The legality of the legislation needs to be determined before any voter referendum gets on this November's ballot.

01:54 AM EST on Wednesday, March 30, 2005

BY KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- Attempts continue at the State House to try to insulate the proposed West Warwick casino from another fatal legal assault, and allow it to expand into an even bigger gambling palace than suggested by any of the presentations now making the rounds.

And while it is not spelled out in the new casino bill that Rep. Timothy A. Williamson intends to introduce in the House today, Williamson said he has House Speaker William J. Murphy's backing to seek an advisory opinion, from the Supreme Court, on the legality of the legislation.

Murphy, who in 2001 sponsored the last House request for a Supreme Court opinion, did not respond to inquiries yesterday.

But Williamson said Murphy, a fellow West Warwick Democrat, had assured him he would back the new casino bill and his bid for the advisory opinion.

"We are negotiating with the Senate right now," said Williamson, on both the timing of the advisory-opinion request and the specific questions the House and Senate will pose, to the court, in a joint resolution in an effort to avoid another defeat.

Journal photo / Connie Grosch

Rep. Timothy A. Williamson, D-West Warwick, works on legislation yesterday that he will introduce today regarding the casino referendum bill.

Last year's casino referendum was derailed by the Supreme Court after clearing the House and the Senate and surviving a veto by Governor Carcieri.

The governor had asked the court whether the ballot question -- and companion legislation naming Harrah's Entertainment as the actual owner/operator -- violated a provision in the state Constitution that bans all "lotteries" except those "operated by the state" or "previously permitted."

The judges hinged their decision on the well-settled legal definition of a lottery as any "scheme or plan having three essential elements: consideration, chance and a prize."

Reasoning that most casino games -- including roulette, craps and slot machines -- "amount to nothing more than chance," they declared last year's proposal by Harrah's in partnership with the Narragansett Indians, to be an "unconstitutional lottery."

Last month, the casino backers took a new tack.

They introduced legislation seeking a referendum, at a special election on Nov. 8, 2005, on a "state-operated casino" to be run by Harrah's and the tribe under a "master contract" with the state Lottery Commission.

Like its predecessors, the bill would have guaranteed the state a one-time $100-million licensing fee and at least 25 percent of the revenue from "no fewer than 1,500 and as many as 5,000 gaming devices."

But critics were quick to note that the legislation gave Harrah's effective control over major components of the operation, including the choice of "casino gaming suppliers for such products." The selection of the companies that supply the video slots at Lincoln Park and Newport Grand is made by the Lottery.

Critics also noted the money flow -- to the "casino service provider" with the state only getting paid on an "estimated monthly basis."

Under the tweaked version to be introduced today, the Lottery Commission would still decide the number of slots, but the bill now says there shall be between 2,500 and 5,000.

It would require Harrah's to choose "from among those casino gaming suppliers who have been licensed" by the Lottery.

With respect to other casino attractions, the new bill would allow "no fewer than 100 and as many as 300 games . . . unless the [Lottery] commission determines, upon recommendation of the casino service provider, that market conditions in competing jurisdictions require a greater or lesser number of games."

Williamson yesterday said this was added in response to the announced expansion plans of the consortium seeking to buy Lincoln Park.

The group, known as BLB Investors, is proposing to spend $560 million buying and expanding the greyhound track to accommodate 4,752 video slots; only 3,002 are allowed now.

The new casino bill also redirects the daily money flow to "a bank account of the state."

Conspicuously absent from the new version: a provision that said "the remainder" of the casino's gambling income, after its employees had been paid and the state had gotten its 25 percent share, "shall be distributed to the Narragansett Indian tribe and its chosen partner, a National Gaming Company."

Williamson said the language was taken out because it was implicit.

Still, the casino backers want some assurance from the Supreme Court that this version of the bill would pass constitutional muster.

Article X, Section 3 of the state Constitution says: "The judges of the Supreme Court shall give their written opinion upon any question of law whenever requested by the governor or by either house of the General Assembly."

Such requests are not unprecedented. The court last responded to the House in 1993; the Senate in 1997.

At Murphy's request, the House voted in Feburary 2001 to ask the court's opinion of a bill he sponsored to strip the Ethics Commission of jurisdiction over any potential "conflicts" in the dual roles of lawyer-legislators.

Murphy introduced the bill amid controversy over then-House Speaker John B. Harwood's representation of private clients before state agencies. In April, however, and before the court ruled, the House rescinded the request because by then a formal complaint had been filed against Harwood with the Ethics Commission.

Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano yesterday agreed, in principle, that seeking a court opinion on the casino legislation would be "a good idea," so "we don't go through months and months of debate and research as we did last year and then have somebody . . . say it is still unconstitutional."

"I think the taxpayers paid a huge price for that without accomplishing the goal of the Senate, which was to have the people decide whether there should be a casino, not the governor, not the Supreme Court."

But Montalbano, D-North Providence, also recalled Murphy saying, just before this year's legislative session started, that the casino was "not a big priority in the House this year."

"If it has become a priority," Montalbano said, "then they should pass a joint resolution, send it over and I would support it."

But, "I want to make it absolutely clear," Montalbano said, that "until the leadership in the House exhibits that it is now more than just a passing fancy . . . I think my attention and time is going to be spent on about 10 other major issues."