Governor Patrick will not sign the conference committee's casino/slots bill

Governor Patrick will not sign the conference committee's casino/slots bill

by: David
Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 21:57:53 PM EDT
A good statement from the Gov (email):

The decision we make to expand gaming in Massachusetts will impact our state for decades. We have to get it right. Destination resort casinos will bring thousands of new jobs and increased economic development. Slots parlors will not....
I believe that the bill before the Legislature provides for more licenses than the market can bear, and will therefore not produce the job creation and economic benefits that destination resort casinos would provide. In addition, the inclusion of two slots facilities for the tracks brings social costs without the benefits, and amounts to a "no-bid" contract for the track owners. I have been clear from the beginning that is not something I can accept....

If the Legislature insists on sending me their gaming bill in its current form without addressing these concerns, I will send it back for amendment. The amendment will largely be the full text of the destination resort casino bill passed by the Senate last month, which is similar to and based on the legislation I filed in 2008.

This amendment keeps faith with my convictions about the best long-term interests of the Commonwealth and with our shared interest in job creation. I hope the Legislature will see their way to enact the amendment. However, if the House and Senate choose to send back a bill with two slots facilities and without a truly open and competitive licensing process, I will veto that measure.


In case you are not familiar with MA's unusual "return for amendment" procedure: the Governor has (basically) three choices when a bill comes before him: sign it, veto it, or return it for amendment. The third, which is what Patrick is talking about here, means that he doesn't sign the bill but instead returns it to the legislature with a different proposal, saying, in effect, "I think this would be better." Unlike a veto, there is no override procedure whereby the legislature can make a law despite the Governor's objection. Rather, when a bill is returned for amendment, the legislature must enact another bill in the usual way; of course it is up to them whether to enact the same bill they enacted before, the one suggested by the Governor, or some other bill. That newly-enacted bill then goes to the Governor, who then has only two choices: sign or veto. (In other words, he can only "return for amendment" once.)

Under the present circumstances, though, unless the legislature decides to come back into formal session (which Terry Murray has already ruled out), returning for amendment has basically the same effect as a veto: it kills the bill. There is no way a casino bill can get through in informal session, since there are a lot of "no" votes on this bill and a single legislator can prevent it from passing.

Three cheers for Governor Patrick for standing firm against the lousy bill the legislature sent him. His entire statement is on the flip.