"States in general are not happy with the runaway success of American Indian gambling. One of the biggest reasons is that neither the tribes nor tribal members pay state sales taxes or state income taxes on income earned on reservations. Tribes do not have to pay property taxes to the state.

Beyond those bones of contention, however, is the frustration of leaders in states like Alabama who are trying to keep a lid on gambling, only to see their efforts undermined by expanding American Indian operations.

They should not lose sight of the fact that states that have cooperated with American Indians have gained important concessions. The Kansas governor negotiated an agreement for a state commission to oversee Indian gambling. Connecticut got a cut of gaming revenues. Minnesota won an agreement to limit table games to blackjack.

[Alabama Gov. Bob] Riley’s refusal to negotiate with the Poarch Creeks is understandable and we support his and [state attorney general Troy] King’s opposition to expanded gambling.

In future cases where the expansion seems inevitable, such as the Poarch Creeks’ petition to add pari-mutuel gambling, the state may do better to negotiate with the American Indians in hopes of winning whatever/scontrols and benefits it can secure."

Get the Story:
Editorial: King fights expansion of American Indian casino gambling (The Tuscaloosa News 8/1)