Human Oreanization. Vol. 56. No. 3. 1997 copyrightk 1997 by the society for Applied Anthropology 001 8-72591971030294-8$1.30/1

The Navajo Gaming Referendum: Reservations about Casinos Lead to Popular

Rejection of Legalized Gambling ERIC HENDERSON AND SCOTT RUSSELL

Numerous American Indian tribal governments have introduced legalized gambling to enhance revenues. There have been notable financial successes as well as some confrontations with state governments and the exacerbation of factionalism on some reservations. The largest tribal entity in the United States, the Navajo, has not established a gaming industry. In 1994 the Navajo Tribal Council, following a veto of enabling legislation, referred the issue to the voters. Navajo voters rejected the referendum in the November, 1994 tribal general election. This article examines the Navajo electorate's rejection of gaming. Results varied by voting district (chapter). Exit polling conducted in a half-dozen chapters is used to analyze the effects of sex and age on the outcome and to describe the voters' reasons foitheir vote. Key words: Navajo Nation, gaming, elections; US

c asino-style gaming has been adopted in the past decade by numerous American Indian tribes primarily as a means to raise revenue. The economic benefits have been touted by many tribes. Nevertheless, there have been considerable concerns in some quarters over the social consequences of the introduction of such gaming. This article examines the controversy surrounding the proposed introduction of casino-style gaming on the largest reservation in the United States, the Navajo Nation. In November, 1994, Navajo voters defeated a proposal for casino-style gaming. The rejection of gaming was based primarily on Navajo voters' moral concerns. It is likely that these concerns outweighed the perceived potential for revenue because, unlike other tribal casinos which generally attract predominately non-Indian patrons, the proposed casinos in the Navajo Nation would be patronized by large numbers of Navajos.

Eric Henderson teaches in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology at the University of Northern Iowa. Scott Russell is an adjunct professor in the Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. This research was conducted, in part, under Navajo Nation Cultural Resources Investigation Permit No. C9421-E. We are indebted to the Navajo Nation Cultural Resources Department for the research permit and to the Navajo Nation's Board of Election Supervisors for their cooperation. We also appreciate the patience of the many voters in the chapters ofAneth, Ganado, Lechee, Shiprock, St. Michaels and Tuba City. We were ably assisted by Loreen Begay and Reed Tso. Dr. Stephen Kunitz and Dr. Thomas Hill provided careful criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper. We appreciate their comments.

The Political and Policy Background

In order to understand the context in which Indian gaming has emerged as a major issue in the past decade, we offer an abbreviated account of recent trends in Indian policy. In the 1950s and early 1960s, Indian policy focused on the termination of tribes and restrictions on tribal sovereignty. Much intellectual and political effort was spent on defending tribal rights of self- governance. When federal policy shifted to emphasize tribal 'self-determination," tribes increasingly sought ways to find revenues to make self-governance meaningful. Larger, resource rich tribes sought ways to exploit reservation resources. In many places there were controversies between tribal and state governments over issues of taxation and regulation of Indian controlled resources.

There remained, however, a large number of tribes without exploitable natural resources. Many of these tribes, located near large non-Indian population centers (particularly in California and the Pacific Northwest), sought to generate revenue through the sale of tobacco products. The competitive advantage over non-Indian sellers came from the claim that on-reservation sales of cigarettes were exempt from state taxation. The United States Supreme Court soon sharply curtailed the potential of this source of revenue when it ruled that Indians had no right to the "artificial" advantage of jurisdictional tax differentials. The court decided state taxes could be collected from non-Indian purchasers of cigarettes on a reservation because the burden on the reservation merchant in collecting the tax was "minimal" (Washington v. Confederated Colville Tribes, 447 US 134 (1980); Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 425 US 463 (1976); Cohen 1982:413-16).

294 H U M A N O R G A N I Z A T I O N

Unable to reap the full benefits of jurisdictional differences in taxing structures, the sale of cigarettes as a revenue source was thwarted. Tribal governments, however, continued to seek ways of making their retained sovereignty and protection from state regulation economically meaningful. Several tribes began to promote gambling as a revenue source. The basic premise is that if tribes are free from state jurisdiction and if Congress has not exercised its plenary power over Indian affairs to limit gaming, tribes retain (as a sovereign) the right to establish gaming operations. Again, for most small tribal entities, gaming operations only make sense if the gaming attracts a significant number of non-Indians willing to risk money on games of chance.

The Cahuilla tribe put the premise to the test by developing a bingo operation on their reservation near Palm Springs, California. The state of California sought to assert jurisdiction over this gaming operation. In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 US 202 (1987) the U.S. Supreme Court vindicated the sovereignty of the Cahuilla when it "held that a state could not enforce its 'civil/regulatory' gaming laws in a manner that would prohibit gaming on Indian lands within its borders." Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 11 F.3d 1016, (11th Cir. 1994) affirmed 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996).

Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ( IGRA)' the following year. The Act explicitly states that gaming is "a means of promoting tribal economic development, self- sufficiency, and strong tribal governments" (U.S. Code 25 Section 2702(1)). Nevertheless, state interests in Indian gaming were given considerable deference.

