Please join with others, get the facts and work to protect ALL Massachusetts Communities!
SJC rules casino repeal question can be put on ballot
By Mark Arsenault
| Globe Staff June 24, 2014
Massachusetts’ highest court this morning cleared the way for a repeal of the state casino law to appear on the November ballot, setting up a fierce referendum campaign for the fall and placing the fate of the state’s nascent gambling industry into the hands of the people.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that Attorney General Martha Coakley made a mistake last year when she rejected the anticasino ballot question.
“We conclude that the Attorney General erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election,” the court said in a 55-page decision written by Justice Ralph Gants.
The casino repeal campaign this summer and fall is expected to draw significant national interest — and money.
“This is going to be a multimillion-dollar campaign, no doubt about it,” said Springfield political strategist Anthony Cignoli, who has closely followed the development of the state’s casino industry.
For passionate casino opponents across the United States, the Massachusetts repeal referendum presents a tantalizing opportunity to defeat an industry that has steamrolled opposition for years, spreading into 39 states.
RELATED: After initial fanfare, skepticism on casinos grows
“This is a very historic ballot question,” said Les Bernal, director of the national anticasino group, Stop Predatory Gambling, in a recent interview. “It will be the first time in modern history for a citizen-led effort to repeal government sponsorship of casinos.”
The group will encourage its supporters to help fund the anticasino campaign in Massachusetts, he said.
The head of the Massachusetts repeal effort, John Ribeiro, hailed the ruling as “the firing of the starting gun in this incredibly important campaign.”
“We know Massachusetts can do better than this casino mess,” said Ribeiro, head of Repeal the Casino Deal. “We’re elated at the opportunity to continue sharing the truth about casinos and the harm they would bring to our communities.”
For the applicants pursuing casinos in Massachusetts, the SJC ruling puts roughly $1.7 billion a year in projected gambling revenue at risk. The companies are expected to spend heavily to protect their access to the emerging Massachusetts market.
“We will defend this,” promised Eric Schippers, a senior vice president for Penn National Gaming, in comments after Penn won the state’s sole slot parlor license in February. “We view it as a simple education campaign to help people understand the jobs that are going to be created, what these facilities will mean in terms of economic development, what they’ll mean in terms of the monies that will be repatriated back to Massachusetts.”
A Boston Globe poll this month found that opinions are divided over the casino law. Fifty-two percent of likely voters want to keep the law, while 41 percent favor repeal.
Other surveys suggest opponents start in a stronger position.
A Suffolk University poll in early June found that only 37 percent approved of casinos here.
“I think the campaign will matter a lot,” said Clyde Barrow, a University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth casino expert. “I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion for either side.”
The Repeal the Deal group has in recent weeks begun to transform itself into a political campaign aimed at persuading people to ban the casino industry from Massachusetts. The group in early June hired a campaign manager and an experienced political fundraiser.
Opponents will seek to knit together a number of anti-casino citizens groups that cropped up in 2012 and 2013 to fight individual casino proposals in cities and towns across the state. Several of these local groups managed to beat the industry, despite being massively outspent by gambling proponents. Casino opponents in West Springfield, Palmer, East Boston, and Milford defeated casino proposals at the ballot box; opponents won by default in Millbury, when an applicant dropped a slot parlor proposal ahead of a scheduled vote due to local opposition. Casino opponents in other towns, such as Foxborough, Boxborough, and Tewksbury, blocked gambling proposals before they could make it to the ballot.
Nathan Bech, a leader of an opposition group in West Springfield that defeated a Hard Rock casino proposal, said opponents are still motivated to fight the industry, even though many no longer face casino proposals in their hometowns.
“The groups have never stopped,” Bech said in a recent interview. “The West Springfield group, the Palmer group and the No Casino Springfield group have continued to work together” on the repeal effort.
The anti-casino coalition will also likely include religious leaders and public officials who actively oppose the industry, including Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone.
“I’ll be out there fighting, advocating and participating at the grass-roots level,” Curtatone said in an interview before the SJC decision.
On the other side, the pro-casino effort will include municipal officials who have embraced the industry for the jobs and revenue it promises to provide. These officials include Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo and Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria. The pro-casino coalition will likely also include potential employees of the industry and labor unions eager for the construction jobs.
Construction is already underway at Penn National’s slot parlor project at Plainridge Racecourse, in Plainville, and Penn is expected to showcase the jobs it has created in the fall campaign.
In addition to authorizing a slot parlor, the 2011 state casino law created three resort casino licenses, which have not yet been issued.
