[1] NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

 

Only the most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Atkin

 

DATE TYPED:

02/05/02

 

HB

HJR17

 

SHORT TITLE:

Prohibit Casino-Style Gaming, CA

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Gonzales

 

 

Duplicates/Relates to Appropriation in The General Appropriation Act                                           

 

REVENUE

 

Estimated Revenue

Subsequent

Years Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY02

FY03

 

 

 

 

($0.1) (Significant

See Narrative

 

Recurring

General Fund

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

LFC Files

Gaming Control Board (GCB)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

House Joint Resolution 17 proposes to amend Article XX of the Constitution of New Mexico to prohibit the Legislature from authorizing casino-style gaming and any form of a lottery in the state and prohibiting the governor from executing future compacts for casino-style gaming or licensing of gaming operators. 

 

Gaming is defined as “any or all forms of casino-style gaming, including slot machines and other forms of electronic gaming devices, all forms of poker, blackjack, roulette, craps, keno, wheel of fortune and pai gow.”

 

If this amendment passes the legislature, it would be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next general election, November 2002, or at any special election prior to that date that may be called for that purpose.  If approved, this amendment would become effective January 1, 2003.

 

     Significant Issues

 

The GCB states the following issues related to this legislation:

 

1)     this amendment to the Constitution of New Mexico may be contrary to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C.A §§2701-2721; and

2)     this amendment to the Constitution of New Mexico may eliminate gaming tribes’ obligations to make revenue sharing and regulatory fee payments to the state.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The GCB indicates the proposed amendment may eliminate gaming tribes’ obligations to make revenue sharing and regulatory fee payments to the state under tribal-state gaming compacts.  Section 11(D) of the compact provides that the tribes’ obligations to make revenue sharing and regulatory fee payments will cease if the state passes, amends or repeals any law that directly or indirectly attempts to restrict, or has the effect of restricting, the scope or extent of Indian gaming.  Gaming tribes generally are obligated to pay to the state 8% of their net win.  The total amount due the state this year is estimated to be $32 million.

 

If the proposed amendment was approved by the voters and the effect was the repeal of the Gaming Control Act, the Gaming Control Board as an agency would cease to exist, as would gaming tax revenues.   Gaming taxes paid by entities licensed by the Gaming Control Board totaled approximately $23 million in FY01. 

 

There is no appropriation contained in this bill.  According to the Secretary of State there are additional costs associated with the printing and advertising of constitutional amendments of approximately $30.0 each.  There is a special appropriation in the current version of the General Appropriation Act of $500.0 to cover costs associated with the constitutional amendment process.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

 

If all gaming was prohibited in the state, the Gaming Control Act or the Gaming Control Board would no longer be necessary.

 

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

 

By prohibiting the execution of future compacts, the proposed amendment may be contrary to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 2701-2721, which provides that a state must negotiate compacts in good faith if the state allows Class III gaming elsewhere in the state.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

Would this legislation prohibit only future gaming operations or prohibit current gaming operations as well ?

 

JMG/njw:ar

 [1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode.  Do not add or delete spaces.