| People Against a Casino
Town
|
| News
of Interest |
|
PACT to Proceed with Casino Challenge
The casino was put on notice that the
courts might decide the casino was
illegal back in 2006,
and that they proceeded with expansion at their own risk. PACT to proceed with casino challenge Posted: Friday, Jun 13th, 2008 BY: Densie Ruttan The Siuslaw News, Florence, Oregon A Florence organization that has been fighting casinos in the courts for the last several years saw a major legal victory at the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday, June 11. The latest ruling for People Against a Casino Town (PACT) gives the organization a green light to go forward with a lawsuit against the state of Oregon. The group is attempting to prove that the governor does not have the constitutional right to sign compacts with tribes to place casinos on tribal lands in the state of Oregon. PACT’s case against the state has been tied up in legal limbo, bouncing between different courts since the first suit was filed in 2003. This time, the suit targets the governor himself, not the tribes or Three Rivers Casino. “PACT simply wants the governor to answer a very simple question — how is it that he keeps signing compacts to site casinos in a state whose constitution clearly says ‘no casinos’?” said Kelly Clark, lead lawyer, in a news release from O’Donnell, Clark and Crew, LLP, the firm representing PACT. “Now, the state and the governor will have to give a defense to an action we believe is indefensible under the constitution.” Kristian Roggendorf, a partner in the firm, said this latest court decision means that PACT can finally have its day in court after years of procedural delay. “The governor and the tribes don’t get to hide behind procedural maneuvering to avoid going to court,” said Roggendorf. In 1994, the state and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians signed a compact to regulate gaming on its tribal lands. Then-Governor John Kitzhaber signed the compact just before leaving office. Nine tribes in Oregon have signed compacts with the state. PACT President Debby Todd is determined to get answers from the governor’s office: why are such deals legal when she interprets the state constitution as prohibiting casinos? The governor “made this mess, and it’s his responsibility to clean it up. There are a lot of ways he could fix the problem, and I’d be surprised if his staff of attorneys did not tell him of those solutions long ago,” said Todd. Three Rivers Casino has operated in Florence on the tribe’s Hatch Tract property for the last three years and recently expanded its operation. Tribal Chairman Bob Garcia said that the outcome of the lawsuit will not have any effect on the operation of Three Rivers Casino, especially since tribal lands are sovereign lands, not regulated by traditional channels. And property values in the Florence area have gone up since Three Rivers was built, said Garcia. “We’ll be watching what happens with interest, but recognize that ultimately it is federal law that applies on federal lands and we are obeying all applicable federal laws,” said Garcia. Garcia said that ultimately it is up to the Department of the Interior to conclude whether tribal-state compacts are valid. “We don’t need a compact to operate Three Rivers Casino,” said Garcia. “Compacts give the state a certain amount of say in the regulation of Three Rivers and we have always enjoyed a good relationship with the state of Oregon and will continue to do so.” But Todd said that all types of gaming operations should be regulated at the state level. “The casino was put on notice that the courts might decide the casino was illegal back in 2006, and that they proceeded with expansion at their own risk. We expect the casino to obey Oregon’s laws, the same as any other business,” said Todd. Garcia said there is significant legal precedent for Indian gaming authority at the federal level. He cited the case of the Cabazon Tribe of Mission Indians versus the State of California as a landmark decision supporting Indian gaming, as well as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Garcia also said Oregon has taken a liberal stance in the past toward gaming; the state allows casino night fund-raisers for charitable organizations, bingo games and the state lottery, for example. PACT has “not had the answer they wanted from their day in court,” said Garcia. But Roggendorf said that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is the reason why tribes can have casinos, but only to the extent that such gaming is allowed in the state. “The state constitution says no casinos. The casinos say it’s a different kind of gaming,” said Roggendorf. “Most of the case law that has come down from the courts has been to decide whether the state allows some concept of a particular type of game. The tribe says that you can have Las Vegas nights at Elks lodges, so they can have those games at a casino. But Oregon’s constitution clearly does not allow casinos.” Todd said that PACT views the court decision as a major step forward. “We will continue with our two-fold mission: Obtain an answer from the courts about the governor’s violation of the state constitution that expressly forbids casinos in Oregon, and continue educating the public about the devastating effects casinos have on small communities,” said Todd. Todd said PACT’s attorneys expect to continue the battle in the courts for at least another year or two before receiving a final answer. Until that time, PACT will stay in the fray. “The governor’s office has unlimited financial resources (taxpayers) at his disposal, and he can continue to drag this out in the hopes of out-moneying PACT. But PACT has dedicated attorneys and supporters, and we will continue the lawsuit until we get an answer,” said Todd. Garcia said it will be business as usual for Three Rivers in the foreseeable future. “It doesn’t mean anything for the operation of Three Rivers Casino. We’ll continue to operate and I don’t believe there will be any long-term effect on our operation,” said Garcia. Unless the case is appealed to the Supreme Court by the state, a trial court will now decide the merits of PACT’s case against the governor, according to Roggendorf. http://www.thesiuslawnews.com/V2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=&story_id=1385 Also see: Oregon Court of Appeals Decision 6/10/08 |
|
Related Links: |
| PACT SEARCH FACTS LAWSUIT LINKS NEWS RESEARCH ACTION |