Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals court asks Supreme Court to hear gaming suit again
The Journal Times ^ | Nov 5th, 2004 | AP

Posted on 11/05/2004 11:30:01 AM PST by kingu

MADISON - A state appeals court Thursday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up again a lawsuit from owners of a Kenosha dog track seeking to end casino gambling by American Indian tribes.

Dairyland Greyhound Park's lawsuit sought to stop the renewal of compacts allowing American Indian tribes to operate casinos. The track argued that a 1993 amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution outlawed casino gambling.

The state Supreme Court heard the case and split 3-3 on the lawsuit last March, sending it back to the 4th District Court of Appeals for further review.

But the appeals court said Thursday the case would undoubtedly be affected by another ruling the high court made since then.

In May, the state Supreme Court ruled in a lawsuit brought by Republican legislative leaders that Gov. Jim Doyle exceeded his authority in signing a gaming compact with one of the state's 11 tribes.

The appeals court noted two other factors that could affect the case in the state Supreme Court: it has a new justice, Louis Butler, and Justice Jon Wilcox may choose to participate in the case this time after recusing himself the last time the lawsuit was before the court.

"We have little doubt that the case will ultimately reach the Supreme Court again by petition for review regardless of how or on what grounds this court may decide the appeal," the appeals court said.

Doyle took office in January 2003 facing a $3.2 billion deficit. He negotiated the new compacts with the tribes, granting them unending deals and the right to offer games like craps and roulette at their casinos in exchange for more than $1 billion over the next decade.

The deals prompted Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, and then Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer, R-West Bend, to file a lawsuit claiming Doyle overstepped his authority.

Dairyland's owners sued after a previous deal to sell the track to the tribe fell through in the late 1990s.

Track officials are pursuing the suit despite reaching a deal to sell the facility for $40.5 million to the Menominee Nation to build a casino there. The tribe's plan needs local, state and federal approval.

Kenosha County voters approved an advisory referendum Tuesday to allow construction of the casino at Dairyland.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: americanindians; gaming; indiancasinos
Nothing like ignoring a state constitution to give a case the legs to be heard by a state supreme court, but will they ignore the document once again?
1 posted on 11/05/2004 11:30:01 AM PST by kingu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kingu

They should light up a doobie before making their decision.


2 posted on 11/05/2004 11:31:51 AM PST by pypo (I support our troops' Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Dairyland Greyhound Park's lawsuit sought to stop the renewal of compacts allowing American Indian tribes to operate casinos. The track argued that a 1993 amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution outlawed casino gambling.

Here's a question - The United States Constitution does not apply on Indian Land. So, what the hell makes these isiots think that a State Constitution has any jurisdiction or applicability on Indian Land?

3 posted on 11/05/2004 11:44:00 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (CBS - We Distort, You Deride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
Here's a question - The United States Constitution does not apply on Indian Land. So, what the hell makes these isiots think that a State Constitution has any jurisdiction or applicability on Indian Land?

The state constitution certainly has effect on the governor who signed compacts; if those compacts did not comply with state law, then there's good question as to their legality. Without a legal compact, the tribes are limited to the same types of gaming available to anyone else in the state.
4 posted on 11/05/2004 11:52:06 AM PST by kingu (Which would you bet on? Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Haiti and Kosovo?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kingu

True. However, I believe the Compacts themselevs are the result of Federal Law - Federal Law, passed by Reagan, gave the Indians the right to Gambling on reservations. However, part of that required the Tribes and the States to reach the Compacts.

I'd have to say that in this instance, the Federal Law will more than likely trump the State Constitution... Now, that being the case, if the Governor acted unilaterally, he can be called on it, and the compacts are void. However, on the flip side, all that means is that the state will be forced to once again haggle out an agreement with the tribes for casinos and gambling. They will have no choice, no matter what the state constitution says... There WILL be gambling. The only question now is, how much money will the stete get? They are guaranteed about a billion dollars now - if they push too hard, they may find that the fedeerally-arbitrated new compacts give them less.

The State will lose this, no matter how it plays out.


5 posted on 11/05/2004 11:59:23 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (CBS - We Distort, You Deride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
The only thing that the IGRA requires is the right to conduct the same or similar gaming as is permitted elsewhere in the state, and a 'good faith' effort on any other gaming issues.

We ran into the same issue in California (and there's a boatload of case law because of it..) What makes this unique is that there was already negotiation and a compact signed -- if the secretary of the Interior has already signed off and it's been published in the Federal Register, you're completely right - the state has already lost, and it might be best to take action against the governor independent of the compacts rather than trying to blow whatever good deal they got as part of the compacts.

I'm sure there are many lawyers right now sharpening their pencils and calculating how many billable hours they'll get out of this deal.
6 posted on 11/05/2004 12:15:28 PM PST by kingu (Which would you bet on? Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Haiti and Kosovo?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson