Opponents make case for validity of repeal question

Join to protect communities and contribute to the efforts to:

REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL


A few of the articles about the legal challenge are posted below.

Opponents make case for validity of repeal question
By Matt Murphy State House News Service Posted Mar. 22, 2014 @ 4:27 pm

WOBURN

Backers of a ballot petition to make casino gambling illegal in Massachusetts detailed their arguments in a legal brief Friday as they seek to overturn Attorney Martha Coakley’s ruling that the question is not eligible for the ballot.

The petitioners will argue to Supreme Judicial Court that prospective casino developers entered the licensing process knowing that the law legalizing expanded gambling in Massachusetts could be changed at any time and that Coakley should have erred on the side of the voters when deciding whether to allow the ballot question to proceed.

"The attorney general, who we greatly respect, was simply wrong to deny this petition on the ballot and to deny the right to vote," said former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, a casino opponent who is advising the ballot group.

Coakley in September declined to certify the ballot proposal to prohibit casinos, but the group behind the proposal – Repeal the Casino Deal - got an injunction from the Supreme Judicial Court and papers from Secretary of State William Galvin's office to begin collecting signatures for the 2014 ballot.

The petitioners expect the court to hear their argument the first full week in May. The attorney general's decision was based on her determination that contract rights are considered property and may not be "taken" by an initiative petition. Her office contends that applicants for casino licenses have an "implied contractual right" and an expectation that the licensing process will play out as set forth in the expanded gaming law.

Attorneys for the petitioners said it would be "absurd" for casino developers, who operate in a heavily regulated industry, to assume the law approved by the Legislature could not be changed, evidenced by applicants advocating changes themselves to the tax structure. Attorney Tom Bean said no "implied contract" between the Gaming Commission and casino applicants existed, nor was one authorized by the Legislature in the gaming law.

Though Coakley never suggested that the Legislature didn’t have the right to change the gambling law mid-stream, Bean, a Boston attorney with Verrill Dana, LLP, said the powers of the Legislature extend to the general public and that Coakley never proved that it was "reasonably clear" the ballot question fell into a category excluded from the initiative petition process.

"The power of the people to enact laws, the SJC has said, is coextensive with that of the Legislature. The Legislature derives its power from the people," Bean said.

In the brief, the attorneys write: "As the power of the people to enact laws through the initiative process is co-extensive with that of the Legislature, and the regulation of gambling is at the core of the State’s police and regulatory powers, any implied contract that purported to prevent the people from exercising such powers is, as this Court put it in an Opinion of the Justices, ‘invalid.’"

The brief also contends that casino developers have no right to claim a private property interest in the Gaming Commission ruling on their application for a license because that interest "lacks the traditional hallmarks of private property, such as transferability and excludability."

The attorneys pointed to a similar situation when Taunton racetrack owner George Carney challenged a ballot question abolishing greyhound racing in Massachusetts, which the SJC allowed to proceed to the ballot. Voters ultimately outlawed greyhound racing in Massachusetts, jeopardizing the future of the tracks that hosted races, and in the case of Wonderland in Revere forcing the track’s closure.

A WBUR poll released this week showed eroding support for casino gambling in Massachusetts, 46 percent in support of casinos and 43 percent opposed.

"We didn’t agree with the attorney general’s decision to decertify the question when she did it back in September, and now we know we have the legal arguments to prove it and we really believe we will be successful in this case and will be on the ballot in November," said John Ribeiro, chairman of Repeal the Casino Deal. "What’s even more encouraging which underpins everything we’ve been working for, is the more people learn about casinos the less they like them." 

http://tewksbury.wickedlocal.com/article/20140322/NEWS/140328584#140328584/?tag=2

 

Massachusetts casino foes ask court to allow repeal effort

By Bob Salsberg, The Associated Press Posted Mar. 21, 2014  

BOSTON — Casino gambling opponents say Attorney General Martha Coakley was wrong to exclude from the November state ballot a question calling for the repeal of the state's 2011 gambling law.

