Gov. Charlie Crist finally reached a compact with the Seminoles in 2007, and it was federally approved in 2008. Just a few months after that, though, the Florida Supreme Court decided that Crist had exceeded his authority under state law in agreeing to several of the compact provisions. Many state officials took the position that the Florida Supreme Court decision invalidated the compact, so that the Seminoles had to stop offering the games authorized by the compact -- but if the games stopped, so would the revenue-sharing payments to the state. Did we mention that this all is taking place during a sharp economic downturn in Florida?
So the Seminoles kept gaming, and also set aside the payments to the state. And Crist and the tribe renegotiated a compact meant to comply with the Florida Supreme Court decision. Under state law, the renegotiated compact now needs the legislature's blessing -- something that many hoped would happen this month. Apparently the House took it upon itself to try to renegotiate the renegotiated compact by asking for even more money for the state in revenue sharing. Why more? Well, because the state needs it, of course.
Yesterday, Florida House Speaker Larry Cretul announced that the state House of Representatives had reached an impasse with the tribe. And now the legislature wants the NIGC to shut down the Seminoles' games. Listen to this state-friendly spin in Cretul's letter to George Skibine, the brand-new interim Chair of the NIGC:
"The disadvantages to the state in attempting to negotiate a compact under the present circumstances are clear. Until the banked card games (and slot machines) are shut down and the tribe gives some indication that it is willing to abide by the law, and ultimately its agreements, it would appear that the state would be ill-advised to enter into any compact with the tribe."
The NIGC Chair certainly has power to fine a tribe for violations of IGRA -- up to $25,000 for each violation. And the Chair can also order a temporary closure of a tribal casino for "substantial" violations of IGRA, which the Commission can make permanent.
But who's in the wrong here? The Seminoles have already promised $150 million in revenue-sharing payments to the state for relatively limited exclusivity with regard to Class III gaming. (Slots, remember, are legal in some parts of Florida, so under IGRA, the tribe has a right to operate them -- and revenue sharing is meant to be a payment in exchange for something above and beyond what the tribe already has a legal right to.) And there's an argument that the tribe is operating gaming in compliance with an approved compact, regardless of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. On the other hand, there's an argument, supported by case law, that the state court's decision invalidates the original compact. And, even more to the point, Florida is facing a budget deficit of $2.6 billion, and with that kind of deficit, it needs some $516 million to preserve educational spending -- and $150 million is a long way away from $516 million.
Though the legality of revenue sharing is, quite frankly, highly questionable under IGRA, it has proven to be a powerful political tool in compact negotiations. Some states and tribes have reached win-win agreements, where the state gets payments and the tribe gets some sort of guarantee of exclusivity, which helps to secure a clear market advantage for the tribe. With the aggressively contentious "negotiations" in Florida, it seems we're a long ways from a win-win.
Read more in the Miami Herald: House Asks Federal Government to Halt Seminole Casino Games, Seminole Tribe Decries Failure to Reach Gaming Deal
