January 7, 2003 - By RICK GREEN, Courant Staff Writer

Alarmed at the growing likelihood of more Indian casinos, state legislators repealed the state's Las Vegas nights law Monday - despite claims their dramatic action will do little to block the spread of gambling in Connecticut.

The vote came at a special session after lengthy delay tactics by urban legislators who support Indian casinos, who talked for hours Monday afternoon and into the
evening in a futile effort to derail the bill outlawing Las Vegas nights. Supporters of the repeal say it will allow the two existing Indian casinos to operate while outlawing future casinos operated by other tribes; opponents say Connecticut must prohibit all forms of gambling if it wants to stop casinos.

"If this is so meaningless, why all the rhetoric and all the effort to stop this repeal from happening?" said Jeff Benedict, president of the Connecticut Alliance Against
Casino Expansion. "It isn't meaningless."

In the state House, legislators voted 83-59 to repeal the law, with most legislators from cities voting against. In the Senate, which convened in special session after hours of House debate, the tally was 25-10 to repeal. The vote came a dozen years after the legislature rejected an attempt to repeal the Las Vegas nights law, which could have blocked the opening of Foxwoods Resort Casino.

"I voted to repeal 12 years ago. It's nice to have a change this time around," said state Rep. Jefferson Davis, D-Pomfret. "Nobody can predict what the courts are going to say. It is the only step we have available to us now."

But legal experts say the legislature's action - and Gov. John G. Rowland's promise to quickly sign the bill - means little unless Connecticut moves against Foxwoods Resort and Mohegan Sun casinos. These casinos, among the largest and most profitable in the world, bring in about $400 million annually to the state treasury under a deal in which 25 percent of slot machine revenue is turned over to Connecticut. The bill repealing Las Vegas nights exempts Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, but prohibits casino-style gambling for everyone else, including Indian tribes and charitable groups, that have held fund-raisers allowed under the law.

"They can't single out a tribe. That just doesn't fly," said Robert Anderson, law professor at the University of Washington and director of the school's Native American Law Center. "If a state permits such gaming, then it's open to the tribes," said Anderson, counsel to the federal Interior Department under President Clinton.

The showdown over Las Vegas nights is the latest skirmish in an escalating battle over casino gambling. The state's top political leaders are fighting the recent federal government ruling recognizing the historical Eastern Pequot tribe, which plans to open a casino in southeastern Connecticut. The Trumbull-based Golden Hill Paugussetts, who hope to open a casino in Bridgeport, expect to learn within days whether they will receive preliminary recognition. The Schaghticoke Indians were denied recognition in a similar ruling last month by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, but will likely appeal. A Massachusetts tribe interested in opening a casino in northeastern Connecticut, the Nipmuc Nation, is appealing the denial of its recognition petition.

While top politicians are lining up with citizen and business groups opposing casinos and these tribal recognition petitions, legislators from struggling cities say casinos may be their last option in a time of rising property taxes, unemployment and municipal budget shortfalls.  "It's a chance at a new job and a ray of hope," said state Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport.

The Golden Hill Paugussetts have been aggressively courting Bridgeport and political leaders from the state's larger cities, arguing that a casino will benefit a struggling city. The tribe, supported by shopping mall developer Thomas Wilmot of Rochester, N.Y., says its opponents are racially motivated. Most members of the Paugussetts are African Americans who trace their ancestry to the historic Connecticut tribe.

"We are not playing the race card. We are saying this is what it appears to be," said James Griffin, president of the Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches. "The fact that [the Paugussetts] are black plays heavily into this whole issue."

Paugussett adviser Edward Bergin, the former mayor of Waterbury who lobbied legislators during the long afternoon and evening, dismissed the legislature's vote.

"This is just stupid. It is not going to have an effect on the tribes. It is not going to stop future casinos. It is going to affect nonprofits," Bergin said, referring to charitable groups that have used Las Vegas nights to raise money.

Opponents, led by state Reps. Reginald Beamon, D-Waterbury, and Kenneth Green, D-Hartford, also blasted their colleagues for changing the rules just as Connecticut tribes are winning recognition - and the right to negotiate to open casinos here.

