Legislature approves exclusive rights to internet gaming for Wabanaki Nations
The Maine Legislature passed a bill to give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate internet gaming in Maine.
If this bill, LD 1164, ultimately becomes law, it would require 16% of the revenue generated from internet gaming to go back to the state to fund services to address gambling addiction programs, substance use disorder, emergency housing relief and veteran housing.
However, there are still remaining hurdles until that is guaranteed.
Last Thursday, the House passed the bill 85-59 but the Senate split over the legislation before tabling it. When it took the bill back up Monday, the upper chamber first attempted to reject the bill but fell short of doing so with a 17-18 vote. The Senate ultimately passed it without a roll call. Later Monday night, the Senate attempted to reconsider its vote, but that motion failed 17-18.
Both chambers therefore followed the recommendation from the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee to support the measure.
But Maine's Department of Health and Human Services opposed the bill during its public hearing. While Press Secretary Ben Goodman declined to share an official stance from Gov. Janet Mills, instead saying the administration is 'monitoring' the bill, Wabanaki leaders say there is not much appetite from the governor, presenting the possibility of a veto.
Legislature considers paths to afford Wabanaki Nations more revenue from gambling
The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 codified that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on their lands, unless the state in which it operates prohibits such gaming under its criminal laws.
However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has made it so the Wabanaki Nations are treated more akin to municipalities than independent nations, one way being that the Tribes are unable to benefit from any federal law passed after 1980, unless they are specifically mentioned in the law.
In 2022, the Maine Legislature amended the Settlement Act to permit Tribes to handle sports betting, so the legislation being considered this session would build off of that earlier expansion.
'The proposal to authorize igaming for Maine's tribes is more than a revenue conversation,' Brian Reynolds, the new Tribal Representative for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, said during debate on the House floor Thursday. 'It's about laying a foundation for self-reliance through modern tools. This is a chance for us to meet economic needs without waiting on federal grants or new appropriations. It allows us to stand on our own.'
The Department of Health and Human Services' opposition largely centered around not wanting to incentivize more gambling.
'While the bill directs a portion of revenue collected, which will be used to further prevention and treatment efforts, the number of individuals who may need support and resources will continue to increase along with the public health concerns associated with gambling and internet use,' Puthiery Va, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention under DHHS, testified during the public hearing.
Rep. Amy Roeder (D-Bangor) presented a rebuttal to this view during a speech on the floor Thursday.
Noting that it is tempting to try to legislate morality, 'that's not our job,' Roeder said. 'It's our job outside of this chamber to talk to our families, to talk to our children about why we don't become addicted to gambling, why we shouldn't drink to excess, but that's not our job to legislate.'
Other proponents argued internet gambling is already happening and the bill presents an opportunity for greater oversight.
'Regulating igaming gives us the tools to enforce safeguards like age verification, betting limits and addiction resources that the offshore platforms ignore,' Reynold said on the floor. 'By bringing this market under Maine's laws, we're not only protecting the Maine gaming market, we're protecting people.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The bill also presents an opportunity for the state to benefit on gambling that's already happening, Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana said in an interview with Maine Morning Star.
'If we allow that type of gaming and regulate that gaming here in the state of Maine, then we have the ability to have geo fencing and firewalls so the illegal online gaming is not happening anymore and the state is actually gaining revenue from it.'
Dana sees this added revenue as particularly key in light of the tight budget year.
'I think it would be a win-win,' he said.
Maine's privately owned casinos — Hollywood Casino, Hotel and Raceway in Bangor and Oxford Casino Hotel — are opposed because it would create an internet gaming monopoly for the Wabanaki Nations and, they argue, hurt their businesses by diverting revenue to the online options.
'Oxford Casino has delivered on its promise to Maine — creating jobs, paying taxes, and supporting local businesses,' Matt Gallagher, the casino's general manager, testified during the public hearing. 'LD 1164 undermines this success.'
Dana argues the demographics of people who use online gaming are different from those who go to brick-and mortar-casinos.
Roeder also argued 'the brick-and-mortars will not suffer because they offer something that igaming does not,' which is a social experience.
The Legislature is also considering another gaming bill that pertains to the Wabanaki Nations this session, though it has yet to receive floor votes.
Rather than altering the structure of who controls gaming, LD 1851 seeks to provide equality among the Wabanaki Nations in how much revenue they are provided from slot machine income in the state.
It would increase the total net slot machine income to be collected and distributed by a casino from 39% to 46%, which would only impact Hollywood Casino, as Oxford Casino is currently at that percentage.
It would then provide 7% of that income to the tribal governments of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi'kmaq Nation. This is roughly the same revenue, around $3.5 million, that Oxford already provides the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation.
