Judge rules Salt River can't have keno, slots

     Associated Press
      PHOENIX -- In a ruling that has implications for other tribes, a judge said Friday that state and federal law combine to prohibit Arizona from allowing slot machines or keno games at one tribe's planned casinos.
      Judge B. Michael Dann of Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that under provisions of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the two types of gambling cannot be included in a permit for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
      The gaming act allows states to negotiate compacts with tribes to allow games including slot machines and keno in Indian casinos.
      "Since Arizona does not permit gambling by slot machines or keno games by any of its residents who live off Indian lands, it cannot by compact permit it on Indian lands," Dann wrote.
      Lawyers in the case said Dann's ruling only applies to the Salt River tribe's situation unless it is upheld on appeal.
      "Then of course other tribes are vulnerable," said Phil Shea, a lawyer for the Salt River tribe.
      Dann's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a Phoenix couple, Paula and Alan Sears, against the Salt River tribe, the state and Gov. Fife Symington, who would issue the compact.
      The tribe has been pressing Symington for a compact allowing two casinos on sites near the Phoenix suburbs of Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe. The Searses contend that their children, who go to school in Scottsdale, would be exposed to bad influences if casino gambling is permitted nearby.
      Their attorney, Neil Vincent Wake, agreed the legal principles in Dann's ruling could apply to other tribes.
      However, Symington has indicated he has no intention of repudiating other tribes' existing compacts, and nobody knows what will happen when those compacts begin to come up for renewal in 2003, said Ian Macpherson, Symington's lawyer in the gaming case.
      "The answer it's anybody's guess," Macpherson said. "A lot of things change in the meantime. The state of the law can change."
      Sixteen of Arizona's 21 tribes have signed compacts. However, only 14 have casinos.
      The Arizona Indian Gaming Association said it would issue a statement later on the ruling.
      Members of the association have been embroiled in a different dispute involving whether state prohibitions on gambling operated for economic gain apply to tribes' casinos.
      In that regard, the state contends it is illegal for tribal casinos to offer card games such as poker. The tribes say federal law allows them to offer poker without state interference.
      Besides arguing that keno and slot machines are not permitted under the federal law, the Searses argued that granting the tribe a compact would violate the Arizona Constitution's equal-privileges requirement and its ban on local-interest legislation.
      However, Dann's ruling did not address those claims because he decided the issue first on the question of federal law.
      Shea said Dann's ruling will be appealed. He declined to say whether it would be to the Arizona Court of Appeals or directly to the state Supreme Court.
      The Supreme Court already has before it a separate lawsuit filed by the tribe against Symington over a dispute over terms of a proposed compact.
      The tribe contends Symington is violating a voter-approved ballot measure requiring the governor to issue a standard compact to any tribe lacking but wanting one. Symington contends he has authority to include changes, including restrictions on casino sites.
      Shea said he did not know whether the state Supreme Court could or would consolidate that lawsuit with an appeal of Dann's ruling.
      An appeal of another lawsuit between the Salt River tribe and the state is before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.