John Blomster: Welcome to ºìÌÒÊÓƵ, a ºìÌÒÊÓƵ podcast where we explore today's biggest legal topics with the law school’s distinguished guests and experts from around the globe. I'm John Blomster. And today we welcome on two very special guests, Rion Ramirez and David Trujillo to discuss the evolution of tribal gaming and sports wagering in Washington state. Rion Ramirez is Chief Executive Officer at Port Madison Enterprises, an agency of the Suquamish tribal government that develops community resources while promoting the economic and social welfare of the Suquamish tribe. David Trujillo is director of the Washington State Gambling Commission, which is the accredited law enforcement agency as well as the only statewide agency devoted to gambling licensing, regulation and enforcement. They've joined us today for a deep dive into the future of sports betting on tribal lands in Washington, a future that is quickly taking shape, given several key developments and recent legislation.
We're really excited to talk about this. So Rion, and David, thank you very much for taking the time.
Rion Ramirez: Thanks for having us.
David Trujillo: Definitely appreciate being here.
JB: David, let's start here. Why is understanding the history of gambling important as the industry charts its course ahead today?
DT: If you look to history, you can understand what has come before how history can help us formulate decisions in today's environment, and how it becomes a foundation for strategic thinking in the future. That's not to be bound by history. But that's to recognize history for what it is. Do lessons learned from history and take history and bring it into the current environment and into the future to better things.
JB: Absolutely. And part of that history, a really big piece of legislation was the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which was signed into law in 1992, which outlawed sports betting nationally and was eventually overturned in the US Supreme Court. Rion, what did it take to get the US Supreme Court to overturn that law? And what were the impacts of the decision that followed?
RR: Well, I mean, in terms of the evolution of PASPA, which it is oftenly, referred to, I mean, it was put in place under George Bush's administration, and was something where they had identified a very limited set of folks who could have sports wagering. The biggest pushback on that was when that kind of timeframe expired and New Jersey kind of took the lead in terms of pushing back on the state's rights issue, and pushed it all the way up through the Supreme Court in what was a case called Murphy vs. NCAA, and ultimately, were successful in terms of winning that it was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, agreed that one specific clause passed but violated the commandeer powers for the states and introduced states to kind of really regulate their own state with the outside interference from the feds on a state’s rights issue. And what happened after that was you saw a proliferation of states opening up sports betting to the point to where we currently have 18 states, including the District of Columbia, that have legalized sports betting. You have another four states that have authorized sports betting but have not got it up and running, which would include Washington state, which we're going to get done relatively soon. I think it's Washington state, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, in that regard.
JB: You know, you mentioned that this is really accelerating, and that's because on March 25 of this year, Governor Jay Inslee signed HB 2638, which legalized sports wagering at tribal casinos in Washington state, or authorized it. So, David, in preparing to get sports betting programs up and running, what are the different pillars that need to be in place to build an effective and safe foundation for those programs?
DT: Thank you. That's a very good question. When we started to look at this last year, one of the recommendations we received actually from, I think, chairman or president of the Washington Indian Gaming Association was to look out at other states. Don't reinvent the wheel. Look to see what other states are doing. And that included states that had started, states that were in the midst of starting and then states that were looking to start sports wagering. So, as a result of that, and those visits and some of the research that we've done, we believe that there is a five pillars, so to speak, that would have a strong, robust regulatory program, whether it's at the federal, state, tribal level, or what have you.
And first pillar is licensing and regulation; criminal enforcement; agency funding; problem and responsible gaming; and sports integrity. Those are really the five pillars that we've identified across the spectrum for a strong, robust regulatory program. Whether again be at the federal, state or tribal level.
JB: Rion, what different factors have you seen that prompted the authorization of sports wagering in Washington? And what are some of the national trends and best practices that we're seeing across the country in states where sports betting is already legal?
RR: In terms of sports betting within our state and within Indian countries, it's important to think of the overarching kind of dynamic in terms of within Indian gaming, you have the most highly regulated industry, really in the country in terms of you have a federal level, which is the National Indian Gaming Commission, NIGC, which regulates and oversees a large portion of things. You have our tribal regulators, who are the primary regulators on the reservations and tribes spend millions and 10s of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, in conjunction with each other in terms of regulating the industry on our reservations. And then when it comes to class three gaming, which is more the style of Las Vegas kind of gaming than most people think of, you have an overlay of a relationship in terms of that the state and the tribe have to negotiate these compacts in terms of having gaming on their reservation.
