The Choctaws have come out explicitly for it and backed up their support with a lot of money. The Shawnee tribe has contributed money as well. Chickasaw and Cherokee representatives have also offered official support for the question.
The Sac and Fox tribe explicitly opposes it on grounds of tribal sovreignty. Others, like the Creek, officially support it, but its members are split on the question.
Here's a snippet from a story in the
Daily Oklahoman:
Tribal support not universalUnder SQ 712, three horse-racing tracks could offer electronic gaming machines. Tribes could increase the speed of play in their machines and could offer nonhouse-banked card games. In the first year, the state would collect $70 million earmarked for education from both industries, supporters say.
Tribes could sign compacts with the state to play the faster games. Although the language of the model compact is complicated, industry experts say it also would allow video poker and video blackjack.
The three tribes with the most casino games -- Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee -- back SQ 712. However, there's not unanimity among other tribes.
For instance, chiefs of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and Seminole Nation support it, but many of their tribal council members oppose it. The Creek National Council has scheduled a meeting next week for Rhoads and other opponents to present their case.http://www.newsok.com/article/1325486/?template=news/mainKeep in mind it is the
Daily Oklahoman. They're prone to running stories that emphasize opposition over support. But, this is the only web news source I could find on the subject.
OnEdit: This is in the article, but I thought I'd mention it in case someone reads this and doesn't want to go to the site. The reason the question could interfere with tribal sovreignty is that in order to take advantage of the compacts for gaming machines, the tribe must first agree to a tobacco compact. So, it's sort of blackmail seen from one perspective.
OTOH, the tribes must willingly involve themselves in the compacts, and as long as they don't sign them, nothing is changed about the way the tribes conduct gaming. Thus, it turns into an internal battle within the tribes themselves. However, as mentioned, the intent of this part of the question is to pick at a part of the sovreignty issue.