The federal statutory scheme divides gaming into three "classes." Class I gaming is solely regulated by tribal governments and includes "social games" with prizes of "minimal value" and "traditional forms" of gaming associated with tribal celebrations (25 USC 2703(6)). Class I1 gaming includes bingo and non-banking card games (25 USC 2703(7)). Class 111 gaming is defined residually and consists of "all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class I1 gaming" (U.S. Code 25 Section 2703(8); Seminole Tribe 1994:1017). Class I11 gaming is allowed when conducted in conformance with a compact between the Tribe and the State (Seminole Tribe 1994: 1017).

The "compact" provision of the federal law gives the states considerable influence over gaming on Indian lands and has been used by many states in attempts to delay or defeat the efforts of a number of tribes to establish class I11 gaming operations. The compact process erodes tribal sovereignty and provides ample room for states to challenge the types of games that tribes may operate (Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994)).

In sum, many tribes are currently involved in controversies that are similar to the controversies surrounding the "cigarette cases" of the 1970s. For these tribes the Congressional purpose of promoting economic development and self-sufficiency is largely unfulfilled. On the other hand, some tribes have successfully negotiated compacts and have implemented gaming operations. Scores of tribes now rely on gaming for a portion of tribal revenues and some enterprises are extremely lucrative. The most profitable casino in the United States (Foxwoods) is run by the Pequot Tribe in Connecticut (Goodman 1995: 104).

Despite the financial potential, some Indian tribes have not established gaming operations under the IGRA. Certainly, this

is not based on ignorance. It is not, presumably, based on a notion that gaming will fail to produce tribal revenues. Why then have some tribes not "taken advantage" of this potential source of revenue?

This question has no single answer. American Indian tribes comprise a vast array of distinct cultural traditions and distinct histories of relations with the federal government and the states. Any attempt at generalization about the policies of Indian tribes must be sensitive to these differences and hedged with caveats.

This article focuses on but a single tribe, the Navajo. The Navajo occupy. the largest reservation in the United States (over 16,000,000 acres) and have the largest on-reservation population (over 160,000). The article's purpose is to describe this tribe's wrestling with the gaming issue.

The Navajo Gaming Controversy

As among most American Indian tribes, there is a long tradition of gambling among the Navajo. There are "minor rites" and songs for luck in gaming (Kluckhohn and Leighton 1974:222). The winter shoe game remains quite popular in some areas. Horse races and foot races are occasions for betting. Card

-

games are nearly ubiquitous adjuncts of some ceremonial occasions such as the summer Enemyway rituals. Historically, some people had widespread reputations as gamblers and were known by names indicating involvement in gambling.

Over a half century ago, Kluckhohn and Leighton (1974:306) noted that "[tlo Navahos such things as sex and gambling are not 'wrong' at all but will bring trouble if indulged in 'too much.'" They added that "[u]ncontrolled gambling or drinking are disapproved primarily because they are wasteful" (Kluckhohn and Leighton 1974:299). These values have persisted to the present.

Some Navajo tribal officials have spoken about the potential of gaming on the reservation for a number of years. r or over a decade rumors have floated concerning a casino at Lake Powell, a major recreation area and tourist destination. However, at the time the IGRA passed, the Navajo Nation Tribal Code (NTC) explicitly made it a criminal offense to promote gambling and to gamble for "economic benefit other than personal winnings" (17 NTC section 421). Tribal gaming operations required the Navajo Nation to alter its law.

In 1993 the Economic Development Committee (EDC) of the Navajo Nation Council established a six member "Subcommittee on Class I1 and Class I11 gaming" primarily to "review and make recommendations with respect to tasks which the Navajo Nation must undertake to fully develop a gaming establishment and/or casino" (EDC 1993: 1). The subcommittee held public hearings in five reservation locations. About 250 people attended the hearings and about 65 people provided testimony (EDC 1993: 12).

The subcommittee concluded that

Gaming is clearly a profitable industry. The benefits are many: more job opportunities, more government revenue to provide for the Navajo People, more revenue for true investment in the economy and education, competition with casinos and gaming establishments near or adjacent to the Navajo Nation to curb the flow of money leaving the Navajo Reservation.. .(EDC 1993:21).

V O L . 5 6 . NO. 3 F A L L 1 9 9 7 295

The report warned that if "entry" into the gaming industry were delayed "profits in the industry will have fallen" and the tribal government would lose opportunities for revenue and employment (EDC 1993:20). Tribal policy makers thus framed the issue as one of revenue. Public testimony raising non- economic issues was largely ignored. The report characterized the opposition (which the subcommittee determined to be 29% of those testifying) in the following passage:

The expressed concern on behalf of the Navajo People testifying at the public hearings was that revenue generated from gaming be set-aside for further economic development and infrastructural development and educational investment. The Subcommittee agrees with such opinion and makes the same recommendation (EDC 1993:21).