So, within that overall framework, you know, tribes in Washington state have more than 20 years of experience. There as knowledgeable as anybody in the industry in terms of regulating the industry, as well as operating casinos and running gaming enterprises. For us, we look at the overall development and everything that we've done. We've been very thoughtful, measured, and incredibly responsible in the way that we do gaming to provide revenue for the essential government services of the tribal government. In terms of being able to run its court system, being able to provide health care, being able to have schools, to do road projects. So, there's, for us, it's our Department of Revenue in that regard. And then in terms of the games themselves, and how things are operated at our facility, we just look at sports betting as another game. It's not creating a new casino, it's not doing anything significantly outside the box. Sports betting really isn't a huge moneymaker. It's more an amenity for folks to have an enjoyable experience and enjoy our facilities. Within the box of sports betting you do see folks betting at the counter in terms of a traditional sports book where you come in, place a bet with your teller, for lack of a better term, at the sports book. You also have kiosks that are offered throughout the facility in terms of where you can place bets on a kiosk in that regard. And there's a bunch of different functions in terms of how those work at different places or different offerings, and they're also mobile kind of sports wagering in Washington state.
I would say our community, as a whole does not want to see a huge proliferation of gaming across the state. They view Washington to be a wonderful place to live, they don't want to see it turn into Las Vegas. So, in that vein, when the legislature looked at legalizing sports betting, they look to the well-regulated industry that we have in any country, saw it as an additional amenity in terms of being able to add it to the list of games that tribes can offer at their facilities. And they did provide some flexibility in terms of allowing mobile wagering on premises. It's still, you know, going to be basically the same kind of construct within our Indian country in terms of, you know, how you can place bets. It might be, you may see tribes that utilize, you know, in a mobile app for in-game betting or different things associated with the operation on the property. You may see tribes that only have a sports book of a traditional sort where you come and place bets at the counter. But you also may see folks who just have a very, very minimal setup to where it's basically almost a kiosk. So, there's going to be a lot of flexibility and a lot of variation in terms of the way different tribes do it and it's not going to be something that creates a whole new industry, it's just going to be an additional game.
JB: Absolutely. You mentioned those gaming compacts. And those were really borne out of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which authorized the ability of tribes with in trust for gaming activities to negotiate gaming compacts with the state. And it's very interesting process. So, David, what's kind of a high level overview of the process that tribes must go through, given the framework set forth by the IGRA? And has anything changed in recent years in particular, with the authorization of sports betting? Or is it pretty much as similar as it's been working within that framework?
DT: Again, thank you. That's a good question. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act did a couple of things. It was borne out of litigation, but it affirmed the tribes rights to have certain types of traditional type gaming, etc, as well as bingo and certain other derivatives. And then when it came to class three or casino-style games, that's where it authorized the tribes in the state to enter into a dialogue, which is kind of where we're at today.
So, the state law that we have in place that governs the contracting process here in Washington, has been in place for a number of years. In 1988, when the Indian Gaming Regulatory was passed, Washington state began fairly quickly thereafter negotiations how to compact with the first tribe signed a couple of years later. And then the first class three gaming operation under state and tribes shared jurisdiction was in July of 1992. So, that actually proceeded fairly quickly. So, here we are, many, many years later, the process is still fairly similar. What do we have? We have lessons learned, some of the lessons learned that we have, while the process has stayed somewhat similar in that state and tribe meet, they confer, they work on language together for an agreement. They agree on tentative agreement. That agreement is noticed to the public and to the legislature and to the commission. And then there are public hearings, one in the house, one in the Senate, one at public commission hearing. Then the commissioners themselves will vote to, not to approve the compact, but they'll vote to forward it to the governor with a recommendation to sign or they'll vote to refer it back to me for further negotiation. One of the things that we're finding is—I've only been a part of the negotiating, well, probably the last five, six years, a little bit before that—but what we're finding is that a lot of the decisions and the language that was incorporated into other compacts lack context. And so as we try to understand reasons for language being the way it is, we don't see it in the written word, which then means that it becomes subject to the people asking people who were involved at the time, and over time, it becomes an interpretive issue. So, one of the things we're trying to do is recognize the context of today, reasons for language today, in the compact today so that future negotiators on both sides, the tribe and the state will understand, kind of the current environment in why things were done today, versus the language that was done many years ago.
RR: If I could just interject on a couple of points associated with IGRA. So, IGRA was actually a cut back in terms of the tribes’ overall sovereignty and regulatory authority in regards to things. So before IGRA, there was a Cabazon case, Cabazon came through and basically looked at, it was in the area more so in terms of high stakes bingo and stuff in terms of saying, if it's civil regulatory in terms of the state has in PL 280 status, as legalized gaming for a limited purpose, that means the tribes have the authority to regulate it and do them do it themselves, which brought a lot of concern at the federal level. In particular, Senator McCain ended up pushing for IGRA to put in place kind of a voice for the state in terms of how tribes do gaming in that regard. So, IGRA didn't grant us the authority, we've always had the inherent right to do certain things, it actually cut back the process in terms of how we do that.
