Texas Senate Bill SJR39

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas to conduct gaming by executing a gaming agreement with this state; providing for licensing of persons under the agreement; limiting certain taxes and fees.

Impact

The potential impact of SJR39 extends beyond the Tribe itself, as it alters the gaming landscape in Texas. If enacted, the legislation would allow the Tribe to offer various forms of gaming, including video lottery terminals and other gaming devices, so long as they align with state law and are conducted on tribal land. This compact uniquely positions the Tribe to participate in and benefit from the gaming industry, potentially providing economic development opportunities for the Tribe while also potentially influencing neighboring jurisdictions as they may compete or collaborate in gaming regulations. Additionally, the bill emphasizes a regulatory environment that balances state oversight with tribal sovereignty, thus fostering a cooperative relationship between the two entities.

Summary

SJR39 proposes a constitutional amendment that authorizes the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas to conduct gaming by entering into a gaming agreement with the State of Texas. This bill amends Section 47 of Article III of the Texas Constitution by adding Section 47a, allowing the Tribe to execute a gaming compact that outlines the specifics of their gaming operations. The resolution aims to regulate the gaming activities conducted by the Tribe while recognizing its status as a federally recognized entity with sovereign powers. The compact includes provisions for the licensing and regulation of gaming activities and establishes tax and fee limitations on the Tribe's operations.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding SJR39 may arise from concerns about the implications of expanded gaming rights and the balance of regulatory authority. While supporters argue that the bill promotes economic growth and provides the Tribe with necessary revenue streams, critics may contend that it could lead to an increase in gambling-related issues or addiction within the community. Moreover, the exclusivity granted to the Tribe in the gaming agreement raises questions about fairness and competition among other gaming establishments in the state. As local and state governments weigh the benefits of such amendments against their societal impacts, discussions on the responsible governance of expanded gaming rights will likely continue.