ToCasino.net Online Casino

Virtually every move the Tohono O’odham Nation has made to build a West Valley casino has gotten tangled in lawsuits and legislation.

The southern Arizona-based tribe announced plans for the casino at 95th and Northern avenues in 2009. Four years and dozens of attorneys later, three court cases remain, along with more than 100 acres of land that contains nothing more than yellowed weeds.

This week, the saga inched forward as attorneys argued the case for about 90 minutes in U.S. District Court in downtown Phoenix.

The case has taken two years to get to this point. In February 2011, the state, the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community filed the suit to stop the Tohono O’odham Nation from gaming on the West Valley land.

They argue the casino would violate the state gaming compact with the tribes that voters approved in 2002, which implicitly capped the number of casinos in the Phoenix area.

However, the compact does not explicitly state this and instead allows the Tohono O’odham to build another casino.

In negotiating the compacts more than a decade ago, Valley tribes gave up the right to build more casinos as long as the agreement increased the number of gaming devices all tribes could operate.

The Tohono O’odham, which operates two casinos in the Tuscon area and one in the small community of Why, maintained its ability to operate four casinos. At the time, tribal leaders had said they wouldn’t have been able to fit their full allotment of slot machines and other gaming devices into its three casinos because the Why casino was so small, a Tohono O’odham filing said. Tribal leaders said they would be forced to close the rural gaming spot for a larger one if they gave up the right to build a fourth casino. The tribe wanted to be able to preserve its rural spot, Tohono O’odham attorney Seth Waxman said in court.

The opposing side argued that the Valley tribes believed the fourth casino would be near Florence or Gila Bend, where the Tohono O’odham already had reservation land.

Waxman said the state and other tribes should have known the Tohono O’odham could buy land in the Phoenix area for a casino based on a 1986 federal law that offered the nation land in exchange for property damaged by a federal dam project.

The ability of tribes to open casinos on land acquired after 1988, when the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed, is difficult. But the Tohono O’odham believe they fit one of the methods for doing so, the settlement of a land claim.

The Tohono O’odham said that Gila River and the state, during compact negotiations, tried to bar casinos on all land acquired after 1988, but tribal representatives rejected the notion. Thus, the compact allows for casinos on such land if they meet the federal rules.

A major argument on Tuesday revolved around what voters were promised before they passed Proposition 202 more than 10 years ago, which laid the framework for tribal gaming.

Attorneys for the state and Valley tribes argue the Tohono O’odham misled voters when they helped pay for the campaign to pass the proposition, which included a piece of literature that promised a vote for the measure that would mean no more casinos in metro Phoenix. A campaign spokesman had made similar comments at the time, Gila River attorney Merrill Godfrey said in court.

Waxman said that there was no evidence that Tohono O’odham leaders approved or knew about the campaign piece. He acknowledged to Campbell the Tohono O’odham, along with other tribes, helped fund the campaign.

Judge David Campbell said this week that he would issue a decision soon. He could rule in favor of one side or recommend a full trial.

Based on the pattern of past lawsuits, any ruling in favor of one side is likely to be appealed by the other.