PROVIDENCE -- A casino project proposed by Harrah’s Entertainment and
the Narragansett Indians cannot be put before voters this November, a
Superior Court judge ruled today, citing an advisory opinion by the
state’s high court yesterday calling the question unconstitutional.
The ruling by Judge Daniel A. Procaccini followed decisions today by
Harrah's and the tribe to sit out the effort by Governor Carcieri and
Attorney General Patrick Lynch to keep the casino question off the
statewide ballot.
Procaccini granted the attorney general’s request for an injunction
against the vote, skipping over a companion motion for a temporary
restraining order.
In the wake of the state Supreme Court’s nonbinding ruling, Procaccini
said that allowing the vote to go forward could cause “substantial harm”
to the public’s confidence in the judicial system.
While the judge called the right to vote a "fundamental Democratic
principle," he said that voting on an unconstitutional question "would
render this important act of the citizenry meaningless and futile."
Carcieri issued a statement this afternoon saying he was pleased with
the decision and commending the court system for acting "swiftly and
decisively."
"Rhode Island's judicial system has saved our state from constitutional
chaos," Carcieri said. "Had this unconstitutional question been allowed
to remain on the ballot, a constitutional crisis might have ensued.”"
He added, "It would have been unfair to the citizens of Rhode Island to
subject them to a protracted debate on an unconstitutional ballot
question."
Secretary of State Matthew Brown, whose office handles the ballots, said
he would abide by the order. Brown had faced an Aug. 19 deadline for
removal of ballot questions, spurring the recent court action.
Despite the ruling, a spokesman for the Narragansetts said that their
quest for a casino will continue. While nothing more could be done this
year, Guy Dufault acknowledged, he said the matter could be brought back
to the General Assembly when it reconvenes in January.
Options include crafting related legislation so the state is the casino
operator or pursuing a change in the state Constitution, Dufault said.
A spokesman for Harrah's, which decided not to intervene in the court
complaint, also said today that that did not mean it was giving up its
effort to build a casino in Rhode Island.
The state Supreme Court found yesterday that the question and its
enabling legislation violated a section of the state Constitution
prohibiting any new lotteries, other than those operated by the state or
in existence at the time the constitutional article was passed.
This morning, Procaccini had granted a request from the Narragansetts to
intervene in the case because they did not feel their interests would be
adequately represented in the case. But the tribe later withdrew that
request, according to a spokeswoman from the state's judiciary.
A short time before, Lauren Jones, a lawyer for Harrah's told Procaccini
that the gambling giant would not try to intervene because it had seen
"the handwriting on the wall" after the Supreme Court's advisory opinion.
Carcieri, an avowed casino opponent, and Lynch went to the Superior
Court after the state Supreme Court concluded yesterday that the casino
question and related legislation passed by the General Assembly are
unconstitutional.
Brown, named as a defendant in the legal action, joined with Carcieri
and Lynch, saying he needed a binding order from the court to keep the
question off the ballot because the Supreme Court opinion was merely
advisory.
|
Journal photo / Bob Thayer
Narragansett Indian Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, foreground, and Tribal Councilman Randy Noka appear before the press this morning after a Superior Court hearing on a motion to remove a casino proposal from the November statewide ballot.
|
Procaccini listened to arguments this morning from lawyers for Lynch and
Brown, who said he needed a binding order from the Superior Court to
keep the question off the ballot because the Supreme Court's opinion was
only advisory.
Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Partington argued that the state's
high court issued a "clear" and "strong" opinion that the Casino Act
passed by the General Assembly was "fatally flawed."
"I feel very confident saying it those three justices could have ordered
the question off the ballot, they would have," Partington said.
After this morning's hearing, Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas
said he was not hopeful that the question would appear on the November
ballot.
He said the tribe is still a partner with Harrah's but will also explore
other options for economic development on its own land in Charlestown --
even a bingo hall, which the tribe had pursued years ago.
After this morning's hearing, the tribe withdrew its request to
intervene.
When court reconvened this afternoon, a lawyer for the tribe, John F.
Killoy Jr., made only a brief statement to Procaccini, saying the tribe
wanted its objection to the proceeding on the record.
Killoy said the tribe believes a vote on the casino issue is important
for both the tribe and the people of Rhode Island. He said the tribe
would continue pursuing a casino through the General Assembly.
Dufault added later that the tribe did not offer testimony at the
hearing because it believed today's decision was a "fait accompli."
The ballot question, which was approved after the Assembly overrode a
Carcieri veto of the original legislation, would have asked voters,
"Shall there be a casino in the town of West Warwick operated by an
affiliate of Harrah's Entertainment in association with the Narragansett
Indian tribe?"
-- With Associated Press reports
ARTICLE TOOLS: 