The state gambling commission in June chose an MGM Resorts proposal in Springfield as the winner of the Western Massachusetts casino resort license, but did not formally award the license due to MGM’s concerns about the repeal effort. The company did not want to be on the hook for some $200 million in obligations that will be triggered when the gambling commission officially grants the license.
The sweepstakes for the Boston-area license is between two rival projects: a Wynn Resorts proposal in Everett and a Mohegan Sun casino plan at Suffolk Downs in Revere. State regulators plan to choose the winner later this summer.
The resort license created for Southeastern Massachusetts is scheduled to be awarded in 2015. Casino projects have been proposed in Fall River and New Bedford.
Boston University journalism professor Fred Bayles, who studies referendums, said the pro-casino side begins with the advantage that most voters do not live in the handful of municipalities where casinos are planned.
“The direct impact is limited to a couple communities that have already voted in favor of it,” Bayles said.
As always, money will play a large role in the campaign, and casino backers probably will outspend opponents. But in this case money alone may not guarantee a victory.
“Gaming referenda are one of the few things where the amount you spend is not necessarily the determining factor in who wins,” said Barrow. “I don’t think this is the kind of referendum where the gaming industry can just win it with money. They have to build a grass-roots coalition.”
Cignoli, the Springfield strategist, said opponents also have more ammunition for a campaign than they did three years ago, when state lawmakers and Governor Deval Patrick legalized Las Vegas-style casino gambling and created a five-member commission to regulate it. The long rollout of the industry in Massachusetts has been marred by delays, lawsuits, failed local referendums, sniping between supporters of rival projects, and accusations of bias against the state gambling commission.
“Even the governor who put the idea of casinos forward has since said he would not want one in his town,” Cignoli said. “I do see energy on the part of the opponents.”
The SJC ruling rejected Coakley’s argument that the repeal was an illegal “taking” of contract rights from casino applicants.
“The possibility of abolition is one of the many foreseeable risks that casinos, slot parlors and their investors take when the choose to apply for a license,” the court wrote.
Coakley, a Democrat who is leading in polling in the governor’s race, issued a statement, saying, “I am pleased that the SJC has ruled on this matter, and it is now an issue that will be decided by the voters in the fall. My office had conducted a legal review of this ballot question, but knew it would ultimately be decided by the Court. My office worked cooperatively with both parties to put this issue before the Court. Now, with today’s decision, voters will have the final say.”
More coverage:
• After initial fanfare, skepticism on casinos grows
• Poll shows Mass. voters still support casinos
• Cheat sheet: Casinos in Mass.
• Gambling commissioner steps into the spotlight
• Five ways casinos are shaping this election season
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/24/state-high-court-rule-casino-repeal-ballot-question/vULLFY7zoyIfqn4MezqVVI/story.html
The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that Attorney General Martha Coakley made a mistake last year when she rejected the anticasino ballot question.
The casino repeal campaign this summer and fall is expected to draw significant national interest — and money.
“This is going to be a multimillion-dollar campaign, no doubt about it,” said Springfield political strategist Anthony Cignoli, who has closely followed the development of the state’s casino industry.
For passionate casino opponents across the United States, the Massachusetts repeal referendum presents a tantalizing opportunity to defeat an industry that has steamrolled opposition for years, spreading into 39 states.
RELATED: After initial fanfare, skepticism on casinos grows
“This is a very historic ballot question,” said Les Bernal, director of the national anticasino group, Stop Predatory Gambling, in a recent interview. “It will be the first time in modern history for a citizen-led effort to repeal government sponsorship of casinos.”
The head of the Massachusetts repeal effort, John Ribeiro, hailed the ruling as “the firing of the starting gun in this incredibly important campaign.”
“We know Massachusetts can do better than this casino mess,” said Ribeiro, head of Repeal the Casino Deal. “We’re elated at the opportunity to continue sharing the truth about casinos and the harm they would bring to our communities.”
For the applicants pursuing casinos in Massachusetts, the SJC ruling puts roughly $1.7 billion a year in projected gambling revenue at risk. The companies are expected to spend heavily to protect their access to the emerging Massachusetts market.
“We will defend this,” promised Eric Schippers, a senior vice president for Penn National Gaming, in comments after Penn won the state’s sole slot parlor license in February. “We view it as a simple education campaign to help people understand the jobs that are going to be created, what these facilities will mean in terms of economic development, what they’ll mean in terms of the monies that will be repatriated back to Massachusetts.”
A Boston Globe poll this month found that opinions are divided over the casino law. Fifty-two percent of likely voters want to keep the law, while 41 percent favor repeal.
Other surveys suggest opponents start in a stronger position.
A Suffolk University poll in early June found that only 37 percent approved of casinos here.
“I think the campaign will matter a lot,” said Clyde Barrow, a University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth casino expert. “I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion for either side.”
