A spokesman for the governor discounts the results because the questions asked did not mention the involvement of Harrah's Entertainment with the gambling facility.

01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, January 31, 2006

BY KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE -- A majority of Rhode Islanders want a chance to vote "yes or no" on the latest West Warwick casino proposal, according to a poll commissioned by the promoters of the proposed Harrah's-Narragansett Indian casino.

But less than half of those polled indicated strong support for rewriting the state Constitution to allow the privately owned casino under terms that have yet to be fully explained.

Among the findings of the survey that Peter D. Hart Research Associates, a nationally prominent Democratic polling firm says it conducted of 600 likely voters between Jan 20-23:

64 percent either "feel strongly" or tend to believe that voters -- not elected officials -- should decide whether to amend the state's Constitution "to allow a casino in the town of West Warwick, which would be privately owned and operated in association with the Narragansett Indian tribe."

Only 32 percent oppose -- more or less vehemently -- even putting the proposal on the November ballot.

But as critics were quick to note: the polling questions made public yesterday never mentioned the involvement of Harrah's Entertainment, the Las Vegas casino giant that is bankrolling the State House lobbying campaign and referendum drive.

More than half -- 54 percent -- said the amendment should "include details about tax rates for the casino for voters to decide." But the question asked made no mention of the promoters' attempt to rewrite the state Constitution to lock in the casino's tax-rate at a level that would be less than half of what's paid by the state's two established gambling venues. At current levels, Lincoln Park and Newport Grand are expected to generate $267.1 million in video-slot revenue for the state this year alone.

The poll findings elicited this response from Governor Carcieri's spokesman Jeff Neal: "Why don't the casino proponents admit in their poll questions that the casino will be owned and operated by Harrah's, an out-of-state gambling company?"

"By naming the Narragansett Indian tribe, but hiding the involvement of Harrah's, the poll questions give the false impression that the tribe will be in charge of the casino. There is no way to say how much their decision to conceal Harrah's involvement in the casino project skews the poll results," he said.

The poll itself detected a muddy response to the actual question that West Warwick Town Solicitor and state Rep. Timothy A. Williamson has proposed putting on the ballot.

The casino promoters would not release all the questions Hart posed. But a key question went something like this, according to a memorandum written by the Hart firm for public consumption that the Narragansetts' Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas made public late yesterday:

"Now I'd like to read you the proposed constitutional amendment the way it might actually appear on the ballot and then get your reaction. 'This amendment to the state Constitution would authorize a casino gambling facility in the town of West Warwick, to be privately owned and operated in association with the Narragansett Indian tribe, with tax proceeds from the casino being dedicated to property tax relief for Rhode Island citizens and will permit future privately owned and operated casino gambling facilities in the state only upon a further vote of the people.'

"If the election were held today would you vote yes or no on that constitutional amendment?"

The responses were split with only 47 percent "strongly" in favor, 8 percent who said they might vote yes, but "do not feel strongly," and 40 percent either somewhat (5 percent) or 'strongly" (35 percent) against.

The way this was described in a memorandum written for public consumption by the Hart firm: "A solid majority (55 percent) of Rhode Island voters say that they would vote yes on the proposed amendment. Opposition currently stands at just 40 percent.

"If the state legislature allowed the amendment to move forward (as per voters' wishes), the casino would have a very solid base of support going into the November 2006 election," the memoradum said.

Thomas acknowledged that support was well below the "82 percent" detected by Washington-based pollster Frank Luntz in 2002 that was featured prominently in that year's casino advertising campaign.

Thomas attributed the drop-off to the fact that this year's proposal centers on a proposed constitutional amendment. He said Williamson, who has not yet formally introduced the proposal in the legislature, is reworking it in response to some of the initial criticism.

But, "the bottom line is: they still want it on the ballot," Thomas said.

The poll has a reported margin for error of plus or minus 4 percent. But Neal suggested it was skewed to elicit certain answers.

"The poll claims that most people want the right to vote on a casino. The fact is that if you ask anyone if they should have a right to vote on an issue -- no matter what the issue is -- they are very likely to say yes . . . But if you asked it a different way, you'd get a completely different response," he said.

"For instance, if you asked whether elected officials should actively avoid making a decision about this difficult issue, and instead punt it to the voters, you'd probably get the opposite response. Asked that way, most people would probably respond that elected officials should do their jobs by making the decisions that they were elected to make," Neal said.

kgregg@projo.com / (401) 277-7078