Indian Gaming in South Dakota: Conflict in Public Policy

Autor/in	Ackerman, William V.
Titel	Indian Gaming in South Dakota: Conflict in Public Policy
Quelle	In: American Indian Quarterly, 33 (2009) 2, S.253-279 (27 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0095-182X
Schlagwörter	Federal Legislation; American Indians; State Regulation; Court Litigation; Public Policy; Tribes; United States History; American Indian Reservations; Government Role; American Indian History; Civil Rights; South Dakota + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Bundesrecht; American Indian; Indianer; Staatliche Lenkung; Rechtsstreit; Öffentliche Ordnung; Tribal society; Stammesgesellschaft; Indianerreservat; Bürgerrechte; Grundrechte; Zivilrecht; South-Dakota
Abstract	Legal gaming on Indian reservations has increased dramatically since the 1987 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in "California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians." In this case the Supreme Court upheld by a 6-3 vote the right under federal law for Indians to run gambling operations without state regulation in states where such gambling was legal for any purpose. At the time of "California v. Cabazon" only five states prohibited all forms of gaming. This decision opened the door to significant expansion of Indian gaming across the United States. By 1988 more than 100 tribes were engaged in bingo, with estimated collective revenues of $100 million. The United States has a problem with the reasonable management of Native American gaming, a problem that is not being solved by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The IGRA, rather than providing a solution to Indian gaming issues, is a prescription for litigation between the tribes and the states. The opening section of the IGRA, section 2701(5), and the Supreme Court decision in "California v. Cabazon" give to the Indians the exclusive right to regulate Indian gaming on Indian lands in states where such gaming is legal. Section 2710(3)(A) of the IGRA, which appears several pages later in the bill, requires Native Americans to negotiate tribal-state compacts for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. The language in the IGRA is inherently inconsistent, and section 2710(3)(A) is directly contradictory to section 2701(5), as both cannot be true at the same time. The author contends that if Native Americans have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on their lands, as clearly stated in "California v. Cabazon" and echoed in IGRA section 2701(5), then section 2710(3)(A) is at best contradictory and at worst unconstitutional. (Contains 4 figures, 3 maps, and 47 notes.) (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	University of Nebraska Press. 1111 Lincoln Mall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0630. Tel: 800-755-1105; Fax: 800-526-2617; e-mail: presswebmail@unl.edu; Web site: http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/catalog/categoryinfo.aspx?cid=163
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10