While such concerns are evident in a few statements recorded in the report, there were several other concerns regarding additional issues of economic, political and social or moral importance. At the Northern Agency hearing, one individual noted that gaming "might not work for a large tribe which does not have a nearby urban center as a market" (EDC 1993:15). Two individuals were concerned about loss of sovereignty (EDC 1993: 15-17). At Ft. Defiance "Ray Brown stated that gambling is prohibited in the Navajo way of life" (EDC 1993: 17). This was a unique expression but several individuals testified, more consistent with the observation of Kluckhohn and Leighton, that while gaming, per se, was not objectionable some people would be unable to control the urge to gamble. Effie Chee stressed that our people 'overdo' drinking and that they will probably 'overdo' gambling" (EDC 1993: 12).

Our reading of the subcommittee testimony indicates significant grassroots expressions of concern about the effects of gaming on the fabric of Navajo society and individual members of the tribe. Underlying these concerns was a clear recognition that while casinos might attract tourists and thus draw revenues from non-Navajos, a substantial portion of the Navajo population itself would engage in these activities. Indeed, the opening of the Ute Mountain Ute casino at Towaoc (30 miles north of Shiprock) demonstrated that Navajos would risk dollars at casinos. Our observations, and those of Navajos we have asked, are that the largest segment of the gamblers at the Towaoc casino are Navajo. The chairman of the Navajo Nation's Economic Development Committee, David John, stated "just look at Towoac [sic] ... That place fills up with Navajos" (Kammer 1994:B2).

In July, 1994 the Tribal Council passed a gaming ordinance by a substantial margin (55- 16). President Zah who had in principle supported gaming nevertheless vetoed the measure (Rushton 1994b:Al). The veto came less than a week prior to the primary election in which Zah was campaigning for re-election. A seemingly miffed EDC member, Herbert Pioche, said 'The veto means we're losing over $100 million dollars annually and also over 4,000 permanent jobs" (Rushton 1994a: 1). President Zah explained that "the issue of gaming raises many social questions, especially in an environment of poverty and high unemployment" (Rushton 1994a:l). Zah added that two of the communities proposed as casino sites had passed resolutions against gaming. Zah proposed submitting the issue to the electorate. Councilman ~ i o c h e cogently commented on the veto: "It's the moral issues versus economic development revenues" (Rushton 1994a: 1).

Zah's veto seems easy to explain in political terms. Like state governors and the president of the United States, the president of the Navajo Nation is a popularly elected official. He is attuned to issues of major interest to the entire body politic. Tribal councilmen, as legislators, less frequently find their political careers touched by any single issue of policy. Zah recognized widespread grass-roots concern over gaming. The Council members might be rather insulated from the moral concerns, but Zah was not. He sought a middle path - veto and referendum.

An attempt to override Zah's veto failed (Propp 1994:Al). The legislative subcommittee chairperson, Bennie Shelley, complained about Zah's veto yet echoed Zah's concern. Shelley stated that "It's going to take time and money to educat[e] the Navajo public on the benefits of gaming" (Donovan 1994a:A-1).

In September the council voted to place the issue on the ballot. Five sites were designated for erection of casinos - Lechee, Cameron (both areas frequented by tourists headed to the Grand Canyon and Lake Powell), Canyoncito (near Albuquerque), Shiprock (the reservation's largest population center and located adjacent to a large non-Indian population at Farmington, New Mexico) and near the New Lands along Interstate 40. The EDC held hearings at each location but turnout was low. Less than a dozen individuals typically attended these hearings (Engler 1994a:Al).

There was minimal coverage of the issue in the local newspapers prior to the November general election. The Gallup Independent, which has a large reservation readership, carried an article stressing the addictive nature of gambling and the social ills that accompanied Indian gaming in Canada (Rushton 1994~). Just prior to the election the Navajo Tmes (Donovan 1994b) ran a short article noting uncertainty over the outcome of the election and focusing largely on gaming as a revenue generator.

Perhaps more significantly this issue of the Navajo Times also ran a short letter to the editor from Raymond Daw, director of the Na'nizhoozhi Center, a large alcohol detoxification and counseling center in Gallup. He wrote:

My experience is that our people are desperately fighting alcoholism, which is an addiction, and gambling is an addiction. Instead of going for gaming as an easy way to get money, we need to look for solutions that doesn't [sic] hurt Navajo people (Daw 1994:A-5).

Our informal conversations with Navajos in the weeks prior to the election elicited a number of thoughtful and intelligent concerns about gaming. A number of people focused on the problem of "addictions" and the need to protect families. Others cited a lack of concrete information about the specifics of the gaming proposal. Several people distrusted leaders and bureaucrats who advocated gaming without offering people enough information to reach their own conclusions. Most weighed these concerns against the potential revenue stream. Many were uncertain about how they would balance these concerns when it came to a 'yes' or 'no' on the gaming vote.

