If the NIGC has reason to believe that a gaming ordinance or ordinance amendment has not been duly adopted, then that should be an individual inquiry, the need for which must be supported by facts, and should be taken up solely with the subject Tribal government. Further, efforts of the NIGC to double-check the official actions of sovereign Tribal governments turns the principle of governmental regulation on its head. The presumption of a Government’s sovereignty is a legal principle that recognizes actions taken by governments are presumed to be legal. As sovereigns, Tribal governments are entitled to this presumption. However, the Proposed Rule here creates, not just the implication, but the presumption that acts of Tribal governments are inherently questionable and therefore the NIGC is empowered to “double check” the legitimacy of the actions of Tribal governments. As such, we strongly oppose this component of the NIGC’s Proposed Rule and encourage the NIGC to reevaluate whether Congress has specifically and narrowly granted the NIGC this authority.
Sincerely,
Ernest L. Stevens, Jr. Chairman, National Indian Gaming Association
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs