Casino

In the last televised debate in this season’s U.S. Senate campaign, Democratic candidate Sheldon Whitehouse denounced as unfair the so-called Chafee amendment that required voter approval for a casino on the Narragansett Indians’ tribal land.

In a 1998 decision hailed as a victory by the sponsor, the late John H. Chafee, his Democratic Senate counterpart, Jack Reed, and former U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., a federal appeals court let stand the 1996 federal law which, for all practical purposes, killed any possibility of a casino or high-stakes bingo hall in the gambling-wary town of Charlestown.

Monday night on Channel 10 (WJAR), Whitehouse staked out a position that suggested he intended to work for repeal of the 1996 law sponsored by the late father of his opponent, U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee.

But yesterday, after the younger Chafee slammed him for supporting a second or possibly alternative site for the proposed Narragansett Indian casino on next Tuesday’s ballot — that would not require voter approval — a campaign spokeswoman sought to clarify Whitehouse’s on-air comments.

“No, he does not think it is fair because it singles out the Narragansetts…and should be reviewed,” said spokeswoman Alex Swartsel. But, “nowhere in the debate did Sheldon Whitehouse say the word repeal.”

So what should happen? “It needs to be reviewed,” she said. By whom? “The people of Rhode Island in some way.” How? Coming full-circle, she said: “The people of Rhode Island need to review whether to allow casino gambling in Rhode Island.”

But the Chafee camp accused Whitehouse of backpedaling on an Indian gambling issue that has stretched from the Rhode Island State House to the U.S. Congress — and several courts in between — for more than a decade.

“Apparently, Harrah’s has found a backup plan in case they are unsuccessful in getting Question 1 passed – send Sheldon Whitehouse to the U.S. Senate. Whitehouse’s support for repealing the provision to the Omnibus Bill means that Harrah’s and the Narragansetts won’t even have to put the question on the ballot,” said Ian Lang, Chafee campaign manager.

At issue is what the Narragansetts can and cannot do on their own land without seeking the same local and statewide voter approval that any other casino-promoter would have to get to launch a lucrative new gambling business in Rhode Island.

Though Narragansett tribal leaders have, over time, voiced reluctance to put a big-gambling draw on their “pristine” land, the so-called Chafee amendment has nonetheless been a sore point. They believe it unfairly stripped them of rights other tribes have under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, to the same level of gambling on their own land as is allowed elsewhere in the states they call home.

Reed, former U.S. Rep. Robert Weygand, former Gov. Lincoln Almond and the late Sen. John Chafee all argued that the 1996 amendment closed a gambling loophole that Congress mistakenly opened in the Rhode Island Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1978. That was the law that won back for the Narragansetts about 1,800 acres of tribal land in Charlestown.

In court after court, the Narragansetts and their lawyers argued that they had been singled out for discriminatory treatment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed.

“Far from illegitimately singling out the Narragansetts for discriminatory treatment, the Chafee amendment represents a rational interpretation" of the 1978 deal, Judge David S. Tatel wrote for the three-judge panel of the court that decided the case.

As part of that deal, Tatel wrote, "the Tribe, the State of Rhode Island, and the federal government [agreed] that state law, including state gambling law, would govern tribal lands."

So what did Whitehouse actually say about the Chafee amendment?

The exchange began with this question from Channel 10 reporter Bill Rappleye: “Mr. Whitehouse, one of the biggest issues on the ballot for Rhode Island voters this time is the casino vote. If you were in the Senate would you take steps to reverse the measure introduced by the late Sen. John Chafee that stripped the Narragansett Indians of their rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — and what is your position on building a casino in West Warwick?”

Whitehouse’s initial answer: “My position on the casino is that I am personally opposed to it. I do think that the Narragansetts have had the short end for a long time. I’m glad that this is being decided democratically by the voters. I think that’s the right way for this decision to come. My vote is going to be against it because I’ve been consistently opposed to casino gambling …”

Asked Rappleye, following up on his original question: “And what about steps to allow the Narragansetts to build on their own land…?” Whitehouse: “I think it would be fair. As I said, the Narragansetts, I think, have taken the short end of the stick a lot and although I am against this particular referendum, I think that leveling the playing field for them is a fair thing to consider.”

Swartsel yesterday put the emphasis on the word: “consider.” But the Chafee camp accused Whitehouse of flip-flopping and suggested a link between his apparent support for the repeal of the 1996 Chafee amendment and the $9,575 he has received in campaign donations from the Narragansett’s Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas and key players on the Harrah’s-paid casino lobbying team.“He wants to repeal the Chafee amendment which is the very amendment that guarantees that any question about casino gambling in Rhode Island does go to the ballot, before the people.”

“He wants to repeal that and, in effect, basically say that regardless of the outcome of the Question 1 election, the Narragansetts should have a right to have a casino in Charlestown on their land.”

But Swartsel said, in this case, Whitehouse only wants what Chafee said he wants: that the Narragansetts “be treated fairly.”

Swartsel drew attention to Chafee’s own post-debate clarification after saying it wouldn’t matter if he called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation.

What Chafee meant to say was that he believes “the hiring and firing of cabinet officials, except in extraordinary circumstances, is the prerogative of the president. Consequently, public calls for Mr. Rumsfeld’s dismissal are little more than grandstanding.”