Proposing a constitutional amendment to require the governor to negotiate and execute gaming compacts with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and to authorize those tribes to sue this state if the governor fails to negotiate in good faith.
The approval of HJR156 would have profound implications for state laws concerning gaming regulations. By explicitly authorizing the tribes to sue the state if negotiations fail, the bill appears to protect the interests of the tribes more robustly than current guidelines allow. Moreover, it amends Article III, Section 47 of the Texas Constitution, which governs gaming activities, indicating a shift towards greater recognition and enforcement of tribal sovereignty in gaming matters.
HJR156, proposed by Representative González of El Paso, seeks to amend the Texas Constitution to mandate that the governor enter into negotiations for gaming compacts with three federally recognized tribes: the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. This constitutional amendment is significant as it aims to bolster the sovereignty of these tribes by providing them with a formal mechanism to hold the state accountable should the governor fail to negotiate in good faith regarding their gaming rights.
General sentiment regarding HJR156 appears mixed. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step towards justice for tribes who have historically had limited access to gaming rights and have faced bureaucratic obstacles. They view it as a reaffirmation of tribal sovereignty and economic development for the communities involved. Conversely, skeptics express concerns regarding the potential for increased gaming activities leading to social implications, such as gambling addiction and economic disparity among communities in proximity to gaming facilities.
Key points of contention revolve around the balance of power between state governance and tribal authority. Critics may argue that while the intent is to empower tribes, it may inadvertently lead to conflicts between state regulations and tribal gaming practices. There are apprehensions that such a constitutional amendment might prompt legal challenges, especially regarding the enforceability of the good faith negotiations clause. Additionally, the bill's proponents face the challenge of ensuring public support, which is essential given that any constitutional amendment requires voter approval in an upcoming election.