"Are we changing the rules tonight? Absolutely. We are changing the rules every day," responded state Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich. "If we didn't change the rules, we'd have Prohibition still in effect. We'd have segregation still in effect."

"In a claim based on a violation of the Non-Intercourse Act, a tribe must prove that it is an Indian tribe, the land is tribal land, the United States never consented to alienation of the subject land and the trust relationship between the tribe and the United States has not been terminated or abandoned..."

GOP rolls dice against casinos;  Growing support voiced for repeal of state Las Vegas night legislation
                    By KEN DIXON

                    HARTFORD - Republican lawmakers from southwestern Connecticut
                    suburbs are vowing to repeal a state law in an attempt to stifle future
                    casinos in the state.

                    And Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has drafted tentative legislation
                    he believes would block new casinos while assuring that two existing Indian
                    gambling destinations continue operations.

                    Majority Democrats in the General Assembly said Tuesday that it might be
                    relatively easy to repeal the law allowing the state's two casinos in
                    southeastern Connecticut.

                    But the courts may ultimately decide the issue, especially if another state
                    Indian tribe wins recognition and wants to build a casino.

                    Several tribes, including the Golden Hill Paugussetts of Trumbull and
                    Colchester, are seeking federal recognition.

                    A dozen GOP lawmakers, with an eye toward the legislative session in
                    January, issued statements this week promising to introduce legislation
                    overturning the so-called Las-Vegas- nights law that allows gaming.

                    Among them are Rep. Lawrence G. Miller, R-Stratford; Rep. Cathy C.
                    Tymniak, Rep. Carl J. Dickman and Rep. John Stone, all R-Fairfield; and
                    Sen. Judith G. Freedman and Rep. Ken Bernhard, both R-Westport.

                    They are particularly concerned about the environmental effects a Bridgeport casino could
                    present if the Paugussetts win recognition.

                    "An area Indian tribe has made it perfectly clear that it intends to pursue development of a
                    casino in Bridgeport when it gains formal recognition by the federal government," Miller said,
                    adding that a Bridgeport casino would affect car and rail traffic.

                    "It will require the addition of many more trains to Metro- North to accommodate the thousands
                    of gamblers that would flock to the city from New York

                    at a greatly increased cost to the rail line and the taxpayers who subsidize it," Miller said. "It
                    will put additional strain on southwest Connecticut's inadequate electricity transmission lines,
                    hike maintenance costs on our highways and bridges, further degrade air quality, increase the
                    crime rate, reduce property values and adversely affect our quality of life."

                    Similar legislation died of neglect in the General Assembly last year, but this year, there's a
                    growing sense of bipartisan urgency to repeal the Vegas nights law that allows nonprofit
                    organizations to stage games of chance.

                    "It would be irresponsible if we didn't try to do something," Freedman said. "This is only a first
                    step toward addressing the very complex issue of gaming and casinos in Connecticut,"
                    Tymniak said.

                    Blumenthal said Tuesday he's certain that whatever the General Assembly does, the issue is
                    bound for court. "But I think the law will survive because there are ways to frame it that will
                    withstand any constitutional attack or any other argument," Blumenthal said. "The major
                    concern is that the state continues to receive the revenue it needs from the existing casinos."

                    The casinos in Ledyard and Montville, under a compact with the state, contribute 25 percent of
                    their slot-machine revenue to the state. Last year the total was about $400 million. The state's
                    current deficit in the $13.2 billion budget is projected at about $500 million.

                    "There is a certainly a way to write the law so the two existing casinos will exist," Blumenthal
                    said. "And there's no constitutional right on the part of a federally recognized tribe to conduct
                    gambling, so that the Legislature can write a law in the public interest that protects its citizens
                    from excessive gambling."

                    Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he
                    believes that whatever emerges for floor votes in the House and Senate, will be a committee
                    bill, not one sponsored by any particular lawmakers.

                    "It seems like a legislative 'no brainer,' and it won't be the hardest issue, by a long shot, that is
                    facing the Legislature," Lawlor said.