Arizona has allowed Class III Gaming since 1988, when Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act  to establish federal requirements for Indian Gaming.   In addition to the National Indian Gaming Commission’s authority regarding Tribal gaming, the Arizona Department of Gaming regulates many aspects of Tribal gaming, from supplier’s licenses to Tribal-State Compact negotiations

Sixteen tribes have signed Class III Gaming Compacts with the State of Arizona and fifteen of those tribes have opened casinos.  From 1988 to 2003, Arizona allowed only electronic gaming devices, such as: keno, lottery, off-track wagering and pari-mutuel wagering on horse and dog racing.  In 2003, however, the State of Arizona began allowing Class III blackjack.

Click here to see a more detailed timeline of Arizona’s Gaming Development and Regulation.

Timeline of Arizona’s Gaming Development and Regulation

1987	Cabazon Court Case - the legal foundation upon which Indian gaming law is built.
1988	Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") - Congress responded to Cabazon by enacting IGRA, which establishes the federal legislative framework for Indian Gaming.
1992	Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe v. Arizona - a federal district judge in Arizona ruled that the state must negotiate with the tribe and attempt to conclude a compact. The Legislature establishes the State Gaming Agency within the Department of Racing.
1993	Yavapai-Prescott Case - the federal mediator chose the tribe's last, best offered compact over the state's recommended compact. Negotiations followed resulting in the "standard form" compacts.
1994	Sixteen tribes had signed compacts and ten casinos were in operation by December 31, 1994.
1995	The Legislature creates the Department of Gaming. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community files a lawsuit in federal court seeking to force tribal-state compact negotiations.
1996	Seminole Court Case - the U.S. Supreme Court declared provisions in IGRA allowing states to be sued without their consent were unconstitutional. A federal court judge dismisses the Salt River Court Case based on the Seminole decision. The tribe appealed. Rumsey Court Case - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Class III gaming was to be examined game by game and allowed on Indian land only if permitted by a specific state law. Based on the Rumsey decision, Governor Symington refuses to negotiate a standard form compact with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. The tribe's initiative measure requiring the governor to sign a standard form compact with any tribe seeking a compact with the State is placed on the general election ballot. Voters approve the measure, but the law is challenged in Superior Court. Ultimately, the Arizona Supreme Court upholds the initiative measure. Sears Case - the Superior Court rules that the Governor of Arizona lacks the authority to negotiate a compact with Salt River permitting slot machines and/or keno. The decision is appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
1998	The Arizona Supreme Court overturns the decision in the Sears Case on the basis that the Sears did not have standing to bring suit. Governor Hull begins compact negotiations with the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and signs a compact on August 16, 1998.
2000	The Governor begins negotiating the renewal of the tribal-state compacts. Expiration of the current compacts begin in June, 2003, if not renewed. American Greyhound Case - Arizona horse and dog tracks sue the Governor Hull in federal court seeking either an injunction prohibiting the Governor from signing new compacts or a ruling permitting the tracks to have slot machines.
2001	The court granted the request for an injunction in the American Greyhound Case and issued a ruling that among other things, the state legislature had unconstitutionally delegated its compacting authority to the Governor, and the tribes were not an indispensable party. However, the ruling provided that the Governor did have the authority to continue to negotiate compacts with the tribes, but may not enter into new compacts without proper legislative approval. The state appealed.
2002	January/February. Governor Hull and 17 tribes successfully conclude negotiations on an agreement for new tribal-state compacts. April/May. The Governor and tribes take their agreement, as a resolution, to the legislature for approval. The legislature fails to pass the resolution. June/July. The 17 tribes gather enough signatures to put the tribal-state agreement on the 2002 General Election ballot as Proposition 202. Two additional gaming initiatives also appeared on the ballot, Proposition 200 sponsored by the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) and Proposition 201 sponsored by the race track industry. In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the decision in the American Greyhound Case.  The court ruled that the tribes were a necessary and indispensable party, and that the district court abused its discretion in ruling to the contrary.  They vacated the lower court decision and remanded it with instructions to dismiss the case. Power to sign compacts is returned to the Governor. In November, Proposition 202 passes. Proposition 200 and 201, the other two gaming initiatives fail. In December, Governor Hull and 15 tribal leaders sign new compacts.
2003	By June 30, 2003, Governor Janet Napolitano and 6 tribal leaders sign compacts.

Regulators:

Arizona Department of Gaming
202 East Earll Drive, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Phone No. (602) 604-1801
Fax No. (602) 255-3883
Website
Paul Bullis, Director
Penny Taylor Moore, Deputy Director
Ron Gomez, Deputy Director
Ron Ruiz, Deputy Director

Northern Arizona Office
1338 W. Forest Meadows Drive
Suite 120
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Phone. (928) 214-9410

Southern Arizona Office
400 W. Congress Street
Suite 156
Tuscon, Arizona 85701
Phone. (520) 628-6468