Opinion ID: 3039140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Limitations on Numbers of Gaming Machines

Text: and the School Payments in Idaho Code § 67-429C Do Not Apply To The Tribes Idaho argues that section 24.d’s language referring to the games permitted by other tribes’ compacts requires that the amendment mandated by section 24.d include the limitations in Idaho Code § 67-429C because the other Idaho tribes have amended their gaming compacts to include those limitations.7 5 Nothing in sections 24.a or 24.c is relevant to this dispute. 6 Section 11 of the Compact is titled “Management Contract” and provides that if “the Tribes choose to engage an outside management company, the Tribes and the State shall negotiate amendments to this Compact . . . .” (Emphasis added). 7 The other tribes have assented to Proposition One’s recommended terms requiring tribes that operate video gaming machines to: (1) limit the number of the machines to 5% annual growth and 25% decennial growth from a January 1, 2002 baseline; and (2) require the tribes to contribute 5% of their annual net gaming income to local educational programs on or near the reservation. See Idaho Code § 67-429C(1)(b)-(c). 17556 STATE OF IDAHO v. SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES Specifically, Idaho asks this Court to define “those same additional games” in section 24.d to include the limitations on numbers of gaming machines and the requirement of school payments that the other tribes have adopted in return for authorization to operate video gaming machines. [4] We reject the State’s contention that a limitation on the number of gaming machines necessarily inheres in the Compact’s language entitling the Tribes “to conduct those same additional games.” The plain meaning of “same additional games” refers to the games themselves and not the number of machines. The Idaho Code itself reflects this distinction. A tribal video gaming machine is defined by its operating mechanism. See Idaho Code § 67-429B(1). No quantity restriction is included in the term “tribal video gaming machine.” Instead, the statute’s quantity and growth restrictions on tribal video gaming machines, proposed for amended compacts, are located in a different section from the one used to define the gaming machines. Compare § 67-429B (defining tribal video gaming machines) with § 67-429C(1)(b) (recommending that tribes adopt a quantity and annual growth restriction on the number of tribal video gaming machines). Thus, the state statutory scheme buttresses the conclusion that is apparent from the words of section 24.d of the Compact itself: the Compact provides that the Tribes will be permitted (by mandatory amendment) to conduct the games permitted other tribes. The ordinary meaning of “games” does not encompass a limitation on numbers or of increases in numbers of gaming machines. [5] The quantity and growth restrictions on tribal video gaming machines to which the other tribes became subject were not unilaterally imposed on those tribes. Section 67429C provided that tribes with existing contracts “may” amend their compacts in the manner offered by the statute. The other tribes agreed to accept the statutory package of amendments in return for benefits offered by those amendments that were not included in their existing compacts. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, however, did not agree to amend STATE OF IDAHO v. SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES 17557 their Compact and chose instead to rely on their Compact’s existing provisions to confer the necessary permission to operate the video gaming machines. This the Tribes were entitled to do, and they may not be subjected to the number limitations of the state statutory package that would have applied had the Tribes agreed to amend under section 67-429C. The fact that the Tribes may now be in a technically better position than the other tribes is purely a function of the terms of the Compact that Idaho and the Tribes voluntarily entered into. [6] The Tribes’ case is even stronger with regard to the payments to educational programs and schools. As with the limitation on numbers of machines, there is no justification for reading a school payment requirement into the plain meaning of “additional games.” But in addition, section 19 of the Compact prohibits Idaho from imposing its desired school payments on the Tribes’ gaming operation. Section 19.b bars the State from “impos[ing] any tax, fee, charge or assessment upon the Tribes or the Gaming operation.” It prohibits Idaho from collecting, and the Tribes from paying, “any Idaho tax or contribution in lieu of taxes or fees on or measured by gaming transactions, gaming devices permitted under this Compact, gross or net Gaming revenues, or the Tribes’ net income.” Idaho’s desire to impose a requirement of educational and school payments on the Tribes’ video gaming operations is a “tax or contribution” that is “measured by . . . net Gaming revenues.” Thus, section 19.b precludes interpreting section 24.d’s “same additional games” language to authorize unilateral imposition of school payments on the Tribes. It is true that the prohibition on taxation in section 19.b echoes a similar prohibition in the IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(4). It is also true that, despite this statutory prohibition, states and tribes have negotiated compacts that provided for payments by the tribes to the states. See, e.g., In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, 331 F.3d 1094, 1111-14 (9th Cir. 2003). The theory on which such payments were allowed, 17558 STATE OF IDAHO v. SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES however, was that the parties negotiated a bargain permitting such payments in return for meaningful concessions from the state (such as a conferred monopoly or other benefits). See id. Although the state did not have authority to exact such payments, it could bargain to receive them in exchange for a quid pro quo conferred in the compact. See id. Nothing of the sort has occurred here. The Compact as negotiated between the Tribes and Idaho retained the prohibition against taxes or payments in section 19.d, and the Tribes did not bargain away their immunity from such taxes or payments in the Compact. The fact that other tribes have accepted a package of benefits and burdens when they voluntarily amended their compacts does not change the terms of the Compact between the Tribes and Idaho. That Compact prohibits the imposition of the payments that Idaho would now require.