The Election

On November 8, 1994 Navajos went to the polls for both tribal and state elections. The gaming referendum was defeated

296 H U M A N O R G A N I Z A T I O N

by a vote of 28,073 "No" (54.5%) to 23,450 "Yes" (45.5%) (Navajo Elections Newsletter (NEN) 1995). Navajo voters also ousted incumbent President Peterson Zah. Albert Hale. a 44- year-old lawyer, defeated Zah by about 5,000 votes(of 59,324 cast for the office)(NEN 1995). Neither candidate seemed to consider the gaming issues as important in the presidential contest (Brodsky 1994:A- 1).

The Navajo Nation is divided into 110 local political units, "chapters." The gaming issue received majority support in only 24 chapters. These chapters included Shiprock and Canyoncito (proposed casino sites), Ft. Defiance and several adjacent chapters and a set of chapters around Gallup. With the exception of Ft. Defiance, St. Michaels and two other chapters along the New Mexico state line, none of the chapters in Arizona endorsed the proposal. In eleven additional chapters, the proposal was narrowly defeated, receiving 48% to nearly 50% of the vote. Apart from Lechee (a proposed casino site) most of these chapters were adjacent to areas of stronger support (NEN 1995).

Among chapters where the proposed casinos were to be located, the vote was generally close and results were mixed. Voters at Shiprock and Canyoncito approved the proposal (52.5% and 50.7% yes, respectively). However, the proposal was defeated at Lechee (48.4% yes), Cameron (42.7% yes) and in chapters along Interstate 40 in Arizona (NEN 1995).

Some Navajo policy makers believed the issue's defeat stemmed from a lack of information available to the people, but former Navajo Election Administration Director Richie Nez disagreed, attributing the defeat to "moral" concerns:

"No matter how much you educate people, especially the older people, they still associate gambling with alcoholism, and all other vices," Nez said. "They just don't see any good coming out of it" (Engler 1994b:A2).

In an attempt to learn something about voting behavior in the Navajo election, exit polling was undertaken at six chapter^:^ Aneth, Ganado, St. Michaels, Lechee and the two largest Navajo chapters -Tuba City and Shiprock. Aneth and Shiprock both touch the Four Comers. Ganado and St. Michaels are in the south-central area. Tuba City and Lechee are among the westernmost Navajo chapters.

Both Shiprock and Tuba City are agency towns with a large number of government employees. St. Michaels is somewhat similar because it includes part of Window Rock, the Navajo Nation's capital. Lechee, the site of a coal-powered generating plant, is adjacent to the non-reservation town of Page, a tourist center. Ganado is a medium sized chapter and the site of a hospital and a community college. Aneth, the most "rural" chapter in the sample, covers an area of gas and oil fields.

The exit poll consisted of a few questions asked of each voter: sex, age, presidential vote, presidential primary vote, and gaming referendum vote. Voters were also asked to give a reason for their presidential and referendum choices.

We obtained information from 501 voters across the six chapters. Of course, we cannot claim to have a representative sample of the reservation-wide vote and even in the chapters sampled there may be some selection bias.' Nevertheless, the data offer some interesting clues about the defeat of the gaming measure.

Table 1. Gaming Vote by Sex

Yes No Total

Female 88 131 219 Total 212 24 1 453

Chi-square = 7.45 d.f. = 1 p < .O1

Sex Differences The 501 interviewees were evenly divided between women

(246) and men (255). There is no statistically significant difference by sex of interviewees among the six chapters. More men were interviewed in Shiprock and St. Michaels, while female interviewees outnumbered males in the other four chapters.

Of the 453 voters who cast a vote on the gaming referendum, male voters slightly favored the issue (53%) but females opposed it by a substantial margin (see Table 1).

The difference between the sexes decreases (and becomes statistically insignificant), however, when the Lechee chapter voters are removed from the analysis. In Lechee, a proposed gambling site, the malelfemale differences on the gambling issue are exaggerated - Lechee women opposed gambling more than most women in our sample; Lechee men favored it to a greater degree than men in other chapters. By contrast, in another proposed casino site, Shiprock, the percentage of men and women voting on the issue was identical (52% no). In two other chapters (Aneth and St. Michaels) both men and women opposed gaming.'

Age Differences

The age of 484 interviewees was obtained. Ages ranged from 18 to 93 years. The median age was 40. The mean age of women in our sample (40.7) was slightly less than that of men (43.5). About 70% of the sample was under age 50.

The age distribution varies by chapter, perhaps reflecting some sampling bias. At Aneth nearly 75% of the sample was under age 40. This deviates from the chapter's 1990 census population profile - only 59% of the voting age population is under 40.5 At Lechee 64% of the respondents were under 40 which fits closely with the chapter's age distribution. Older voters (those over 50) accounted for a high proportion of the Tuba City (40%) and St. Michaels' (42%) voters, about double the percentage of the resident voting age population. Discrepancies between census data and the sample profiles may be due to factors other than sampling bias. For example, a Navajo chapter member need not reside in the chapter in which she votes. In addition, there may have been differences in turnout by age that vary by chapter.

