The announcement by Andrews-Maltais followed years of on-again, off-again talk about an Aquinnah Wampanoag casino. The tribe’s goal had long been to build a casino on the mainland — a much more natural location, from a business standpoint, than the tribe’s isolated reservation on the Vineyard. But none of those plans has come to fruition, partly because the state has consistently opposed them.
One of the tribe’s few points of leverage, during all of those discussions, was a threat to circumvent state opposition by building a casino on its reservation if it wasn’t allowed to do so on the mainland. With her announcement, Andrews-Maltais seemed to be playing that trump card.
But is the rest of the tribe on board? Even before the vote ousting Andrews-Maltais, there were strong reasons to take her announcement with skepticism. The year-round population of Martha’s Vineyard is low. The type of upscale summer tourism the island attracts doesn’t seem like a natural fit for gambling. The tribe offered only the haziest idea of the casino’s business plan, a stark contrast to the detailed blueprints that have been offered by other casino developers across Massachusetts.
If the tribe does put together a serious plan, though, it would likely trigger a legal fight that the state could lose. In 1983, the tribe reached an agreement with the state that seems to bar a tribal casino. But that agreement may not be enforceable; two federal officials have ruled this year that the tribe retained its gambling rights within its reservation, despite the agreement.
Since a casino could have serious effects on Martha’s Vineyard, the state has to be prepared to reach a mitigation agreement with the tribe if necessary. But that question may be years away — maybe longer. Right now, the onus is still squarely on the Aquinnah Wampanoags.