Casino

It remains to be seen whether politicians will pay at the polls for their position on the casino referendum.

01:14 PM EDT on Tuesday, August 17, 2004

BY LIZ ANDERSON
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- The way Brown University Prof. Darrell West sees it, the West Warwick casino issue has made for a frustrated electorate.

First there are the casino opponents, who didn't want it on the November ballot in the first place. They're angry at the General Assembly for trying to put it there over the governor's veto, he said.

Then there are the supporters of the casino project being developed by Harrah's Entertainment and the Narragansett Indian Tribe -- or at least those who supported a November vote. As West sees it, they're angry that the casino proposal was yanked back to earth by a legal challenge from Governor Carcieri that led to its removal from the ballot.

But will they take those frustrations out on politicians when they go to the polls? It's possible, West said yesterday.

"People feel very intensely about this, and there always can be political fallout when hopes get dashed."

Potentially, that may create a lose-lose situation for incumbent Assembly candidates who "could be held accountable for how they handled this" by voters of all stripes, he said.

Marc Genest, a political science professor at the University of Rhode Island, disagreed with West's analysis.

"Fortunately or unfortunately, it will have very little fallout," he said. Genest argued that Rhode Island is so dominated by the Democratic Party, there are few competitive races around the state where the issue might be a factor.

Maureen Moakley, URI political science department chairwoman, said that in her view Carcieri -- who is not up for reelection this year -- gets political points for "outmaneuvering" lawmakers.

But she thinks he will avoid any backlash from casino supporters, because, "I think people expect it to get on the ballot eventually."

Moakley said the casino issue could be a factor in Assembly races if Carcieri campaigns hard for candidates, "particularly in the southern districts where support for the casino was tepid." But she believes any effect will be marginal.

West said House Speaker William J. Murphy could face fallout both in his reelection bid and in his bid to remain speaker, "because he's the one who dropped the ball on this."

"His lawyers didn't anticipate a constitutional challenge and apparently hadn't read the Constitution," West said. "He's the one who was really pushing this, and it's in his home community; he's the one who negotiated with Harrah's."

With a leadership fight brewing in the Assembly already, West said, "the casino fiasco is just throwing gasoline onto the fire."

Genest agreed the issue might be a factor in any speakership race, if any of Murphy's challengers can mount a credible run. Moakley said the internal House strife might be one reason why Murphy has moved to show "some authority and force and control" by taking a tough stance against dissidents "who were really challenging his authority," such as former Speaker John Harwood and House Whip Rene Menard.

Murphy, D-West Warwick, and Senate President Joseph Montalbano, D-North Providence, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

House Minority Leader Robert Watson, R-East Greenwich, said lawmakers who voted to override Carcieri's veto "notwithstanding the clear constitutional deficiencies" in the bill should be held accountable for their votes, and "I expect they will be."

But both Republican Party Chairwoman Patricia Morgan, the GOP's candidate against Murphy for his West Warwick House seat, and Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch said they think the casino issue will not play out in Assembly races.

Morgan decried the time and expense she said the Assembly wasted considering the issue, but declared: "Will it be a huge factor in everybody's race? Probably not."

"I think we have other, more pressing issues -- we have corruption in our government, real ethical challenges up there, spending that's out of control and special interests that are kind of working against the general good. Those are the things that are more important to people," she said.

Lynch, whose brother Attorney General Patrick Lynch supported Carcieri's contention that the casino was unconstitutional, said: "The underlying issue is people, at least in my opinion, by and large wanted the issue on the ballot." Because of that, he said, they will give the Assembly incumbents credit for trying to put it there.

"I think people still look at it as the right to vote, the right to vote, the right to vote," agreed Sen. Stephen Alves, D-West Warwick, the Senate sponsor of the casino bill. Alves suggested the issue could ultimately backfire on Carcieri, "but he's not up for reelection."

Alves said the only question people were asking him is: "With all the extensive hearings, why the concern [about constitutionality] was not brought forth from the very beginning." But, "really, it was a matter of interpretation," he said. "We had some of the best attorneys over there saying it would pass constitutional muster."

Sen. John Tassoni, D-Smithfield, has been dinged several times in print by his Republican opponent, Brian Newberry, for his support of the casino bill.

Tassoni said yesterday voters "have to live with what the courts decided." But by a margin of at least 8-to-1, he said, they had told him they wanted a chance to weigh in on the issue.

The senator said he had relied on the Senate staff to examine the bill for any flaws, which is what he is telling voters who wonder what went wrong.

"If we would have known in the beginning there was a weakness I don't think it would have gotten as far as it did, but obviously we didn't," he said.

Rep. Paul Crowley, D-Newport, a casino opponent, said he planned to encourage residents to vote against the casino question as part of his primary and general election campaigns. "That's not necessary now," he said.

"My suspicion is it's going to die out rather quickly" as an election issue, Crowley said of the casino proposal. "It kind of opens the door for other issues to come forward, whether they be bond issues or issues surrounding the budget or education . . . although nothing is going to run as hot and heavy as that one would have."