Moreover, in terms of lands that we can game on, they use the term Indian lands within the definition of IGRA and what constitute Indian lands are our reservations. So, that may be fee or trust property. So, for example, here at Suquamish, we operated a casino in fee status for a number of years in excess of five, 10 years that we operated on the Port Madison Indian Reservation but wasn’t in fee status. Well, it went through the fee to trust process. The area that's more limited is in terms of trust property. In terms of in that regard, IGRA has a requirement that in order to game on trust property, it has to be placed into trust honor, before basically October 17, 1988. If it wasn't in trust, then you have to go through a two-part determined—this is a legal one, sorry, I'm just being the lawyer and the operator—you have to go through a two-part determination, working and getting concurrence from the governor for lands that are required post-88, to game on them. And within Washington state, we have two tribes that have done that, in that regard.
But I mean, just in terms of a philosophical stance, you know, IGRA really didn't authorize us to do anything, it really cut it back and put in place a different regulatory scheme in terms of how that process.
JB: I guess my last question, and I'll kick this to both of you, what do you project to be the ultimate impacts of kind of the future of sports wagering in tribal gaming. What's the hope for the impacts on the tribes and the organizations that are going to be a part of this?
DT: Thank you. And just, just to backtrack a little bit, I do appreciate Rion's clarification there, because I tend to oversimplify things a little bit.
RR: Oh, no, no. You do great, Dave. I just wanted to interject. I’m sorry.
DT: No, that’s all good. And so my perspective really is a perspective from IGRA. And that has to do with class three gaming as an economic driver for Indian lands, tribal governments and government services has been successful. It's been successful, not just in a state, not just at a tribe, but really kind of across the nation. That was what it was intended to do. That is the perspective that we here in Washington approach it as well. A little bit different than state-authorized gaming, which comes at it from a different perspective, which really is social gaming—tribal gaming, class three gaming, in particular—as an economic driver for the tribes. We encourage that. We’re behind that. Actually, since I have been around since 1992 I like to say that I've been a small part in the development of that on behalf of the tribes. But as Rion has talked about, tribes are very diligent. They have a great perspective. We enjoy working together because their perspective really is one within the boundaries of the tribe or other tribal lands. Ours is from an overarching statewide perspective. But really, as an economic driver for the tribe, we see it as successful, we suspect and expect that sports wagering will add to that economic driver.
JB: And, Rion, to you as well. What do you project to be the impacts for a Suquamish tribe and all the others who are currently in compact negotiations and are looking kind of to the future of this industry?
RR: For us, the hope, like I said before, is really to provide another game that allows folks to come and enjoy our facilities. It's really just going, as I've said a few times, it's just going to be another game. It's not going to be a big expansion of gaming, it's just another game that's going to be at our facilities. And my hope, as always our hope is, you know, we are the economic development, we are the economic engines for the tribe. We are in the process of, you know, creating revenue, so the tribe can provide its essential government services in this way. In terms of the expansion, in addition to the addition of sports betting to our compacts, this is going to provide us an opportunity to hopefully employ more people and to provide more services here at the tribe for long into the future. The tribe here has been here since time immemorial. It's going to be here on in to forever. And so it's just a matter of the two sovereigns continuing to work together. I had the wonderful opportunity of also been the general counsel for the Mashantucket Pequot tribe in Connecticut. That tribe in that environment is a whole lot more. The state and the tribe, it's really a harder wedge piece in terms of working together. I've been very proud of the work that the Washington State Gambling Commission does, as well as Governor Inslee does in regards to working with our sovereign tribal governments in terms of whether that be in the gaming context, whether that be in climate change, whether that be across the board in terms of different areas. The respect, tone, and demeanor of everybody involved, has been one based upon respect. It's been one based upon a government-to-government relationship and the representation and the recognition of the two sovereigns. And, you know, I'm very confident that we're going to get to a finish line. I'm always an optimist with this, in that regard. And you know, I think here we're going to do things as we always do in any country, in a responsible, thoughtful, measured manner. And you know, I'm really proud of the work that we do here at Suquamish. I'm proud of the work that we do in conjunction with state.
Rion Ramirez is Chief Executive Officer at Port Madison Enterprises of the Suquamish tribe. David Trujillo is director of the Washington State Gambling Commission. You can find links to learn more about everything they've shared with us today over on our website at law.uw.edu. We'll have links to more content on this subject.
Rion, David, thank you guys, both for joining us today. I really enjoyed speaking with you.
DT: Thank you.
RR: Likewise. Magwitch. Thank you very much.