Data on age and gaming vote were obtained for 455 individuals. We grouped these individuals into 3 age cohorts: 18 to 34 (young voters), 35 to 50 (middle age voters) and over 50 (voters who were primarily bom before and during the upheaval of the Navajo livestock economy in the 1930s). There is no statistically significant difference on the gaming vote among voters in the younger two age cohorts. Both slightly

V O L . 5 6 . N O . 3 F A L L 1 9 9 7 297

Table 2. Gaming Vote by Age Table 3. Gaming Vote by Age and Sex

Age Vote 18-34 35-50 51-93 Total

(#) (#) (#) (#) Yes 93 82 31 206 No 67 70 97 234 Total 160 152 128 440

Chi-square = 37.57 d.f. = 2 p < .O1

favored the gaming proposition. Voters over 50 overwhelming opposed it (see Table 2).

Interestingly, at Aneth, the youngest category of voters opposed gaming nearly 3 to 1. In no other chapter did voters of this age reject the measure. In no chapter did voters over 50 favor gaming. However, in both "agency towns" the margins of difference were relatively small. Although we did not ascertain occupation, our suggestion is that long-time BIA and tribal employees in these agency towns may account for the more favorable reception of gaming in these two chapters. The reasons for supporting gaming by older voters in these two agency towns seem to fit with the views expressed by younger voters throughout the reservation. At Shiprock, for example, a 62-year-old man said he supported the proposition because it would bring jobs and topless dancing and a 66-year-old supported it because "we need to spend the money on our [own] Nation." A 56-year-old Shiprock woman voted for gaming as a revenue generator despite her belief that it was "good for the young but not the elders." A 63-year-old Tuba City man supported gaming because the tribe "has to support itself' to provide money for chapters, business, and public works.

In sum, Nez's observation that older voters opposed gaming is correct. While those under 50 approved legalized gaming by a margin of about 56% to 44%, the generations born before and during World War I1 overwhelmingly rejected the proposal (76% voting no).

Gaming and the Presidential Vote

Given President Zah's veto of the Tribal Council measure authorizing gaming, one might expect a relationship between the gaming and presidential votes. However, both Zah supporters and Hale voters narrowly opposed gaming (5 1 % and 55%, respectively). There was little association between the candidates and the referendum in the press, in the minds of the voters or in the actual votes.

The Combined Effects of Age and Sex Controlling for the relationship between age and sex we can

show a straightforward relationship between each of these two independent variables on the gaming vote6 (see Table 3).

The data fit a model in which both sex and age independently affect the vote on gaming. The odds-ratios show that women, regardless of age, were 1.9 times more likely than men to oppose gambling. Those over 50, regardless of sex, were 4.3 times more likely than younger voters to vote against gaming. Thus, the group most favoring gaming was younger men. Older women were eight times more likely than young men to vote against gaming.

Men Women Age Group 18-50 >50 18-50 >50 Vote on Gambling

-

Yes 98 22 77 9 No 56 52 8 1 45

Odds on Voting "No" on the Gaming Referendum' Women: Men 1.9 Older: Youneer 4.3

'Model: Age*Sex Age*Gamble Sex*Gamble (i.e. no 3-way interaction) Likelihood ratio chi-square = .077 df=l p=.78

If a fourth variable, the voter's chapter, is added to the model, the relationships become quite complex. There is an interaction effect among the 3 independent variables (age, sex, and chapter) that precludes any elegant and simple solution for predicting the gambling vote. That is, there are distinctive voting patterns at each chapter. We have mentioned, for example, the exaggerated maletfemale differences at Lechee and the strong opposition of younger voters at Aneth. Given the manner in which our data were collected and the small number of respondents in each chapter, it is difficult to make much of these differences among communities.

The Voters' Comments: Reasons Determining the Gaming Vote

Voters were asked to give a reason for their vote on the gaming issue. Some were quite loquacious but most provided succinct responses ranging from "not good" and "we need jobs" to "not good for us."

About a quarter of all voters questioned (23.6%) did not give a comment concerning gambling (including those who abstained from voting on the issue) or gave a comment that was merely a restatement of a vague positive or negative assessment of the issue.

The 382 voters who did offer comments were equally divided among yes (192) and no (190) voters. Voters favoring gambling overwhelming (149 of 192) cited reasons associated with economic development (primarily more jobs and more tribal revenues). Only eight pro-gaming voters specifically referred to the experience of other tribes in adopting gaming. A small proportion (29 of 192) gave personal reasons for their vote (e.g.: "I like to gamble," and "it's fun").

Those voting 'no' offered primarily what we have labeled as "moral" or "social cost" reasons (1 10 of 190). Nearly half of these (49) were quite general responses such as it's "not good," "we will lose" by it or it will "ruin people." These cryptic objections indicate a belief that casino gaming would have negative social consequences. Many people (41) specified that gaming was related to specific kinds of social problems, especially alcoholism or crime. Some of these voters asserted that gambling was either an addictive behavior like alcoholism or a social problem like crime. Slightly over 10% of 'no' voters (20) gave reasons related to children, the elderly or families (because, as one person put it, gambling would "tear families apart"). A few (1 8) gave personal reasons ("I don't gamble"). Only a handful of voters opposed gambling on the basis that it was contrary to Navajo tradition (12), that Navajos were "not ready for it" (1 1) or that they had insufficient information on which to make a judgement (14).

