations or ancestral land.

----------------------------------------

Bandow, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and James Madison Scholar with the American Legislative Exchange Council.