Federal law basically says if a state allows a form of gambling, it must allow the tribes to offer that form (subject to signing a Compact). That's why so many tribal casinos started as bingo parlors.

A state can also sign a compact that allows broader forms of gambling than it allows in state-regulated casinos.

The areas where states have control - such as liquor - are very limited. You will note a sign as you walk into tribal casinos expressly stating that the casino is under the jurisdiction of a tribal agency.

Needless to say, if the state government decides to close casinos in Michigan (as it has), that order applies only to the 3 Detroit casinos and not to the dozens of Indian casinos. Now imagine the state closes the Detroit casinos. If you run the casino in Mt. Pleasant, will you voluntarily close to make the governor look good, or will you continue to generate income for important tribal needs? If the international border was open, do you think the casino in Windsor would voluntarily shut down, or would it welcome American guests? What about the casino in Toledo, Ohio - 15 minutes south of the Michigan border and an hour from Detroit?

That's why it's impossible to have complete uniformity. Each government serves the perceived needs of its constituents.