Intergovernmental Relations and Native American Gaming

• Author: William A. Taggart,G. Larry Mays
• Published date: 01 March 2005
• Date: 01 March 2005
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004273153
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.
A
Ma1177/
RPA
ys, /T 0275074004273153
M
a arc
gga hrt 2005
/ NATIVE AMERICAN GAMING
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
AND NATIVE AMERICAN GAMING
A Case Study on the Emergence of a
New Intergovernmental Relations Participant
G. LARRY MAYS
WILLIAM A. TAGGART
New Mexico State University
Models of intergovernmental relations (IGR) are consistently built around the triumvirate of national, state, and
local governments. Lacking in various conceptualizations is due consideration for the hundreds of tribal govern-
ments found scattered throughout the United States. Although the status of Indians in the U.S. federal system has
always been something of an enigma, the emergence of Indian gaming, and its associated high economic and politi-
cal stakes, suggests it is time to incorporate tribal governments into the IGR framework. This article takes a step in
this theoretical direction by examining how Indian gaming reflects the many distinctive features that define the
meaning of IGR. Specifically, this article looks at the Indian gaming experience of one state—New Mexico—as a
case study to illustrate the legal, human, and policy elements of what might be viewed as representing the emergence
of a new intergovernmental partner.
Keywords: intergovernmental relations; Indian gaming
Our understanding of intergovernmental relations (IGR) in the United States is built
around the triumvirate of national, state and local governments. Equally apparent are a host
of valid reasons for such a focus, including a constitutionally based federal framework
shaped by 200 years of judicial review (e.g., Pritchett, 1984) to the vast interconnectedness of
national, state, and local policies at the end of the 20th century (e.g., Hanson, 2004). Indeed,
one of the important lessons derived from IGR studies is the complexity surrounding the
interdependent and overlapping operations of the thousands of governing institutions scat-
tered throughout the United States (e.g., Wright, 1988). This complexity can be traced to
those elements that help to define or give meaning to the contours of the intergovernmental
system (Anderson, 1960; Wright, 1988). As summarized by one respected commentator,
these distinctive features are the various governments and corresponding public officials,
reflecting a range of attitudes and behaviors, pursuing policy agendas that typically boil
down to questions dealing with limited financial resources (Wright, 1988, p. 19). IGR is
about the interconnectedness of governments, people, and policies. Generally lacking in var-
ious conceptualizations of IGR is consideration for a “fourth government” also dispersed
AUTHORS’NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the Western Social
Science Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 9-12, 2003. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of
Dr. James R. Maupin and the anonymous reviewers for their many helpful suggestions.
Initial Submission: September 9, 2003
Accepted: November 8, 2004
AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 35 No. 1, March 2005 74-93
DOI: 10.1177/0275074004273153
© 2005 Sage Publications
74

---

Mays, Taggart / NATIVE AMERICAN GAMING
75
geographically, though not entirely in a random fashion, throughout the United States (for a
brief but notable exception see Hanson, 2004). These are the hundreds of Indian tribes, pueb-
los, and bands that represent nearly 2.5 million Native Americans.1 This includes more than
500 tribes and bands formally recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), although
one might also add to the mix groups seeking formal recognition through administrative or
even legislative action. However, it is an oversimplification to assume that these various
tribes and groups represent a single entity, much as it is acknowledged that states and their
respective subordinate governments are anything but uniform (e.g., Elazar, 1984). Indeed,
although it is theoretically useful to treat tribes collectively, there are undoubtedly many
dimensions that distinguish Native American groups from each other (Deloria & Lytle,
1983; Eadington, 1998).
The formal status of American Indians in the U.S. federal system continues to be a social,
political, and legal enigma; however, it is not our intention to enter into this fray (see, e.g.,
Emenhiser, 2002). Rather, we suggest that in attempting to incorporate this fourth type of
government into the IGR framework some issues of “fit” arise, especially when judged
against how other governments fit in the intergovernmental maze. The fact that tribal govern-
ments bring different considerations to our understanding of IGR is to be expected. Never-
theless, we would argue that much is to be gained by taking a broader perspective. The rela-
tions of Native American groups with other governments in the federal system are becoming
increasingly noticeable and intertwined, especially as they pertain to the emergence of Indian
gaming and the perceived economic stakes with which it is associated (e.g., Brosnan, 1996;
Jorgensen, 1998; O’Brien, 2002). Although the role of American Indians in the American
political system has been approached from a number of useful perspectives, including under-
standing their actions as organized interest groups (Mason, 2000), a vast majority are mem-
bers, first and foremost, of tribal governments. It is these governments, propelled in large
measure by the economics of gaming, that are helping to usher in a new era in IGR, especially
with respect to the American states.
This article takes a modest step in this theoretical direction by viewing tribal governments
from an intergovernmental perspective. We identify three major forces that define the mean-
ing of IGR as it relates to Indian gaming. These forces have brought out the governmental,
human, and policy elements that shape and define the intergovernmental system. This sec-
tion serves a dual purpose in that (a) it identifies those elements shaping IGR generally, and
(b) it identifies the major factors that have contributed to recognizing this fourth government
as an IGR partner worthy of consideration. In the third section, we examine the experience of
one state—New Mexico—as a case study of the emergence of this new IGR partnership.
After summarizing New Mexico’s experience, we draw on this case to further delineate the
intergovernmental elements of Indian gaming. We argue that Indian gaming reflects the nec-
essary features associated with conceptualizations of IGR, but it also raises new consider-
ations that suggest a need to expand our understanding of the intergovernmental system’s
parameters. In the last section, we turn our attention to the study of IGR and implications for
research in this and related areas.
IGR AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
It is possible to identify three major forces that have contributed to incorporating Native
American governments into the IGR framework. These considerations move from the gen-
eral to the specific, and each contributes to creating a context that has elevated the relative

---

76
ARPA / March 2005
status of tribal governments as intergovernmental players. At the same time, these three con-
siderations reflect those basic elements, though in different forms, shared by the other partic-
ipants in the intergovernmental system. The first of these, self-determination, represents the
broadest consideration and, although having little to do with Indian gaming directly, shapes
the legal setting in which the gaming issue is played out (see, e.g., Jorgensen, 1998). In many
important respects, these reflect the sorts of legal parameters confronting other IGR partici-
pants, which is where the discussion will begin. The second conditioning factor, the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988, established an implementation framework that has
redefined the meaning of federal, state, and tribal relations in a relatively brief time period
(e.g., Brosnan, 1996). This act, probably more so than any other legislation, has forged new
sets of ongoing relations among primarily state and tribal public officials reflecting various
agendas associated with political, social, and economic change. The third factor is the money
associated with gaming, real or potential, that perhaps has played the greatest role in altering
the IGR equation. For the first time, tribal governments are perceived by other governments
and public officials, especially at the state level, as revenue producers, with gaming serving
as the proverbial cash cow (e.g., Contreras, 2002). This economic component, as it
intertwines with the legal and human elements, points to the emergence of a new
intergovernmental partner in the federal system.
Legal—Self-Determination
The seeds of American IGR are sown in the constitutional relations established between
governments and their corresponding public officials (Anderson, 1960). These legal parame-
ters have received consideration elsewhere and need not be elaborated upon here (Pritchett,
1984). We begin by noting the meaning of a couple of commonly used terms because they
help in differentiating the legal status of tribal governments as intergovernmental actors from
the other participants. For instance, Hanson (2004, p. 32) notes that the term federalism is
typically used to refer to the relations between states and the national government, as pre-
scribed in the U.S. Constitution and developed through 2 centuries of case law. The vertical
...