Proposing a constitutional amendment to require the governor to execute model gaming compacts with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and to authorize those tribes to sue this state if the governor fails to execute said model gaming compacts.
HJR 185 proposes a constitutional amendment that would require the governor of Texas to execute a model tribal-state gaming compact with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo within 90 days after either tribe requests one. The resolution includes the text of a detailed model compact governing Class III gaming on eligible tribal lands, and it also authorizes the tribes to sue the state if the governor fails to execute the compact. The compact is framed as implementing federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and the federal Restoration Act applicable to these tribes.
The compact would authorize a broad range of gaming activities on tribal lands, including poker, blackjack, roulette, craps, slot machines, electronic games of chance, sports wagering, and mobile sports wagering. It would also establish extensive tribal regulatory requirements covering licensing, age limits, audits, equipment standards, responsible gambling measures, and dispute resolution. The measure further contemplates revenue-sharing payments to the state and to local governments, while limiting the state’s ability to impose taxes or regulate the gaming operations directly.
If adopted, the amendment would change the Texas Constitution to compel executive action on tribal gaming compacts and would create a state constitutional basis for the tribes to enforce that duty in court. It would also effectively pre-approve a model compact that supersedes conflicting state laws as to the covered tribal gaming activities, while leaving primary regulation to the tribes and federal oversight. The proposal would affect the governor’s authority, state regulatory reach, and the legal status of gaming on tribal lands for the two named tribes, as well as potentially influence state-local revenue arrangements tied to gaming operations.
The bill text reflects a strongly supportive posture toward tribal gaming expansion and formal state-tribal cooperation, emphasizing sovereignty, economic development, and negotiated revenue sharing. The compact language is detailed and affirmative, suggesting the proposal is intended to provide a comprehensive framework rather than merely authorize gaming in general terms. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote sentiment in the available materials beyond the bill’s pro-compact framing.
The main points of contention are likely to be the mandate that the governor must execute the compact, the authorization for the tribes to sue the state if he or she does not, and the scope of gaming allowed, including sports wagering and mobile sports wagering. Another likely area of dispute is the extent to which the compact limits state regulatory authority while granting the tribes broad operational control, as well as the revenue-sharing provisions and their interaction with future state gaming policy. The bill also raises sovereignty and enforcement issues because it expressly contemplates waivers of immunity for compact disputes, which could be controversial for both state officials and opponents of expanded gaming.