While both gaming bills could be passed, Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis told Maine Morning Star she anticipates the slot revenue bill will not be as necessary should the Tribes gain control of internet gaming, though she sees that path as the less likely outcome.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene described support for Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
As President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' returns to the U.S. House of Representatives after passing by a single vote in the U.S. Senate, one prominent Republican supporter of the president called it a 's***show.' Speaking with Trump ally Steve Bannon on his podcast 'War Room' on Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., does not have the votes to pass Trump's budget reconciliation bill in the House on Wednesday. 'I can't imagine they have the votes,' Greene told Bannon. 'There's no way that Johnson has the votes in the House for this. We're supposed to be back Wednesday morning to start voting at 9 a.m. I think that is not realistic. I just don't see how that's possible. So this is, I think it's far from over.' She called the situation 'dire,' and added that 'it's hard for us to get to an agreement on anything.' 'It's a s***show,' Greene said. 'And I'm sorry for saying that. I know we're not supposed to say that on the air, but that's really what it is.' Republican lawmakers are working to meet Trump's July 4 deadline in passing the bill before he signs it into law. Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the Senate version of the bill, which included cuts to federal spending on Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces by about $1 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office on Monday. This could leave 12 million more people without health insurance by 2034. With a 50-50 split, Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the bill before it was handed back to the House. Before the Senate vote, Greene didn't back the bill due to a provision that would have placed a moratorium on states regulating AI. In a post on X on Tuesday, she called the provision 'a gift to Big Tech and a disaster for American workers and states' rights.' After voting for the House version last month, Greene previously admitted that she missed the section that 'strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years.' Had she seen it, she said she would have voted no. In a 99-1 vote, senators removed the provision from the bill, which Greene subsequently called a 'huge win for federalism,' The Hill reported. The House Rules Committee is leading the debate on Wednesday on a rule to advance the legislation and consider final passage of the bill, ABC News reported. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told ABC News that all 212 Democrats in the House will vote no on the bill. 'And all we need are four House Republicans to join us in defense of their constituents, who will suffer mightily from this bill,' Jeffries said. All told, the Senate bill includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, according to the latest CBO analysis, making permanent Trump's 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips. The Senate package would roll back billions of dollars in green energy tax credits, which Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide. It would impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements on able-bodied people, including some parents and older Americans, making sign-up eligibility more stringent and changing federal reimbursements to states. Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Mass. senators blast Trump settlement with Paramount: 'Bribery in plain sight' Trump's antisemitism probe mostly relies on Harvard's own report, Harvard claims Trump threatens arrest of NYC mayoral candidate during visit to 'Alligator Alcatraz' Mass. has an on-time(ish) state budget: 3 big things to know about the $61B plan Group behind MCAS ballot question broke campaign finance law, state says Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to consider reviving Mississippi evangelist's challenge to protest ordinance
The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider reviving an evangelist's challenge to a Mississippi city's protest ordinance. Gabriel Olivier, a self-described Christian called to evangelize, asked the justices to let his lawsuit challenging an ordinance barring him from demonstrating outside a Brandon, Miss., amphitheater move forward. The city, in its opposition to Olivier's petition, said the ordinance was passed after Olivier, with a group, called passersby 'whores,' 'Jezebels,' 'sissies' and other derogatory names over a loudspeaker at the amphitheater's busiest intersection. The ordinance redirects protests and demonstrations to a nearby designated area for three hours before an event and one hour after and bans the use of loudspeakers that are 'clearly audible' more than 100 feet from the protest area, the city says. Olivier claimed in his petition to the court that the ordinance 'forbids him' from sharing his faith with fellow citizens outside the amphitheater. He filed suit after being charged with and pleading no contest to violating the ordinance, after he left the protest area because it was 'too isolated for attendees to hear his message.' He paid a $304 fine. A federal judge threw out his case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed, citing Supreme Court precedent that people convicted of a crime can't file civil lawsuits against police or other officials. The full appeals court declined to rehear the case by a one-vote margin, over several dissenting opinions. 'It sends an odd message to citizens who care about defending their constitutional rights,' Judge James Ho wrote in one dissent. 'On the one hand, we tell citizens that you can't sue if you're not injured. But on the other hand, we tell them that you can't sue if you are injured.' Olivier asked the justices to clarify whether the high court's 1994 decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars lawsuits like his. A decision is expected by next summer. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, which is representing Olivier. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Air Force to manage new militarized zone along US-Mexico border
The U.S. Air Force is slated to manage a new militarized border zone in Texas along the southern border with Mexico, the service announced. The stretch of land, known as a national defense area, spans 250 miles of the Rio Grande River through Hidalgo and Cameron counties, and will be administered as an extension of Joint Base San Antonio. This NDA is the third established by the Defense Department along the southern border, with the first being sited in New Mexico on April 21 and the second in west Texas on May 1. The secretary of the Air Force and the commander of U.S. Northern Command will collaborate closely to manage the area, according to a service release. The establishment of the NDAs come in response to several executive orders by President Donald Trump to secure the southern border, as the administration aims to reduce not only illegal immigration but also clamp down on illegal narcotics trafficking by cartels throughout the area. In response to heightened border security, narcotics traffickers have sought alternative smuggling routes to escape detection, including maritime routes that have prompted the dispatch of naval warships with Coast Guard LEDET teams aboard to the southern border area to patrol and perform interdictions. This month, a law enforcement operation in Cameron County, Texas — near the location of the new NDA — resulted in the seizure of over 100 pounds of marijuana in an area described as a 'hotspot' of drug trafficking under the influence of the Gulf Cartel. In another recent interdiction, smugglers from Mexico were foiled in an attempt to drive bundles of illicit drug products across the Rio Grande River into South Texas. The new NDA will be manned by personnel serving in Joint Task Force-Southern Border who will monitor the area, install barriers and signage, conduct patrols and stop any trespassers. The military's duty will be to detain trespassers only temporarily and transfer them to the custody of law enforcement authorities. A wide array of technology is being put into use at the southern border to establish control over swathes of vast and challenging terrain. To cut costs of constantly deploying aircraft, JTF-SB has been using 3-D printing to build drones for surveillance. In South Texas, soldiers are using ground-based radar to detect suspicious movement in remote areas and provide warning to law enforcement of potentially harmful activities — including a sharp spike in drone use by narcotics traffickers. Additionally, Stryker vehicles have been fielded due to their maneuverability and camera systems. Trespassers into military zones potentially face prosecution for two federal offenses — illegally entering the county and trespassing on U.S. military property. As of May, illegal border crossings overall were reported to be in decline.
