Casino

Gambling proposals have been a fixture in Rhode Island politics since the early 1970s, when voters amended the state Constitution to establish the state lottery.

In 1992, the General Assembly voted to allow video slots, video poker, video blackjack and keno at gaming facilities in Lincoln and Newport, using the justification that the slots were simply an extension of the state lottery system.

Since then, there have been several efforts to expand the state’s gaming industry to include full-fledged casinos, but just one that reached voters.

That came in 1994, when Rhode Islanders rejected multiple casino proposals on the general ballot, including a Narragansett-run casino in West Greenwich, a small casino at Lincoln Greyhound Park, a mega-casino in Providence, a riverboat casino in Pawtucket and a gravel-pit casino in Coventry.

Four of the five proposals were soundly defeated in the polls. The West Greenwich plan, the first major effort launched by the Narragansetts, was by far the closest to success. It failed, but earned 46 percent of the vote.

Following the 1994 election, some said the casino debate in Rhode Island was dead. It was not, despite the efforts of an anti-casino politician.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed what has become known as “the Chafee amendment,” a law introduced by former U.S. Sen. John H. Chafee that exempts the Narragansetts from the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The bill stripped the tribe of the right to regulate gaming on its own lands, and essentially blocked the tribe from building a casino on its land without state approval.

The Narragansetts criticized the move as racist. A federal court disagreed in 1997, upholding the Chafee amendment. The tribe would not give up.

In 1998, the city of Providence explored a casino plan at Field’s Point dubbed “Universe 2000” involving the Narragansetts and Capital Gaming International, an Arizona casino developer.

With the General Assembly insisting on a statewide referendum on the proposal, Capital Gaming withdrew its plan, preferring to mount a strong public relations campaign for the following general election. But the Narragansetts changed partners, moving in Las Vegas developer Harrah’s Entertainment.

And the focus turned to West Warwick.

In 2004, the General Assembly approved a bill to place a question on the general election ballot: "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?"

But three months before the election, the state Supreme Court ruled that the vote and enabling legislation was unconstitutional because it violated a constitutional provision that puts the state in charge of operating all "lotteries."

The next year, the Supreme Court again struck down a re-tooled casino bill that tried to address the court’s concerns. The new ballot question would have asked voters to approve a Harrah’s-financed and Harrah’s-run casino in West Warwick as a “state-run casino.” The court ruled that the state’s control was an illusion.

General Assembly leaders then realized that a casino proposal involving an independent party, such as Harrah’s, would require a change in the state Constitution because of the state’s required control of all lotteries.

That’s where we are today.

Under the measure just cleared by the Senate, voters will be asked on the November ballot to approve a constitutional amendment to “authorize a resort casino in the town of West Warwick, to be privately owned and privately operated in association with the Narragansett Indian Tribe, with tax proceeds from the casino being dedicated to property-tax relief.”

If voters change the Constitution, the West Warwick proposal would go forward, with the details -- such as the rate at which to tax casino revenues and how to ensure municipalities use additional funding for property tax relief -- to be worked out later.

-- With Journal archival reports