298 H U M A N O R G A N I Z A T I O N

The reasons for voting 'no' or 'yes' differed little by age or sex. Males and females voting 'yes' were equally likely to refer to economic development and old and young 'no' voters were equally likely to cite moral issues as reasons for their vote.

Clearly, most voters defined the issue as one of tribal concern rather than one of purely personal preference. Voters differed on their assessments of whether gaming would provide economic benefits sufficient to outweigh social costs to kinsmen and other tribal members. Those voting 'yes' appear to have adopted the position of the tribal council that economic development was a benefit that could be achieved by the Navajo tribe as it has been achieved by other American Indian tribal sovereignties. Those voting 'no' indicated that the social costs or social ills would outweigh any economic benefits derived from gaming. Although most respondents did not specifically note differences between the Navajo and other tribes, it seems clear that they expected the clientele at casinos to include substantial numbers of tribal members and that many of these people gamble in a fashion that would harm family members financially or in other ways. No reservation casino would only (or even primarily) draw dollars from off-reservation populations. Several voters noted that Navajos would gamble at Navajo Nation casinos as they currently gamble at Ute Mountain (or Las Vegas, Nevada). Several voters who gave comprehensive comments on their objections to gaming believed that the Navajo Tribe would spend more to care for neglected children and grandparents and to rehabilitate "addictive" gamblers, than the tribe would gain in gaming revenues.

Navajos who voted against the gaming referendum were thus concerned primarily with the social welfare of tribal members, not "abstract" moral issues. Nor were these voters significantly guided by notions of "tradition."

Unfortunately, we did not ascertain the religious affiliation of each voter. There were less than a dozen responses that indicated religious reasons for voting 'no.' A 68-year old man said that "the Great Spirit did not put us here for that, it's very bad." A 26-year -old woman said that "according to our traditional teachings, we should not gamble - it's against our religion." She added that her 'no' vote was also because of "our Aunt B_'s experience with gambling." The responses citing tradition are interesting precisely because they are unusual and indicate idiosyncratic perspectives about "traditional" Navajo religion.

One might expect more "religious" based opposition from fundamentalist Christian Navajos rather than "traditional" Navajos. A 43-year-old Lechee man commented that he voted no for "religious reasons" because "gambling is a vice, a vice is a sin, sin breeds wickedness and wickedness leads to destruction." Only a few other responses clearly reflect such fundamentalist rhetoric. One might expect opposition from fundamentalist Christian Navajos but there was little, if any, organized Christian opposition to the gambling referendum. There may, however, have been some preaching at churches and revival meetings. This would -be a worthwhile area for further inquiry.

Several Native American Church (NAC) members are known from informal interviews to have supported the referendum. One Shiprock resident (not an NAC member) told us (with a somewhat disparaging grin) that if one wants to find a roadman, the first place to look is at the Towaoc casino. A

roadman from a neighboring community confirmed that he often gambled there as did some other NAC roadmen. On the other hand, some NAC roadmen said they opposed casino gambling.

Overall, voters eschewed religious reasons and assessed the current effect of gaming upon people they knew (or knew about). Those opposing gaming viewed social costs as outweighing putative economic benefits. Voters favoring gaming seem to have used a similar calculus but envisioned the benefits in terms of employment and tribal revenues as sufficient to compensate for the costs.

Thus, at one level, Navajo voting behavior on this particular issue can be interpreted as a "cost-benefit" approach to social policy. This seems particularly true since the leading proponents of gaming offered little or no specific evidence on the level of economic benefits to be derived from gaming. Thus, resubmission of the issue, coupled with a demonstration that gaming revenues would be sufficient to cover social costs and would be so allocated, might lead to Navajo voter approval of casino gaming.

The gaming issue may have tapped a deep reservoir of skepticism regarding claimed benefits of new government sponsored initiatives. Many of the "moral" objectors appear similar in their views to Navajos with whom we have spoken at greater length. There is no entrenched ideological opposition to the concept of gaming but there are suspicions regarding governmental initiatives touted vaguely as beneficial.

Conclusion

In an interview conducted nearly a year after the election, former President Zah identified four reasons that influenced his decision to veto the Tribal Council's gaming resolution and call for a referendum. First, the council did not specify how gambling generated revenues would be used. Second, the council designated sites for casinos contrary to the wishes of the affected communities. Third, sovereignty would be impinged by the signing of compacts with the states. Zah asserted that "many of the elderly people said don't sign compacts." Fourth, according to Zah, "it was a morality issue" (Zah 1995).

According to Butler and Ranney (1978:224), "few countries have referred moral issues, apart from liquor control, to popular votes." Moreover, few issues have been subject to referendum on the Navajo Reservation since the rejection of the Indian Reorganization Act in the 1930s. The referral of the gaming matter to the Navajo populace seems to have been a judicious use of the referendum process. Gaming has been a focal point for factionalism and violence on some reservations, for example at Akwesasne (Hornung 1991). It is the sort of potentially bitter and divisive issue that may benefit from legitimation by popular vote (see Butler and Ranney 1978:222-223).

