Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.

Daines and Tester shouldn’t roll the dice on federalism

  • 3
Drew Johnson, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research

Drew Johnson

A coalition of 21 faith, family and federalism-minded organizations recently sent a coalition letter to Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Steve Daines, and their U.S. Senate colleagues. The letter urged them to ensure Congress doesn't infringe on Montana’s rights to manage its own casino gambling affairs.

The coalition's alarm stems from H.R. 1619, The Anywhere, Any Place Casino Act — a bill that the House of Representatives recently passed. It aims to create an off-reservation casino within a state that doesn't want to house it.

The letter's signatories aren't as worried about this particular casino as they are about the precedent this legislation sets. It opens the door to creating an anywhere, any place casino gambling policy that could allow casinos to operate in neighborhoods throughout the country, even though they’re unapproved — and opposed — by states, localities and the courts.

Every Montanan, including those who support casino gaming, should share their concerns.

Montana has always taken a nuanced approach to gambling. Along with authorizing the dice game "cee-lo" in 2019, along with the "Heads or Tails" coin-tossing game for fundraising purposes, the state has also blocked bills to legalize blackjack and other measures that would have expanded gambling. Making these decisions is our right as a state; overzealous members of Congress shouldn't make them for us.

Unfortunately, however, if the Senate passes The Anywhere, Any Place Casino Act, that could become par for the course. Any developer with a bit of money and political capital could follow this bill's blueprint and have Congress foist casinos upon communities in Montana — even when we disapprove of the plans.

Even in cases of tribal gambling, states still have input over the placement of casinos. While the Department of the Interior has a say when the interests of another sovereign government are in play, courts still provide states an avenue to ensure that their rights are protected. That will no longer be the case if this troubling scheme becomes the law of the land. The bill will replace all checks and balances in the casino development process with bully tactics from Congress.

I support gambling and hope gaming options in Montana continue to expand. But I don’t support the attack on the Tenth Amendment represented by this legislation. The Anywhere, Any Place Casino Act empowers Congress to disregard states’ rights and determine where new casinos should go, with little or no input from state or local leaders.

Montanans are already facing enough threats to our sovereignty from the federal government as it is — from the federal vaccine mandate that state Attorney General Austin Knudsen is currently fighting, to overreaching federal gun laws that the state Legislature challenged with legislation, to a so-called congressional “election reform” bill that will undercut the Montana state Legislature’s efforts to ensure election integrity. Federal encroachments like The Anywhere Any Place Casino Act should concern all Montanans because over the years, it’s become clear that once politicians and bureaucrats successfully take away state control of one area, it becomes much easier for them to do the same elsewhere.

Up until this point, Montanans have been fortunate to have a delegation comprised of Democrats and Republicans who fight back when federal politicians attempt to trample states’ rights. Let's hope our representatives continue to protect our interests by pushing back against The Anywhere, Any Place Casino Act and all other future encroachments on our decision-making authority. They can’t afford to roll the dice on federalism — not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Drew Johnson is a Madison County resident who serves as a policy analyst and government watchdog at several national free market think tanks. 



Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

What a seismic difference a trial has made to public and media perceptions of Kyle Rittenhouse. When he was charged at age 17 with shooting three men, two fatally, during racial unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year, various media accounts described him as a rifle-toting white supremacist who drove across the border to shoot Black Lives Matters protesters in the racial unrest that followed ...

Kyle Rittenhouse is 18 years old. On Aug. 25, 2020, when Rittenhouse killed two men during a night of civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, he was 17. But when he took the stand during his murder trial, he looked like he could be 13. Defendants in murder trials often do themselves no favors by testifying in their own defense, but Rittenhouse probably helped himself. He was soft-spoken and ...

Since 1984, the nationwide legal drinking age has been 21 for good reasons. Young people’s brains are still developing, which affects their judgment and cognitive abilities. That, along with raging hormones, boosts the chances of impulsive decision-making. It’s a dumb idea to add alcohol to an already unstable mix. It makes even less sense to add firearms to that unstable mix. Perhaps it’s ...

What can sensible adults agree on regarding Kyle Rittenhouse, the latest young symbol on whom America can hang its devastating internal division and the newest tool for social media networks to monetize without regard to individual and societal hurt? Those who believe in the rule of law, which should be all of us, might start with the notion that a murder trial involving self-defense is no ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alerts

Breaking News