Tribes and states: A new era in intergovernmental affairs

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 111-130

  Mason, W Dale ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041175396     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029943     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Daniel McCool, "Intergovernmental Conflict and Indian Water Rights: An Assessment of Negotiated Settlements," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 23 (Winter 1993): 85-101.
2. Robert N. Clinton, Nell Jessup Newton, and Monroe E. Price, American Indian Law, Cases and Materials, 3rd ed. (Charlottesville, VA: Michie Press, 1991).
3. Indian Country is defined at 18 USC 1151 as: "(a) All land within the limits of any reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States..."; "(b) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and "(c) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished."
4. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 96-1037 (1998).
5. Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
6. 30 U.S. 1 (1830).
7. 31 U.S. 515 (1831).
8. David E. Wilkins, American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court: The Masking of Justice (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997), p. 275.
9. 187 U.S. 553 (1903).
10. H.R. Con. Res. 108, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess., 67 Stat. B132 (1953).
11. John R. Wunder, "Retained by The People:" A History of American Indians and the Bill of Rights (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), p. 102.
12. 67 Stat. 588.
13. In the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-284, 201-701, 82 Stat. 73, 77-81), the Congress gave the tribes the opportunity to retrocede either criminal or civil jurisdiction, or both back to the federal government. The Law also gave any future tribe subject to jurisdiction transfer the right to object.
14. Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Co., 1982), p. 174.
15. Robert N. Clinton, "The Dormant Indian Commerce Clause," Connecticut Law Review 27 (1995): 1055-1249, especially 1057.
16. Frank Pommersheim, "Tribal-state Relations: Hope for the Future," South Dakota Law Review 36 (1991): 239-276.
17. Gloria Valencia-Weber, "Shrinking Indian Country: A State Offensive to Divest Tribal Sovereignty, "Connecticut Law Review 27 (1995): 1281-1322, especially 1281.
18. High stakes bingo games are those that offer prizes above state statutory limits imposed on non-Indian operated bingo games.
19. U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Report Together With Additional Views, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1988, p. 2.
20. 658 F. 2d 310 (1981).
21. 480 U.S. 202 (1987).
22. Brief for the Appellants, California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, B.N. 85-1708, 8 August 1986, n. p.; Lexis-Nexis.
23. Stewart L. Udall, "The Indian Gaming Act and the Political Process," Indian Gaming and the Law, ed. William R. Eadington (Reno, NV: University of Nevada-Reno, 1990).
24. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 25 June 1987, pp. 263-264.
25. U.S. Congress, Senate, Establishing Federal Standards and Regulations for the Conduct of Gaming Activities Within Indian Country: Hearings Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess., 17 June 1986, p. 609.
26. Ibid., 365.
27. U.S. Congress, House, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., 25 June 1987, p. 381.
28. Ibid., 113.
29. Ibid., 159.
30. Ronald J. Santoni, "The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: How Did We Get Here? Where Are We Going?" Creighton Law Review 26 (February 1993): 404.
31. Congressional Quarterly, "High Stakes Bingo to Continue Clears Legislation to Regulate Indian Gambling," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (1 October 1988): 2730.
32. U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. S12657.
33. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Amending the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and For Other Purpose: Report to Accompany S487, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., 14 March 1996, Report 104-241, p. 7.
34. 496 U.S. 1 (1989).
35. 496 U.S. 1 (1989).
36. "National Gaming Survey," Newsletter of the National Gaming Industry, Casino Journal; World Wide Web, Internet Citation: http://www.intersphere...player/summary/sample, 22 April 1996, pp. 2-3.
37. Robert Goldman, The Luck Business: The Consequences and Broken Promises of America's Gaming Explosion (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 59.
38. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Amending the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and For Other Purposes: Report to Accompany S487, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., 14 March 1996, Report 104-241, p. 9.
39. American Gaming Association, "Gaming Industry Employee Survey," (prepared by Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P. for American Gaming Association, Las Vegas, NV, 7 October 1997); World Wide Web, Internet Citation: http://americangaming.org/services/EmpSurvey/index.html., p. 1.
40. Ibid., 3.
41. At the time of the survey 184 tribes operated 281 gaming facilities.
42. General Accounting Office, Tax Policy: A Profile of the Indian Gaming Industry: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 17.
43. Ibid., 15.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Pueblo of Sandia v. King, CIV-92-076-JC D. N.M. (1992) and Mescalero Apache Tribe v. New Mexico, CIV-92-0613-JC D. N.M. (1992).
47. Regis Pecos, personal interview, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 19 January 1996.
48. W. Dale Mason, "Interest Group Federalism: Indian Gaming and the Status of Indian Tribes in the American Political System" (Ph.D. diss., University of New Mexico, 1997), p. 163.
49. Ibid., 172.
50. Kevin Gover, author's personal interview, Tesuque Pueblo, 3 February 1996.
51. The Picuris Pueblo, a non-gaming tribe owns the hotel.
52. Beverly A. Cigler, "Not Just Another Special Interest Group: Intergovernmental Representation," Interest Group Politics, eds. Allen J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1995).
53. 904 P. 2d 11 (1995).
54. 1995 N.M. Lexis 426 (1995).
55. Santa Ana v. Kelly 96-2162 (1997).
56. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, 1960), p. 10.
57. David Stafford, "Proposal to Tax Native American Tribal Businesses Crushed For Now," LEGI-SLATE; World Wide Web, Internet Citation: http://www.legislate.com/n/news/970613.htm, 13 June 1997, p. 1.
58. U.S. Congress, House, Congressional Record, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., 15 July 1997, p. H5221.
59. Ibid., H5220.
60. Ibid., H5223.
61. Ibid.
62. National Governors' Association, "The Role of States, the Federal Government, and Indian Tribal Governments with Respect to Indian Gaming an other Economic Issues," EDC-6; World Wide Web, Internet Citation: http://www.nga/Pubs/Policies/EDC/edc6. asp., p. 3.
63. U.S. Congress, Senate, Special Committee on Investigations of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Establishing Federal Standards and Regulations for the Conduct of Gaming Activities Within Indian Country: Hearings Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1988, p. 4.
64. Morton Grodzins, Centralization and Decentralization in the American Federal System, Nation of States: Essays on the American Federal System, ed. Robert A. Goldwin (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963).
65. Bill Anoatubby, "Intergovernmental Agreements: A Treaty By Any Other Name...," Sovereignty Symposium V: The Year of the Indian (Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma State Supreme Court, 1992), p. 48.
66. Ibid., 49.