Saying he has a “unique duty’’ to protect the interests of Arizona residents, state Sen. Russell Pearce wants to intervene in the legal fight over a planned tribal casino on the edge of Glendale.
In legal papers filed in U.S. District Court, Pearce, R-Mesa, said the city of Glendale and the Gila River Indian Community are addressing their own “unique and individual concerns’’ about plans by the Tohono O’odham to build a $550 million complex, including a casino. But he said neither may adequately represent his interests, either as a state legislator or “as one particularly concerned with protecting state interests.’’
The U.S. Department of Interior and the Tohono O’odham Nation, however, want a federal judge to tell him to go away, at least in the legal sense. Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kristofor Swanson said there is no legal basis to let Pearce intercede.
“Even if Sen. Pearce is authorized to speak on behalf of the state of Arizona or its legislature, which he most assuredly is not, actions by Arizona’s legislature are not the subject of the present litigation,’’ Swanson wrote. Anyway, he said, others also have interests.
“Under his reasoning, each of the 30 state senators and 60 members of the House -- not to mention their staffers -- would have a right to intervene in this case to provide their own perspective,’’ Swanson said. And as to Pearce’s claim of interest as a taxpayer and citizen “place him in a position no different from every other taxpayer in the state of Arizona and Maricopa County.’’
Pearce’s request comes as U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell is sorting through three separate lawsuits seeking to overturn a July decision by the Department of Interior to allow the Tohono O’odham to give reservation status to 54 acres of land it purchased years ago. That status is significant because it is a precursor to allowing tribal gaming on the site.
Both the city of Glendale and the Gila River Indian Community filed suit, saying the federal agency’s decision was legally incorrect.
But the fight also involves money: It would make a new Tohono O’odham casino the closest to the West Valley communities of Glendale, Peoria and the Sun Cities; right now the nearest tribal gaming is on the Gila River reservation.
The issue of money was emphasized by a third lawsuit filed in federal court by three individual members of the Gila River Indian Community who live off the reservation. In their legal papers, the three said they each receive some money based on tribal gaming revenues.
They say letting the Tohono O’odham build a casino adjacent to Glendale would give that tribe “an illegal competitive advantage’’ in its gaming operations, resulting in less money for each of them.
A 1986 federal law allowed the Tohono O’odham to purchase land off its reservation to compensate for property lost following construction of a dam. That law also permits the tribe to separately petition the Department of Interior to have anything purchased become part of the reservation.
Rhonda posted at 1:02 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
A company hired by the Tohono O'odham tribe called the homes in the Glendale area and surrounding neighborhoods to get poll results from citizens regarding their opinion on the casino. It seems the majority who were polled thought it was a bad idea and were against it; I was among those who received a call. I expressed my strong lack of enthusiasm and that it would bring too many casinos to the Valley in spite of jobs created. We shouldn't lower our standards for the sake of jobs, we shouldn't act in desperation. They should have built their casino elsewhere but they wanted the crowds from the stadium and all of the other venues in that far West Valley. There are already, 36 casinos in this state. What about North of Flagstaff or closer to the Grand Canyon, why not do a land swap there instead of Glendale? If the will of the People will not be respected, what kind of country do we have; the federal government has proven they will mow over the wishes of the People. This was a Dpt of Interior confiscation of land and bullying of this state. Right along with the Justice Dpt and the unconstitutionality of allowing foreign countries to join in the suit against Arizona and denying our governor a right to file a response to that suit in a court of law. Now they are trying to block our Constitution expert, Pearce, to speak on behalf of our state in court. Do you see the push for big government by this administration? Is that what we want?
Mr_Munch posted at 1:29 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Let them build. I'm tired of driving an hour just to get to a casino.
Slabside posted at 3:23 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Good job Pearce. The Native American casinos reap millions of dollars yet refuse to open their books to the government. These casinos are akin to a leagalized mafia. Go after them Pearce!![smile]
forkedlift1 posted at 3:59 pm on Tue, Oct 19, 2010.
Rhonda,
You apparently are a resident of Glendale and presumably live near the site of the proposed T.O. casino. If so, the City of Glendale is representing your interests by legally challenging that July decision by the Dept. of Interior to give reservation status to that 54 acres of land the tribe purchased years ago. The Gila River tribe which has a competitive financial interest in the matter has also asked the court to intervene. The third suit, filed by three individual Gila River Indian Community members who live off the reservation but who receive stipends from their tribe from gaming revenues, apparently feel that they have a valid financial interest as well.
Russell Pearce has no standing to "intercede" on his behalf, on your behalf, on the state's behalf, or on anybody's behalf. The state has no compelling interest in the matter either by law or by some constitutional measure -- which is really neither here nor there as far as Pearce is concerned. If there WERE a compelling legal interest by the state in the matter, it would be the Attorney General, not Pearce or any member of the legislature, who would have standing to also file suit.
Therefore Pearce can certainly not "speak on behalf of the state." Only the Attorney General's Office could do that, and only if the state had a compelling legal interest. You have also been misled into believing that Pearce is a "Constitutional expert" who has standing to represent you. A Constitutional expert at the very least would have to be a credentialed attorney, in good standing with the bar, and Pearce is not even an attorney. To my knowledge he is also not even a college graduate.
You apparently have also been misled into believing that the many foreign countries who filed amicus ("friend of the court") briefs in agreement with our own federal government with regard to Arizona's own conflicting immigration law (SB 1070) had no compelling interest -- i.e., standing -- to do so.
Friendly foreign countries who have been allotted any number of different types of visas (work, tourist, student, etc.) for their citizens to be in our country certainly do have a valid interest in our federal immigration laws, and thus also have a compelling interest in our own state's immigration law. In a number of sections, S.B. 1070 is in conflict with and actually undermines our federal immigration law, which is why those sections were enjoined by the federal judge.
Again, if you are a resident of Glendale and deem the proposed T.O. casino as something undesirable in that location, your interests are already being represented by the city.