The Repeal the Deal group has in recent weeks begun to transform itself into a political campaign aimed at persuading people to ban the casino industry from Massachusetts. The group in early June hired a campaign manager and an experienced political fundraiser.
Opponents will seek to knit together a number of anti-casino citizens groups that cropped up in 2012 and 2013 to fight individual casino proposals in cities and towns across the state. Several of these local groups managed to beat the industry, despite being massively outspent by gambling proponents. Casino opponents in West Springfield, Palmer, East Boston, and Milford defeated casino proposals at the ballot box; opponents won by default in Millbury, when an applicant dropped a slot parlor proposal ahead of a scheduled vote due to local opposition. Casino opponents in other towns, such as Foxborough, Boxborough, and Tewksbury, blocked gambling proposals before they could make it to the ballot.
Nathan Bech, a leader of an opposition group in West Springfield that defeated a Hard Rock casino proposal, said opponents are still motivated to fight the industry, even though many no longer face casino proposals in their hometowns.
“The groups have never stopped,” Bech said in a recent interview. “The West Springfield group, the Palmer group and the No Casino Springfield group have continued to work together” on the repeal effort.
The anti-casino coalition will also likely include religious leaders and public officials who actively oppose the industry, including Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone.
“I’ll be out there fighting, advocating and participating at the grass-roots level,” Curtatone said in an interview before the SJC decision.
On the other side, the pro-casino effort will include municipal officials who have embraced the industry for the jobs and revenue it promises to provide. These officials include Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo and Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria. The pro-casino coalition will likely also include potential employees of the industry and labor unions eager for the construction jobs.
Construction is already underway at Penn National’s slot parlor project at Plainridge Racecourse, in Plainville, and Penn is expected to showcase the jobs it has created in the fall campaign.
In addition to authorizing a slot parlor, the 2011 state casino law created three resort casino licenses, which have not yet been issued.
The state gambling commission in June chose an MGM Resorts proposal in Springfield as the winner of the Western Massachusetts casino resort license, but did not formally award the license due to MGM’s concerns about the repeal effort. The company did not want to be on the hook for some $200 million in obligations that will be triggered when the gambling commission officially grants the license.
The sweepstakes for the Boston-area license is between two rival projects: a Wynn Resorts proposal in Everett and a Mohegan Sun casino plan at Suffolk Downs in Revere. State regulators plan to choose the winner later this summer.
The resort license created for Southeastern Massachusetts is scheduled to be awarded in 2015. Casino projects have been proposed in Fall River and New Bedford.
Boston University journalism professor Fred Bayles, who studies referendums, said the pro-casino side begins with the advantage that most voters do not live in the handful of municipalities where casinos are planned.
“The direct impact is limited to a couple communities that have already voted in favor of it,” Bayles said.
As always, money will play a large role in the campaign, and casino backers probably will outspend opponents. But in this case money alone may not guarantee a victory.
“Gaming referenda are one of the few things where the amount you spend is not necessarily the determining factor in who wins,” said Barrow. “I don’t think this is the kind of referendum where the gaming industry can just win it with money. They have to build a grass-roots coalition.”
Cignoli, the Springfield strategist, said opponents also have more ammunition for a campaign than they did three years ago, when state lawmakers and Governor Deval Patrick legalized Las Vegas-style casino gambling and created a five-member commission to regulate it. The long rollout of the industry in Massachusetts has been marred by delays, lawsuits, failed local referendums, sniping between supporters of rival projects, and accusations of bias against the state gambling commission.
“Even the governor who put the idea of casinos forward has since said he would not want one in his town,” Cignoli said. “I do see energy on the part of the opponents.”
The SJC ruling rejected Coakley’s argument that the repeal was an illegal “taking” of contract rights from casino applicants.
“The possibility of abolition is one of the many foreseeable risks that casinos, slot parlors and their investors take when the choose to apply for a license,” the court wrote.
Coakley, a Democrat who is leading in polling in the governor’s race, issued a statement, saying, “I am pleased that the SJC has ruled on this matter, and it is now an issue that will be decided by the voters in the fall. My office had conducted a legal review of this ballot question, but knew it would ultimately be decided by the Court. My office worked cooperatively with both parties to put this issue before the Court. Now, with today’s decision, voters will have the final say.”
More coverage:
• After initial fanfare, skepticism on casinos grows
• Poll shows Mass. voters still support casinos
• Cheat sheet: Casinos in Mass.
• Gambling commissioner steps into the spotlight
• Five ways casinos are shaping this election season
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/24/state-high-court-rule-casino-repeal-ballot-question/vULLFY7zoyIfqn4MezqVVI/story.html
