6.1 Preamble Governors value their important relationships with tribal governments. Governors recognize and respect the sovereignty of Indian tribal governments and support economic advancement and independence for tribes. State and tribal governments must continue to work together on many significant issues. 6.2 Gaming 6.2.1 Commitment to a Solution. Governors are committed to resolving the complex issues involved in the implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) and the management of other congressional and federal decisions that have an impact on states in this area. 6.2.2 Sovereignty Issues. By enacting IGRA, Congress intended that states and tribes would work together to ensure that Indian gaming is consistent with existing state gaming policy. As a state’s chief executive officer and the primary defender of state sovereignty, a governor has the ultimate responsibility to act in the best interests of all state citizens, which includes citizens of tribal governments located within state boundaries. Although Indian gaming activities conducted pursuant to IGRA occur within the boundaries of tribal lands, they attract non-tribal patrons. The impacts of these activities—positive and negative—are felt far beyond the geographic boundaries of tribal lands. 6.2.3 Scope of Gaming. Much of the confusion and conflict that has arisen out of IGRA implementation centers around determining which gaming activities and devices are permitted by a state’s public policy. States must define the scope of the gaming activities and devices subject to negotiation under IGRA. States and tribes can then negotiate to operate those gaming activities and devices in the state. 6.2.4 Federal and State Enforcement. The federal government should use existing IGRA enforcement authority to stop Class III (i.e., casino-style) gaming conducted on Indian lands in violation of, or in the absence of, a tribal-state compact. Given the growth of gaming on Indian lands, Congress should increase resources necessary for enforcement by the federal government of tribal-state compacts and Indian gaming laws and regulations. When the federal government, through the National Indian Gaming Commission, initiates enforcement action under IGRA, it should keep respective state regulatory entities informed of its actions. Congress should grant states authority to seek injunctive relief in the federal courts to compel the appropriate federal agencies to take action against Class III gaming not governed by a tribal-state compact and gaming conducted off qualified Indian lands. 6.2.5 Regulatory Oversight. State and tribal governments should determine their respective regulatory oversight roles through the tribal-state compact negotiation process. If such standards are established, the federal government’s oversight role should be limited to cases in which the state and tribe fail to meet established minimum regulatory standards. Congressional establishment of minimum regulatory standards should not preempt future enactments of stricter state laws, nor should it prevent states from negotiating with tribal governments for more stringent regulatory standards as part of a tribal-state compact. 6.2.6 Amendments and Conflict Resolution. Governors remain committed to resolving the conflicts arising out of IGRA implementation. Proposed amendments to IGRA must address the principal concerns of governors and ultimately help keep states and tribes in negotiations and free from litigation. Any amendments to IGRA should encourage state and tribal governments to work together to resolve conflicts that may arise during the compact negotiation process. 6.3 Trust Lands 6.3.1 Trust Land Acquisition in General. A significant amount of land is taken into trust each year, depriving states and localities of tax revenues and creating civil and criminal jurisdictional challenges. Governors of affected states, therefore, should be consulted with respect to all trust land acquisition decisions undertaken by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 6.3.2 Federal Regulation. Governors ask that any new regulations regarding taking land into trust for the benefit of Indian tribes include a requirement that states be able to review tribal submissions and evidence, just as tribes are able to review state submissions and language. This would help ensure that states have the right to provide data challenging assertions made in the proposals to take land into trust. Governors must have concurrent authority with respect to all trust land acquisition decisions undertaken by the DOI. Governors ask that any new regulations include the following: - criteria under which there is a required on-the-record analysis of the benefits and detriments of taking land into trust, and clear specification of the criteria that must be met to justify taking the land into trust, so as to provide a basis for meaningful judicial review;
- an impartial decisionmaker, not the DOI, to review the criteria and make the administrative determination based on the evidence; and
- a requirement that the DOI, as a required part of its decision, state whether the Secretary will exercise authority under 25 USC 467 to declare the area for acquisition to have “Indian reservation” status.
6.3.3 Trust Land Acquisition for Gaming Purposes. The DOI has acknowledged that a governor’s permission is required before land can be acquired for gaming purposes under IGRA’s two part determination exception under 25 USC 2719 (b)(1)(A). The DOI should ensure that governors are consulted before any land can be taken into trust for gaming purposes in an affected state. Congress also must support its commitment to allow states to have a meaningful role in the trust land acquisition process. Congress must ensure governors’ participation in this decisionmaking process—namely, that no trust land acquisition for gaming purposes pursuant to either federal statute or administrative processes should be possible without first consulting with the governor and tribal leaders of the state in which gaming activity is to be conducted. Whenever land is taken into trust, whether contiguous land or noncontiguous land, the tribe’s proposal should include complete disclosure of all proposed gaming activities and gaming-related activities such as parking lots, casino overflow activities, casino resort facilities, and related activities that are not strictly for gaming purposes, but that are designed specifically to facilitate the expansion of gaming activities by virtue of the trust acquisition. 6.3.4 State and Local Taxation Authority Over Trust Lands.Removing land from state and local tax rolls may have a significant economic impact on many states and localities. It can also create confusion regarding what governmental entity is responsible for providing and maintaining essential government services such as police and fire protection, water and sewer infrastructure, and environmental regulation. Therefore, before land is taken into trust by DOI, the regulations should require the existence of an enforceable agreement between the state (and local government, if appropriate) and the tribal government regarding the application of state and local taxes on the proposed trust land, as well as the agreements regarding the provision of government services for the proposed trust land. The failure to produce evidence of such agreements should weigh against the acquisition of the land in trust. Time limited (effective Annual Meeting 2009–Annual Meeting 2011).
Adopted Winter Meeting 1997; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1999; revised Annual Meeting 1999, Annual Meeting 2001, Annual Meeting 2003, Annual Meeting 2005, Annual Meeting 2007, and Annual Meeting 2009. | 
