Economics, morality, or race: Referenda voting on tribal gaming legalization

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Simon ◽  
John Frendreis ◽  
Raymond Tatalovich
Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-247
Author(s):  
Linda J. Shorey ◽  
Marsha A. Sajer

2021 ◽  
pp. 0160323X2110579
Author(s):  
Thaddieus W. Conner ◽  
Aimee L. Franklin ◽  
Christian Martinez

Intergovernmental relations scholars note a decentralizing trend transferring authority from national to state and local government in the American federalist system. Theory suggests that a misalignment of the interests of national and regional actors may lead to variation in sub-national regulatory environments. We investigate how different sub-national regulatory environments condition the impact of Tribal gaming. Using tribal-state gaming compacts and amendments from 1990–2010, we examine how restrictions in sub-national regulatory agreements condition intended impacts of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. We find that revenue sharing and market restrictions differentially influence the impact of gaming on tribal per capita income but not levels of unemployment. Through the case of Tribal gaming, we determine how sub-national agreements condition the relative accomplishment of policy goals important to Native nations.


2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 621-623
Author(s):  
Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-453
Author(s):  
Robert W. Stocker
Keyword(s):  

2004 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-246
Author(s):  
Tracy Burris
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Aimee L. Franklin

From 1995 to 2011, tribal gaming has grown from $5.5B to $27.2B in revenues (NIGC website, 2012). When so much money is changing hands, a lack of adequate policies heightens the possibility of financial mismanagement. In fact, gaming violations have grown during this time period. This paper explores the relationship between financial management policies and regulatory violations among American Indian Tribal gaming activities. Through empirical testing, we conclude that deductive models of proactive and reactive policies do not accurately predict the incidence of gaming violations and these policies are ineffective. The results raise normative questions about regulatory policy parity. These findings and related implications for future financial management regulations, policies and practices are tremendous, given the amount of money involved.


Author(s):  
Laurie Arnold

Indian gaming, also called Native American casino gaming or tribal gaming, is tribal government gaming. It is government gaming built on sovereignty and consequently is a corollary to state gambling such as lotteries rather than a corollary to corporate gaming. While the types of games offered in casinos might differ in format from ancestral indigenous games, gaming itself is a cultural tradition in many tribes, including those who operate casino gambling. Native American casino gaming is a $33.7 billion industry operated by nearly 250 distinct tribes in twenty-nine states in the United States. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 provides the framework for tribal gaming and the most important case law in Indian gaming remains Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, in the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court decision over California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document