BOSTON (AP) — The debate over whether voters should be allowed to decide the fate of Las Vegas-style casino gambling in Massachusetts had its day before the state's highest court Monday.

The Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in an appeal over a proposed November ballot question that would effectively repeal the 2011 law that opened the door for at least three regional casinos and one slot parlor in Massachusetts. The court is expected to rule on the case sometime before July.

The anti-casino group "Repeal the Casino Deal" gathered the required 68,911 signatures from voters to place the question on the ballot. But the state Attorney General's office ruled in September that the proposal violated the state constitution and declined to certify it.

In court Monday, Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks argued that the ballot question is not permissible because it would result in casino developers losing property rights without being compensated. He said gambling companies have an "implied contractual right" to see the casino licensing process completed given the significant financial investment they have made in developing and promoting their projects.

Sacks said the situation is akin to when a company applies for a government contract through the public bidding process. Applicants in that instance, he said, are entitled to recovering certain costs if the public body does not complete the process.

But Thomas Bean, a lawyer representing "Repeal the Casino Deal," countered that compensation isn't required since there are no existing property or contract rights. Instead, he argued that the state has the right to revisit and revise laws impacting "public morals and welfare" at any time through its so-called "police powers."

Justices on the seven-member panel pushed back on that assertion.

"The police powers don't trump the state constitution," said Justice Robert Cordy. "You can't say, 'We have police powers therefore we can take contract rights away without compensation.'"

He noted that state gambling regulators have already awarded a slot parlor license to Penn National Gaming to expand gambling at Plainridge Racecourse, a harness racing track in Plainville.

"So a five -year exclusive license that's already been awarded after a thorough process and at a substantial cost to the applicant can simply be taken away with a big 'never mind'?" said Cordy. "You can do that? Without compensation? Wow."

Both sides in the casino debate said that they were encouraged by the court's inquiry.

Michael Mathis, president of MGM Springfield, which proposes an $800 million casino project, said the justices were right to ask about the potentially "chilling" impact on Massachusetts' business climate.

"We deserve an opportunity to go forward," he said, adding that the company has spent between $30 million and $40 million in its bid to win the sole casino license in the state's western region. "To not even get to the point of opening our facility...is troubling, as a business that looks at investment opportunities and evaluates risk.

FARMINGTON — Northern Edge Navajo Casino was closed on Tuesday, and the business reopened late in the evening.

A press release sent after 5 p.m. from the Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise stated that a “technical problem” caused the closure. Crews, the release said, were replacing a “fiber connection” when the surveillance cameras were “impacted.”

Navajo Gaming Regulatory Office policy mandates that a casino halt on-site gaming and commercial operations when its cameras are impaired or shut off, according to the release. The office did not provide any further information on the policies by Tuesday evening.

“We apologize for this brief business interruption and deeply appreciate your understanding,” the release stated.

An email sent just before 9:40 p.m, from Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise CEO Derrick Watchman to The Daily Times stated the casino had just reopened. The email says the casino had surveillance computer issues and was able to fix the problem.

Repeated attempts earlier in the day to reach officials for more information on the closure were unsuccessful. An official in the casino's general management office declined to comment throughout the day, refusing around noon to confirm that the business had even closed.

Signs taped to the casino's black glass doors apologized for the “inconvience” but offered no explanation for the closure and turned customers away. No news of the closure was posted on the casino's website or Facebook. Customers waiting outside speculated.

“It's probably computers,” said George Fisk, sitting on a bench near the glass entrance doors. Most Tuesdays, the 67-year-old Farmington resident said he drives to the casino for “free senior play” and dinner. He said the business has had problems in the past with its computers.

On Tuesday afternoon, others waited in cars in the nearly vacant parking lot, hoping the casino would soon open.

The Northern Edge Navajo Casino is shown on Tuesday west of Farmington on Old N 36. (Megan Farmer/The Daily Times)

“I just thought it was odd that there was nobody in this parking lot,” Leshay Cook, a Farmington resident, said from the passenger seat of a Pontiac sedan.

A security guard at the casino declined comment, and other casino officials reached by phone were unresponsive. Efforts to contact Brian Parrish, Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise acting CEO, were unsuccessful.

A public tender called by Venice’s city council to find a new management for the world’s oldest brick-and-mortar casino closed last Friday without a single offer, threatening the future of the room owned by the same council since 1946.

"It seems that the price asked for the 30-year old deal was too high," commented Venice’s casino director Vittorio Ravà to local newspaper La Nuova di Venezia e Mestre. According to Ravà, the council’s decision to ask investors to commit a sum of around 500 million Euros in 30 years discouraged all the potential tenderers from applying to manage the fascinating structure built in 1638.

