Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.360 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The negotiation process for compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes for conducting class III gaming, as defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq., on federal Indian lands is governed by this section.
(2) The gambling commission through the director or the director's designee shall negotiate compacts for class III gaming on behalf of the state with federally recognized Indian tribes in the state of Washington.
(3) When a tentative agreement with an Indian tribe on a proposed compact is reached, the director shall immediately transmit a copy of the proposed compact to all voting and ex officio members of the gambling commission and to the standing committees designated pursuant to subsection (5) of this section.
(4) Notwithstanding RCW 9.46.040, the four ex officio members of the gambling commission shall be deemed voting members of the gambling commission for the sole purpose of voting on proposed compacts submitted under this section.
(5) Within thirty days after receiving a proposed compact from the director, one standing committee from each house of the legislature shall hold a public hearing on the proposed compact and forward its respective comments to the gambling commission. The president of the senate shall designate the senate standing committee that is to carry out the duties of this section, and the speaker of the house of representatives shall designate the house standing committee that is to carry out the duties of this section. The designated committees shall continue to perform under this section until the president of the senate or the speaker of the house of representatives, as the case may be, designates a different standing committee.
(6) The gambling commission may hold public hearings on the proposed compact any time after receiving a copy of the compact from the director. Within forty-five days after receiving the proposed compact from the director, the gambling commission, including the four ex officio members, shall vote on whether to return the proposed compact to the director with instructions for further negotiation or to forward the proposed compact to the governor for review and final execution.
(7) Notwithstanding provisions in this section to the contrary, if the director forwards a proposed compact to the gambling commission and the designated standing committees within ten days before the beginning of a regular session of the legislature, or during a regular or special session of the legislature, the thirty-day time limit set forth in subsection (5) of this section and the forty-five day limit set forth in subsection (6) of this section are each forty-five days and sixty days, respectively.
(8) Funding for the negotiation process under this section must come from the gambling revolving fund.
(9) In addition to the powers granted under this chapter, the commission, consistent with the terms of any compact, is authorized and empowered to enforce the provisions of any compact between a federally recognized Indian tribe and the state of Washington.
[ 1992 c 172 s 2.]

Notes:

Severability—1992 c 172: See note following RCW 43.06.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. State of Washington, 783 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. State of Washington, 783 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 2710 (d)(3)(A); Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.360 . The Executive Director of the Washington State Gambling Commission is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the state.”
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.46.360. Records of contributions and the *748 costs of gambling impacts are necessary information to be used in negotiating compacts and their amendments.”
Mudarri v. State, 196 P.3d 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 2710, and RCW 9.46.360. [2] The "delegation doctrine" prohibits delegation of legislative authority to a non-legislative branch of government.”
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.46.360. Records of contributions and the costs of gambling impacts are necessary information to be used in negotiating compacts and their amendments.”
Maverick Gaming LLC v. USA, 123 F.4th 960 (9th Cir. 2024). “Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.360 (2). Ultimately, after negotiations and possible public hearings, the proposed compact is sent to the governor for review and final execution.”
Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. State of Washington (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 2710 (d)(3)(A); Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.360 . The Executive Director of the Washington State Gambling Commission is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the state.”
Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “§§ 2701-2721 , and the Revised Code of Washington § 9.46.360 (“the 10 Compacts”). (Dkt. No.”
Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “§§ 2701-2721 , and the Revised Code of Washington § 9.46.360 (“the 7 Compacts”). (Dkt. No. 66 at 3.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.46.360(9) — 2 cases
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 9.46.360. Records of contributions and the *748 costs of gambling impacts are necessary information to be used in negotiating compacts and their amendments.”
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 9.46.360. Records of contributions and the costs of gambling impacts are necessary information to be used in negotiating compacts and their amendments.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.