Stitt's attorneys defend new gaming compacts
Gov. Kevin Stitt's attorneys contend his gaming compacts with the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and Kialegee Tribal Town should be legally upheld because they exclude key provisions that the Oklahoma Supreme Court found objectionable when it struck down gaming compacts with two other tribes.
The new gaming compacts “do not include sports betting or house-banked card and table games,” the governor's attorneys said in documents filed this week with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. “The governor is vested with the authority to enter compacts which do not conflict with the STGA (State Tribal Gaming Act) and/ or state criminal laws.”
Gaming compacts that the governor approved earlier with the Comanche Nation and Otoe- Missouria Tribe included provisions for both sports betting and house-banked games.
The state Supreme Court declared both of those compacts void, ruling the governor didn't have the authority to authorize forms of gambling that were specifically prohibited by Oklahoma law.
Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall and state Senate President Pro Tem Greg Treat, who won the earlier lawsuit against Stitt, have asked the state Supreme Court to declare the compacts with the Keetoowah Band and Kialegee Tribal Town void, as well.
The lawmakers con tend that in the Keetoowah and Kialegee compacts, Stitt again violated the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government by assuming authority that wasn't granted to him through the Oklahoma State Tribal Gaming Act.
Treat and McCall cite about
a dozen ways in which they contend Stitt has exceeded his authority.
They say the compacts seek to usurp the Legislature's authority over appropriations by creating the possibility of monetary sanctions on tribes for violations of the agreement and then appropriating those funds to the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services.
The lawmakers say the governor also has attempted to set himself up as the sole person who can resolve compact disputes, a role they say is statutorily reserved for the state attorney general.
Stitt's attorneys argue the governor acted within the scope of his authority.
They characterize the lawsuit by Treat and McCall as “the latest in a series of efforts to wrest away the executive authority of the governor to negotiate and enter into compacts with Indian tribes and improperly vest such power solely in the legislative branch.”