Tyrel Stevenson’s default setting is worry.

Stevenson is the legislative director for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, and with plenty of experience in Native American affairs, he has learned to be wary of dealings with the Idaho Legislature.

The current issue on Stevenson’s mind is a bill introduced in the House State Affairs Committee by its chairman, Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona.

Loertscher, a staunch opponent of gambling in all forms throughout his 30-plus years in the House, has drafted a bill that would — by simply changing a single sentence — ban any form of video slot machine, and thus wipe away their legality in the state’s four tribe-owned gaming venues.

“Common sense suggests that this bill won’t pass, and may not even get out of committee,” Stevenson said Tuesday, “but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be worried.

“The tribe’s (hotel and casino complex near Worley) not only represents a massive investment, but we’re talking about 1,500 jobs and about $1 million that goes to the state’s education fund each year as its 5 percent of tribal gaming revenue.

“The tribe’s right to conduct gaming began with a partial compact in 1992, then was ratified into its present form by the people of Idaho in a 2002 ballot initiative, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (2006) and the Idaho Supreme Court (2010). And yet here we are again.”

Under a provision of the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act of 1988, tribes can only operate games of chance as long as the state has already authorized that form of gambling.

In 1992, the Idaho Legislature amended the state constitution to ban all forms of gambling except its lottery, bingo and pari-mutuel racing — thus leaving Native American gaming venues in legal limbo.

So in 2002, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe — with a huge investment planned in its hotel/casino operation — managed to get an initiative on the state ballot.

The Tribe agreed there would be no slot machines with levers, and the video games would not dispense cash. In return, the state would agree Idaho’s tribes (there are currently four major gaming venues, including the Kootenai Tribe in Boundary County) had the right to benefit economically in striving for self-reliance.

State voters approved that measure by roughly a 60-40 margin.

Since then, two legal challenges have been dismissed by different courts. The latest decision — denying a claim from two habitual gamblers — came from the Idaho Supreme Court in 2010.

“I guess I don’t understand what has changed since then that would cause the Legislature to make any dramatic dismantling of tribal gaming,” Rep. Don Cheatham, R-Post Falls, told The Press. “If nothing new has happened, then I’m against even bringing it up.”

That logic, however, hasn’t stopped Loertscher from attempting to change a sentence in the 2002 law that would have the effect of banning any type of slot machine — or video device that even functioned like one.

Such a bill would gut tribal gaming in Idaho, since video slots and other video games are the main source of revenue.

The latest figures, from 2014, note tribal gaming in Idaho was the source of $255.6 million in direct sales, added $128.8 million to the state’s gross product, and employed 3,361 people.

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe alone is the second-largest employer in North Idaho, and its gaming revenue has created more than $24 million that has been channeled to schools, school districts, universities and nonprofit organizations.

The fact Loertscher could use his chairmanship to take a crack at destroying that entire structure has made some legislators uncomfortable.

State Affairs Committee member Rep. Randy Armstrong, R-Pocatello, indicated Loertscher’s bill had an exceptionally slim chance of passing if it even got out of committee.

Armstrong added: “This would be devastating to all of the (tribe’s) economic situations, from Coeur d’Alene on down.”

Rep. Paul Amador, R-Coeur d’Alene, probably put the squabble started by Loertscher into the clearest perspective.

“My feeling is that this (type of gaming) is allowed under the law,” Amador said. “It’s been approved and litigated, so I don’t see what the necessity might be to reintroduce it.

“To me, it’s a moot subject.”