Sides disagree on whether House bill would leave Jemez casino proposal intact

The two sides in the fight over the proposed Anthony casino had different takes on the impact of a bill that passed the House Committee on Resources Wednesday.

The bill, sponsored by the committee’s chair, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., would effectively ban off-reservation casinos, period.

The bill includes a grandfather clause that applies to proposals submitted before March 2006, as the Jemez proposal was, but only if the tribes have historical ties to the area where they want to build casinos.

What’s disputed is whether the Jemez have historical ties to this area.

The Committee to Protect Doña Ana County, which opposes the Jemez proposal, sent out a news release after Wednesday’s vote declaring that the Jemez, “by their own admission, have no geographical or historical ties to the area.” The committee declared this the “possible death blow” to the Jemez proposal.

But Dave Wilson, spokesman for the Jemez and their partner, Santa Fe art dealer Gerald Peters, said there is “written documentation” that shows the Jemez were settled in the area for a time. He said some area mountains have Jemez names because the tribe was settled here.

“We’re pretty upbeat about it,” Wilson said of the committee’s vote.

And, Wilson said, Pombo’s bill would effectively kill the potential proliferation of off-reservation casinos the Committee to Protect Doña Ana County says it fears, so this bill should allay their fears while allowing the Jemez proposal to proceed.

That’s not likely. The committee is backed by Sunland Park Racetrack and Casino owner Stan Fulton, who doesn’t want a casino in Anthony because it would compete with his operation.

The bill passed Pombo’s committee by a vote of 27-9, with Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., voting for it and Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., voting against. The bill now moves to a full House vote.

A similar bill is also being considered in the Senate. The language in the bill could change significantly.