03:53 PM EST on Wednesday, February 28, 2007

By Lynn Arditi

Journal Staff Writer

A new poll claims to show that Rhode Island residents favor, by more than 2-to-1, allowing the Narragansett Indian Tribe to conduct gambling on its reservation in Charlestown. But one of the poll’s survey questions is based on a statement that appears to contradict a federal court decision.

The survey of 449 Rhode Islanders, released yesterday by University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth Prof. Clyde W. Barrow, purports to show that about 56 percent of the state’s residents believe that Rhode Island’s federal legislators “should act to reverse” the so-called Chafee amendment, which, in effect, made the Narragansetts abide by the same state gambling-approval laws as any commercial gambling operator.

About 28 percent of the respondents are opposed to reversing the amendment, while 16 percent are undecided. A summary of the survey states that the margin of error is plus or minus 4.1 percent.

The Narragansett tribe has been seeking to repeal the 1996 provision, inserted in federal Indian gambling law at the behest of the late Rhode Island Sen. John H. Chafee, which effectively requires the tribe to win both state and local voter approval before it can build a casino, or any other type of gambling hall, on its tribal land in Charlestown.

The poll by the UMass Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis, of which Barrow is director, begins this way: “There are nearly 600 federally recognized Native American tribes in the United States. Did you know that the Narragansett Indian Tribe is the nation’s only federally recognized tribe that is prohibited from operating a casino on its tribal land?”

But the Narragansetts are not the only tribe excluded from the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, according to a 1998 federal court decision previously reported in The Providence Journal. That decision states that “the Narragansetts are not the only tribe excluded from IGRA and subjected instead to state gaming law. The Catawba Indians, the Passamoquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation and the Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head have also regained lands through legislative settlements in which they accepted general state jurisdiction over tribal lands.”

Barrow, who wrote the survey questions, said he meant there is “no other tribe that has specific legislation passed that prohibits them from conducting gaming on their tribal lands that is otherwise legal in that state.”

Other tribes may not be able to operate casinos on their tribal land because “they’re not authorized to do so” by their own states, Barrow said, “but they’re not prohibited to do so by federal legislation. There’s a difference between being prohibited and authorized.”

Could the wording of that question impact respondents’ answers? “We know generally different phraseology of questions can generate a different response,” Barrow said. “So was it intended to mislead people? No, and I don’t think it does. …Our intention is to elicit information about peoples’ attitudes and opinions and we ask questions that are designed to do that. ... I think it’s a fair and accurate question.”

Most tribes are entitled to operate casinos on their land in states where similar gambling was already allowed under the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — but to do so, they must reach a compact with the state.

Barrow was among the people who studied the casino issue during last year’s failed attempt by the Narragansetts to win voter approval for placing on the ballot a proposed casino in West Warwick.

larditi@projo.com