Navajo voters rejected the measure to legalize gaming in the 1994 referendum by a relatively narrow margin. Although the defeat of the measure can largely be attributed to older voters and to female voters, concerns over pragmatic moral issues, especially the social costs of gaming, were reasons cited by 'no' voters of all ages and both sexes. It seems to us that the "conservatism" of older voters should not be attributed to any "cultural" opposition to gaming. To the contrary, gaming has long been a integral part of Navajo social life. Voters' opposition V O L . 5 6 , N O . 3 F A L L 1 9 9 7 299

was based on pragmatic, rather than abstract, moral concerns about the effect that gaming would have on families.

Moreover, as President Zah's comments indicate, older voters are far from naive about issues of sovereignty and state compacts. They have had experience with development plans and schemes which have failed to deliver on promised benefits and which have entailed unintended social consequences. Although some commentators (Goodman 1995: 105) assert that tribal sovereignty is protected under the IGRA, this is far from clear. Indian gaming has resulted in great controversies in a number o f states. In Wisconsin, for example, Governor Thompson has pushed to renegotiate compacts so that the state could benefit from gaming generated revenues (Mayers 1996). In California Governor Wilson and Attorney General Lungren have battled to limit tribal gaming (Barfield 1995). In 1995 Congressman Archer, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a 35% federal tax on Indian gaming revenues. The tax passed the House of Representatives (Kane 1995). Indian leaders helped mobilize a conservative network of anti-tax groups which ultimately convinced Archer to drop the provision (Victor 1995).

Despite the fate of this particular tax, it is very possible that continued controversy will create a climate in which Indian sovereignty is eroded. In addition to potential in-roads on the legal scope of tribal sovereignty, gaming may lead to de facto limitations on tribal sovereignty if Congress, ignoring its trust responsibilities, decides to limit funding to tribes with substantial gaming revenues. This might require tribes to use gambling revenues to make-up the cuts in federal programs. The Reagan administration supported tribal gaming because it "hoped g a m b l i n g would reduce tribal dependence o n Washington" (Goodman 1995: 11 1).

While most Navajo voters were not conversant with the details of gaming controversies in other states, many were aware that such controversies existed. But any controversy between state and tribal governments has the potential to influence Congress to further restrict tribal sovereignty. Some voters indicated this was a concern.

It is difficult to assess what the Navajo gaming referendum may mean for other tribal polities.' Mezey (1996:732) has argued that IGRA constrains tribes to deal with the issues of how much sovereignty can be sacrificed before the costs of gaming outweigh its benefits? Are the tolls on sovereignty and culture exerted by gaming under the IGRA preferable to those caused by persistent poverty? Since the Navajo Nation is rather remote from centers of non-Indian population, reservation casinos would probably attract more local Navajos than non- Indians. Thus the tolls on Navajo society and sovereignty are additive. Navajo referendum voters, as of 1994, determined the tolls were too great.

N O T E S

received useable data (60 or more completed interviews) from only 6 chapters.

There were several problems that led to the inability to conduct a broader canvas of voters. Delays in receiving permission from the Navajo Tribe made it difficult to line up interviewers for some communities. Six bilingual Navajo interviewers were finally hired. One covered both St. Michaels and Ganado. Each other interviewer worked only one chapter. The interviewer in Upper Fruitland obtained less than a dozen responses. She attributed the problem to bitter weather and the fact that ABC News was also doing exit polls in that precinct for state and federal elections. Her assessment was that voters did not wish to be bothered twice and that the ABC polling was much more professionally done.

Interviewers approached each voter as they left the precinct. Since voting was relatively heavy, especially at the larger chapters such as Shiprock and Tuba City, not everyone could be approached by a single individual. The sample thus represents an "opportunity sample" of voters.

The greatest discrepancy (and only statistically significant one) between sample vote and total chapter vote is at St. Michaels where the referendum carried 53.6% to 46.4% but our sample opposed gaming 63.5% to 36.5%. Moreover, the total referendum vote was about 12% less than the total vote in the presidential race at St. Michaels whereas it was about 16% less in our sample.

At both Shiprock and Lechee our sample gave an outcome different from the chapter vote but given the close vote, the differences are not statistically significant.

In our sample there seems to have been greater participation in voting on the gambling issue in the chapters sampled than was generally true on the reservation. About 9% of the voters interviewed did not vote on the gambling issue. Reservation-wide, the gambling vote was about 13% less than the presidential vote. Interestingly, in Ganado and St. Michaels abstention on the issue slightly exceeded the reservation average while in Shiprock and Lechee (proposed gaming sites) only about 7% did not vote on the referendum (about half the general abstention rate). In chapters adjacent to proposed gaming locations voting on the issue was also higher than the reservation average: Aneth (9% abstention) and Tuba City (5% abstention).

At St. Michaels men voted more heavily against gambling than did women. This may be a sampling problem. When the Lechee data are deleted from the analysis, 59% of women and 54% of men voted opposed gaming. The chi-square is only .97 and statistically insignificant.

