Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Dogs bad, casinos good

The decision by Attorney General Martha Coakley to shoot down a ballot question seeking to overturn the state's casino gambling law has opponents vowing to appeal, and asking exactly why the idea runs afoul of the state constitution.

According to state solicitor Peter Sacks, the AG's office could not certify the proposed ballot question because, if approved, it would amount to a taking of casino proponents' contract rights.

The fact that resort casino and slots casino proponents have paid fees to the state, officials explain, means they have a right to have those applications reviewed by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

To which we say, nonsense.

Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution governs the initiative petition process, and includes a list of matters that cannot be the subject of a petition, such as religious expression, the service of judges, trial by jury, or the creation or abolition of courts.

The article also bars propositions inconsistent with "The right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use," and it is that exemption that Mr. Sacks pointed to in explaining why Ms. Coakley rejected the proposal from the Committee to Repeal the Casino Deal.

Someone — and we trust it will be the state's Supreme Judicial Court — will have to explain to us how the right of having one's gaming application reviewed constitutes "private property." Even if it does, how does banning casinos amount to an appropriation of said "private property" to public use?

Wouldn't it simply mean no casinos, and a refund of the application fees?

The attorney general's reasoning here appears to stretch the plain meaning of the language in the state constitution beyond the breaking point.

It is also starkly inconsistent with what Ms. Coakley herself has ruled in the past.

In 2008, Massachusetts voters used the initiative petition process to ban dog racing in Massachusetts, dealing a very tangible economic blow to the state's two remaining dog tracks and their employees. Ms. Coakley certified that question, and the SJC rejected a legal challenge to it.

By what logic does the state today preserve the potential license of a casino proponent in the interest of protecting "private property," but five years ago permitted the destruction of an actual business, which would, on its face, far more accurately fit the description of "private property"?

Then, Massachusetts smiled upon the destruction of one form of gambling. Today, it does everything in its power to promote another form of gambling.

The definition in Article 48 of the state constitution declares that "the people reserve to themselves the popular initiative ..."

However, that appears to be true only if state officials like the question.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20130911/NEWS/309119987/1020