Narrow Gambling Vote

The state of Idaho has voted against the bill HB 127, but the vote was very narrow. House representatives had a 8-7 vote at the end of the day. The basis of the ban was that some of the members felt the bill was an anti-tribal gaming bill. The House members who voted in favor of banning the bill did so because they felt that tribal operations were going well for the past 20 years. The tribes have been providing legal gambling opportunities for two decades. There was no reason to bring forth a bill that places restrictions on those practices.

HB 127 is a bill that places a variety of stipulations on the tribal casinos in the state. One stipulation is that the casinos would not be able to use machines that did not meet the appropriate regulations and specifications. This tactic would force casinos to either throw their equipment away and spend money on replacements, or remove all of the machines from their businesses. Either solutions could an extreme loss in funds for the casinos and the tribes.That aspect of the bill was so obvious that half the house voted against it.

The members who voted to have the bill banned were members such as Smith, Jordan, Monks, Crane, Palmer, Holtzclaw, and more. Some of the members who voted to keep the bill were Luker, Zito, Scott, Barbieri, Harris and more. The concerns of the people who voted for the bill were that the tribes may have been using machinery that was unconstitutional. The problem is that theses places have been operation for so long without their machinery in questions. Assertive people want to know the why of any new gaming regulation before they involve themselves in it. They will not jump on a bandwagon if it does not seem fair.

The members who voted against the ban said that it made no sense for them pursue this type of relief. The tribe should be able to continue making its revenue without making a number of severe spontaneous compliance renovations. Some attorney generals felt that it would have been detrimental to the state if they would have won the battle on the legislation anyway. The reason is that it most likely would have brought forth a lawsuit from the tribe. To avoid such strong a lawsuit, they felt that it was better to rid the tribes with the regulations forever.