* Chapter population data are from various tables in 1990 Census: Population and Housing Characteristics of the Navajo Nation (Rodgers 1993).

6This analysis was performed using the HOLOGLINEAR program in SPSSPC. See also Knoke and Burke (1980). ' The Hopi Tribe also rejected class 111 gaming in a referendum

held in the spring of 1995 but this was for an off-reservation gaming site. In the Hopi election, 58% voted "no". The one news account we have seen (Schill 1995) reports that the primary opposition to gaming was on religious grounds and several voters quoted mentioned preserving Hopi tradition. Although a social cost calculus may lurk beneath the rhetoric of tradition, the Hopis quoted did not explicitly focus on social ills and costs in the way stressed by Navajo voters in our sample.

Public Law 100-497, codified at 25 U.S.C. sections 2701-2021. Note on methods: We applied to the Navajo Nation Cultural R E F E R E N C E S C I T E D

Resources Department for a research permit. Eventually both the Department and the Board of Election Supervisors approved the Barfield, Chet proposal. On November 3, 1994 we received Navajo Nation Cultural 1995 Backing for Indian Gambling Unexpected; Speaker of Resources Investigation Permit No. C9421-E under which the polling Assembly Supports Video Machines. San Diego Union A-3 was conducted. We originally planned to poll in 13 chapters but (November 2, 1995). 300 H U M A N O R G A N I Z A T I O N

Brodsky, Sascha 1994 "Navajos Reject Gambling, Choose Hale,"The Daily Times

(Farmington), 107: 101, A-1, 1119194. Butler, David and Austin Ranney, eds.

1978 Referendums: AComparative Study of Practice and Theory. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Cohen, Felix S. 1982 Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Rennard

Strickland, editor-in-chief. Charlottesville: Michie Bobbs- Merrill.

Daw, Raymond 1994 Letter to the Editor: "Time for Change." Navajo Times

(November 3,1994:A5) Donovan, Bill

1994a Gaming Is Still Alive. Navajo Times, XXXIII (No. 35). Sept. 1, 1994, page A-1).

1994b Different Views Given On Gaming Issue. Navajo Times (November 3, 1994:A-3)

Economic Development Committee of the Navajo Nation (EDC) 1993 Report and Recommendations of the Economic

Development Subcommittee [of the Navajo Tribal Council] on Class I1 and Class I11 Gaming, October 20, 1993.

EngIer, Mark 1994a "Few Attend Navajo Nation Gaming Hearings." The

Independent (Gallup), October 18, 1994:Al. 1994b "Navajos Say No Gaming" The Independent (Gallup),

November 9, 1994:A-2 Goodman, Robert

1995 The Luck Business: The Devastating Consequences and Broken Promises of America's Gambling Explosion. New York: Martin Kessler Books.

Hornung, Rick 1991 One Nation Under the Gun: Inside the Mohawk Civil War.

New York: Pantheon Books. Kammer, Jerry

1994 Navajos to vote on gaming. The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), October 27, 1994: Bl-B2.

Kane, Paul 1995 House Passes Indian Gaming Tax; Battle Moves to

Conference. States News Service (October 27, 1995). Kluckhohn, Clyde and Dorothea Leighton

1974 The Navaho, revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Knoke, David and Peter J. Burke

1980 Log-Linear Models. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Mayers, Jeff

1996 Thompson to Roll Dice on Gambling; He wants Video Poker, New Deal with Indians. Wisconsin State Journal, January 3, 1996:A-1.

Mezey, Naomi 1996 The Distribution of Wealth, Sovereignty, and Culture

Through Indian Gaming. Stanford Law Review 48~711-731. Navajo Elections Newsletter (NEN)

I995 I'll'niil Bo'oonish Baa Hane' Volume I, Number I. Window Rock: Navajo Elections Office.

Propp, Wren 1994 Gaming Referendum Not on Navajo Ballot. The Daily

Times, (Farmington), 107:#28:A-1, August 28, 1994. Rodgers, Larry (compiler and editor)

1993 I990 Census: Population and Housing Characteristics of the Navajo Nation. Window Rock: Navajo Government.

Rushton, Ted l994a Zah Vetoes Gaming; Wants Popular Vote. Navajo Nation

Messenger (Gallup) August 10, 1994, p.1). 1994b Zah Vetoes Gaming Law; Wants Dine' to Vote. The

Independent, (Gallup), August 6, 1994, A-1. 1994c "Legal Gambling, Brings Money, Addictions and Social

Problems." The Independent, (Gallup) October 10, 1994:Al-2. Schill, Karin

1995 "Hopi's [sic] Vote NO, on Gaming Proposal." Navajo Times, April 13, 1995:Al-A2.

Victor, Kirk 1995 Rolling the Dice with Republicans. The National Journal,

December 16, 1995:3099. Zah, Peterson

1995 Interview with Scott Russell. October 19, 1995.

V O L . 5 6 , N O . 3 F A L L 1 9 9 7