This editorial was updated Tuesday in response to breaking news.

The chance for Connecticut to work with its two federally recognized tribes to protect jobs and the flow of gaming revenues to the state in the face of impending out-of-state competition is slipping away. Concerns about potential litigation and other uncertainties could well lead the legislature to play it safe through inaction.

But inaction guarantees greater job losses and reduced revenues.

Senate Bill 957 provides the best chance to mitigate the impact of the $950 million MGM Springfield Casino scheduled to open in that Massachusetts city next year. The bill would allow the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, operators of Foxwoods Resort Casino, and the Mohegan Tribe, operators of Mohegan Sun, to jointly open a commercial casino in East Windsor.

This approach would protect a gaming industry that has become a significant part of Connecticut’s economy. If the state does nothing, the expectation is that the MGM casino will lure away many casino-goers in the greater Hartford area who heretofore traveled to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. The proposed Mashantucket-Mohegan casino would keep some of those patrons and their entertainment dollars in Connecticut.

New competition will mean the loss of jobs at the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos here in southeastern Connecticut. But if state policy helps direct some of that lost business to a jointly operated tribal casino in East Windsor, rather than out of state, it would benefit the business operations of the two tribal gaming authorities, and that would be good news for this region. It would better position the tribes to continue their diversification efforts, providing entertainment offerings beyond gambling.

Forgotten amidst all the hand-wringing is the tribal-commissioned report by gaming consultant Clyde Barrow. It concluded that if Connecticut does nothing, the state will lose 9,300 jobs and $700 million in revenue during the first three years of MGM Springfield Casino operation. Allowing the East Windsor casino would recapture nearly half those jobs and 53 percent of the revenue that would otherwise be lost, according to the analysis.

Waving the brightest red flag is Attorney General George Jepsen who, in responding to a request for a legal opinion from Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, concluded that the legal risks tied to the Senate legislation “are not insubstantial.”

MGM has signaled that if Connecticut gives the go ahead to a jointly developed tribal casino, it would claim it had no opportunity to compete in violation of the equal protection and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

In his letter to the governor, Jepsen noted that Connecticut could make the claim that the special nature of the relationship between the state and the two sovereign tribes, an association that is both political and economic, allows such legislative treatment within constitutional bounds.

While the attorney general stated the “novelty of the legal issues” make it “difficult to predict the outcomes,” that assessment must be weighed against the certainty that inaction will weaken the tribal enterprises and mean the loss of more jobs.

More disconcerting is Jepsen’s warning that the proposed arrangement could endanger the 25 percent in gross revenue slots the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos pay the state, $260 million this year. The attorney general sees the potential that the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs could invalidate the revenue-sharing deal if Connecticut allowed the tribes to operate an off-reservation commercial casino. A new administration in Washington adds to the uncertainty, according to Jepsen.

In a recent letter to Malloy, Mashantucket Chairman Rodney Butler and Mohegan Chairman Kevin Brown offered a guarantee that they would continue the existing slot revenue arrangement regardless of the what BIA does, as well as providing to the state 25 percent of the slots and table game revenues from an East Windsor casino.

Jepsen, through a spokesperson, said his office “would need substantially more detail to venture an opinion” about the new guarantee. Legally tightening up that promise could prove critical for the tribes in gaining the necessary legislative support.

A bill introduced Tuesday became the second to call for a competitive bid process to choose the developers of a third casino. While that might address the accusation of favoritism, it causes other problems because the compact with the two tribes makes the slot revenues they send to the state contingent on their exclusive gaming rights. The bill also would boost to 35 percent revenues flowing from a third casino to the state, a proposal worthy of discussion.

It comes down to this. The legislature can take the gamble that approving the third tribal casino will stand up to legal challenges. If it does not, the state loses only what it would have lost by inaction. However, if the legislature rejects the Senate bill or wastes time going down a new and dubious path in pursuing a competitive process, Connecticut will be a sure loser in the face of the new MGM competition.