| People Against a Casino
Town
|
| News
from PACT |
|
Letter to Oregon Legislators
January 9, 2004 All Oregon Legislators Salem, Oregon Dear Oregon Legislator: As you may be aware, in mid-December, citizens of Florence, a coastal town of 7,300 filed a law suit in Lane County Circuit Court (Case No. 16-0323044) against Governor Kulongoski. The suit is an attempt to stop the threatened construction of a gambling casino proposed by the Confederated Tribes of Lower Coos, Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians who obtained "trust" status for a 100-acre parcel, the Hatch Tract, it had purchased within a mile of downtown Florence. In doing so, the tribes declared to the town, county and DOI it intended the parcel for "cultural and historical" uses and not gambling. Resort to the courts became necessary after the governor first refused to pursue a federal court action initiated by his predecessor to defend a state role in the Department of Interior's casino site-selection process. He then refused to negotiate "local concerns" as required by the State-Tribal Compact. The governor's first refusal was tantamount to a ceding of the State's sovereignty to the tribal government and its Las Vegas-based backers. His second refusal is an abdication of his responsibility to the people of the Florence and western Lane County as the sole state authority with standing under the federally-mandated Compact to mitigate local concerns of a casino's detrimental effects on surrounding communities. These gubernatorial refusals and his pursuit of Compact implementation prompt two fundamental constitutional questions: (1) Did the Governor (and his predecessor) contravene the casino prohibition found in Article XV, section 4(12) (formerly section 4(7)) of the Oregon Constitution? (2) Did the Governor (and his predecessor) violate the separations of powers provisions under Article III, section 1, Article VI, section 1, and Article V, section 10 of the Oregon Constitution in entering into the State-Tribal Compact for the proposed casino near Florence? The issue of gubernatorial usurpation of legislative power in similar state-tribal compact situations has been raised successfully in other states and other courts. Most recently, New York's highest court found that, in entering into a state-tribal compact, its governor violated its constitution's separation of powers. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce Inc. v. Pataki, (New York Court of Appeals, 3 No. 42, June 12, 2003). In 1999, the California Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion. Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Int'l Union v. Davis, 981 P.2d 990, 1011 (Cal. 1999). And earlier, the highest courts in Arizona (Sears v. Hull, 961 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1998) and New Mexico (New Mexico ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 904 P.2d 11 (N.M 1995) recognized similar usurpations of legislative power. It remains for our courts to address this issue in the context of Oregon's constitution. While the immediate effects of the governor's refusals are visited upon Florence, they leave every community in Oregon vulnerable to the vagaries of "reservation shopping." Florence's economic, public safety, governmental and social-services concerns are detailed in a report invited - and then summarily dismissed as beyond the scope of his authority - by the governor. They might be best summed up by former Governor Barbara Roberts' observation when a gambling facility was proposed by the Siletz for Salem, that "a casino...would erode the social and moral fabric of the community and that quality of life would decline." Unfortunately, while Governor Roberts was voicing a respect for the concerns of her constituents the present governor speaks only of a misperceived "intergovernmental" responsibility that is of greater import to him than is his sovereign duty to protect the legitimate concerns of his constituents left defenseless against unwarranted encroachment by tribal government. This is a matter of real concern as present casino tribes are seeking to build second facilities, as six new groups, reportedly, are lobbying for federal recognition as tribes and each of the state's confederated tribes potentially can split themselves into independent constituent parts, each "entitled" to its own casino. In the face of the increasingly powerful influence of political contributions from the $14 billion-a-year Indian gambling industry and its moneyed, non-tribal accomplices, the fundamental safeguards across the nation are giving way to political advantage and economic expediency. We urge you to stand up to that trend before it permits executive arrogation of legislative power and stifling the voice of your constituents, the people of Oregon, clearly expressed by them in Article XV, section 4(12) of the Constitution. We invite you to visit our website, (PACT), for more information about the law suit, its background and the threat to our state constitutional protections. Sincerely, Susie Dewberry President People Against a Casino Town |
|
Related Links: |
| PACT SEARCH FACTS LAWSUIT LINKS NEWS RESEARCH ACTION |