The group Repeal the Casino Deal filed a 53-page brief with the state's highest court on Friday asking the justices to overturn Coakley's ruling and allow Massachusetts voters to decide the question.

Coakley said in her ruling last fall that the question would violate the state constitution by interfering with "implied contracts" between the state gambling commission and applicants for casino licenses.

But the anti-casino group argues in its legal brief that gambling is known to be a heavily-regulated activity and that casino operators should expect that state laws could change.

The Supreme Judicial Court expects to hear arguments in the case in early May.

Read more: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20140321/Business/140329873#ixzz2wn61sLz6

Casino foes file court papers aimed at repeal

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe staff March 21, 2014

 

The fact that casino companies have spent millions on state application fees does not mean they have a right to open a gambling business in Massachusetts, casino opponents argued in a court brief filed Friday, part of a closely watched case that could put a repeal of the state casino law on the November ballot.

The Repeal the Casino Deal campaign is seeking a ruling from the state’s highest court to allow Massachusetts voters to decide whether to roll back the state casino law, despite an opinion from state Attorney General Martha Coakley that the repeal question is unconstitutional.

 

The repeal effort has raised concerns within the casino industry. Several developers pursuing gambling projects in Massachusetts are collaborating on a legal effort to keep the repeal off the ballot.

The Supreme Judicial Court is expected to hear the case in early May and issue a decision by late June or early July. Secretary of State William F. Galvin needs to know the results of the case by July 9 in order to have enough time to prepare the ballot, according to the repeal brief.

 

“The hurdle is rightly high to deny the people a right to vote,” said former attorney general Scott Harshbarger, a gambling opponent who is an adviser to the repeal campaign. “In this case, the proposed question is reasonable, it is well drafted, timely filed, and constitutional. Beyond that, we have secured enough signatures and, now, the public is clearly starting to lean against the industry. It’s time to right the balance and let democracy win out.”

Coakley’s office will file a response brief on April 16, said spokesman Christopher Loh. “As we do with all petition decisions, we work cooperatively with parties who wish to challenge our rulings,” Loh said. “While our office determined that the question does not meet constitutional requirements, the most important thing is to get the right result.”

Governor Deval Patrick signed legislation in November 2011 approved by the state House and Senate to legalize Las Vegas-style casino gambling and to establish a five-member commission to license as many as three resort casinos and one slot machine parlor.

Opponents organized a signature drive to put a repeal of the casino law on the November ballot, but Coakley’s office concluded that the repeal would “impair the implied contracts between the [state gambling] commission and gaming license applicants” and illegally “take” those contract rights without compensation, according to the decision issued last fall.

Casino opponents appealed Coakley’s decision to the SJC, winning the right to collect signatures while the appeal is pending. They collected more than the minimum 68,911 valid signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.

In their court brief, opponents argue there are no valid implied contracts between the operators and the commission.

“The Legislature cannot contract away the state’s policing and regulatory powers,” Thomas O. Bean, a lawyer representing the repeal effort, said in a conference call with reporters. He said casino companies spent millions of dollars “on spec” to apply for a Massachusetts casino license, with full knowledge that repeal was a possibility.

“Having voluntarily entered into a heavily regulated industry subject to pervasive government control, applicants lack a private property interest that requires compensation when the government chooses to modify the program that created the benefit in the first place,” the brief states.

As the repeal case moves toward a decision, the gambling commission is pushing ahead with its license awards. Last month, the commission chose a Penn National Gaming project in Plainville as the winner of the state’s slot parlor license.

The commission expects to issue a license in May for a resort casino in Western Massachusetts, where a resort proposal by MGM in downtown Springfield is the only valid applicant.

Two companies are competing for the Greater Boston resort license: Mohegan Sun in Revere and Wynn Resorts in Everett.

The resort casino license created for Southeastern Massachusetts is on a later timetable.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/21/casino-opponents-file-court-papers-supporting-repeal-effort/TcihuyPcrr7BhUN8o2DINN/story.html