As reported by: Associated Press
There is no current state law barring the Catawba Indian Nation from operating video gambling machines on reservation land, according to an attorney hired by a conservative think tank.

Some elected officials in South Carolina say a state law that banned the games three years ago covers the Catawbas.

But a new report by the South Carolina Policy Council finds that only a change in state law can prohibit the tribe from operating video gambling machines on federally regulated lands.

A 1993 settlement agreement reached with the state allows the Catawbas to operate video gambling machines even in counties where it is prohibited, Greenville attorney Wallace K. Lightsey wrote in an analysis prepared last month for the group.

"There would be a substantial risk of litigation - and a substantial risk of the state's losing such litigation - should the tribe initiate video poker operations and the state attempt to prosecute or shut down the operation," Lightsey wrote.

The Policy Council asked Lightsey, who it described as "a noted legal scholar," to look at the issue after an attorney for the Catawbas said the tribe could bring video gambling to its Rock Hill bingo hall, said Policy Council President Ed McMullen.

The council actively fought video gambling and the state lottery.

Lightsey's analysis does not carry the force of law, but it does show that video gambling poses an imminent threat, McMullen said.

Even if Lightsey's analysis is on target, the Catawbas operating video gambling on the reservation in Rock Hill is still not nearly as threatening as the tribe locating a "huge casino operation" in Orangeburg County, said state Sen. Wes Hayes, R-Rock Hill.

"I don't think we should allow the Catawbas to have a huge casino operation down in Santee in return for an agreement by them not to have video poker on the reservation in York County," Hayes said. He also said the 1993 agreement with the Catawbas require them to operate any video gambling in compliance with state law.

The Catawbas are seeking to build a bingo hall in Santee off Interstate 95 where the tribe could offer unlimited jackpots, employ as many as 1,000 people and operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The tribe has run into opposition from some elected officials and residents who worry the hall could pave the way to casino gambling.

Jay Bender, an attorney for the tribe, has said the Catawbas could pursue video gambling operations to make up revenue lost since the state began operating a lottery and relaxed rules for other bingo halls, undercutting the competitive advantage guaranteed to the tribe a decade ago.

The tribe is only interested in seeking video gambling on its Rock Hill reservation if it is unable to build a high-stakes bingo hall in Santee, Catawba Chief Gilbert Blue said. The Catawbas aren't offering any sort of threat but simply need a way to replace lost revenue, Blue said.

"If we can't go down to Santee, we have no other choice but to do something that will help us economically," Blue said. "We want to do what we can to help our people with health care, education and housing.

"If we can't get relief from people who are legislatively and politically trying to stop us, then here is the only choice that we have," Blue said.

Hayes and Republican Gov. Mark Sanford are unconvinced that the law permits video gambling on reservation land. The 1993 settlement permits video gambling only "to the same extent that the devices are authorized by state law."

"As far as the governor's concerned, it's not a question of what one lawyer says versus another," Sanford spokesman Will Folks said. "It's a question of what the law says. Clearly, the law says video poker's illegal in South Carolina."

Lightsey calls arguments based on that part of the settlement "superficial." Nothing in the law banning video gambling specifically repeals the video gambling authority granted to the Catawbas in the 1993 agreement, Lightsey writes.

Keeping the Catawbas from operating video gambling machines may not be as simple as modifying the agreement. The state might be held legally liable even for making changes to the agreement, said Rep. James Smith, D-Columbia, who said the state should get an official opinion from the state attorney general's office.