"Before the tender started, some said that we were about to give the casino away for a too low price," said Venice’s major Giorgio Orsoni to Italy’s news agency Agimeg. "Truth is, we all have to realize that we instead asked for a too high price," Orsoni continued.

"Now we have to decide if to try to call for a new public tender or start some new private negotiations. What is sure however, is that we need private investments to avoid significant cuts in the casino workforce and a considerable restructuring of the casino’s operations," Venice’s major said.

According to the terms of the public tender, in order to manage the prestigious Ca’Vendramin Calergi casino and the modern Ca’ Noghera one, investors would have had to guarantee a down payment of about €140 million and a subsequent investment of at least €308 million to be paid throughout the 30-year contract. Also, the honor of managing both of Venice’s casinos came with a yearly €16 million gambling tax to be paid to the state.

As if this wasn’t enough, Italy’s infamous bureaucracy managed to complicate things by adding to the numbers above the fact that, starting from the seventh year of activities, the new management should have also paid a special tax of (at least) 5% on the Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) exceeding 140 million Euros.

"The game is not over yet, and I am confident that we will find a solution for the casino," mayor Orsoni said, explaining also how the poor result of the public tender might help starting some new talks with companies potentially interested in managing the casino – should a considerable "discount" be possible.

"We are open to start a roundtable with Venice city council and the current management of the casino," wrote the Slovenian gambling group Casino Hit in a note sent to the media. "We are open to discussing whether there is a possibility to find a way to meet the interests of all the parties involved."

Casino Hit, which already manages the brick-and-mortar rooms in Portorose and Nova Goriça, Slovenia, specified that it would be ready to take over Venice casinos in case of more convenient financial terms.

"The Group has put together a pool of investors, and some of them expressed concerns about the financial sustainability of the investment asked so far, as they consider it to be too high for the current dynamics of international gambling markets. Therefore, we are open to open a roundtable with authorities and discuss about the management of the casinos together with Venice’s city council."

I fully agree with Steve Duprey and Harold Janeway (Monitor Opinion page, April 24) that the casino issue should be settled now and that this annual legislative charade needs to stop.

But I feel casinos should be built ASAP.

Polls show that more than 60 percent of New Hampshire residents either want or don’t care about casinos. Why are at least 60 percent of legislators not voting for it?

Representatives may be under the influence of lobbyists from Connecticut casinos, while others are personally against gambling for religious or moral reasons.

I have no problem with someone being morally opposed to gambling, but that is no reason to throw their constituents’ desires into the trash heap.

Whether to legally gamble or not is an individual’s choice and should not be decided by the government.

As for bad economics and uncertain revenue, the casinos wouldn’t be spending big bucks if it was not going to be profitable for them. Profits from the casinos will mean income for the state treasury. How much? Who knows? But some is better than none.

And if a casino fails, so what? Another foreclosed building to be added to an already high inventory.

The addition of two casinos in New Hampshire would increase tourism and give those tourists something to do on a rainy week in July or a snowless winter.

People who like to gamble are going to whether it’s legal or not.

It’s time to put some of this revenue in our pockets.

Will some people abuse the opportunity? Sure, but they’re already doing it, and it’s their freedom of choice, right or wrong, not ours.

Will the character of New Hampshire change? Not much. The southern part of the state has already become Massachusetts North and a casino in Salem won’t change that, except to bring more money into town and help the tax rate. Up north? Maybe a few more tourists and surely more employment opportunities. What’s wrong with that? Casinos are just an addition to our tourist attractions.

We the people need relief. The real estate taxes have become excessive and our infrastructure is rapidly decaying.

Will a casino be a cure all? Of course not, but it’s a step in the right direction.

A few million here, a few million there, and it begins to add up.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission rejected a proposed $164 million Cedar Rapids casino Thursday, saying it would hurt existing casinos.

Supporters of the Cedar Crossing Casino development have said it would give an economic boost to Cedar Rapids and the region. They also argued it would be a catalyst for development in an area ravaged by a 2008 flood, create jobs and generate millions for tax revenue and charities.

But representatives of casinos in Riverside, Dubuque and Waterloo fought the plan, saying it would take business away from them.

The five-member commission voted 4 to 1 against the new casino during a meeting in Council Bluffs, with more than 300 people attending. The panel hasn't approved a new casino license since 2010, when it called for a three- to five-year moratorium due to concerns about market saturation.

The lone member who voted to approve the proposal, Dolores Mertz of Ankeny, said she didn't "want to put anyone out of business," but thinks industry — including Iowa's gaming industry —should be market driven.

"As a farmer, if I really believe that in agriculture, I'd be really remiss not to do that in gaming," she said.

Last month, more than 500 people packed the commission's hearing in Cedar Rapids on the proposed casino, which would be located near Interstate 380. The majority were supporters of the project, holding signs urging the commission to "vote yes" and cheering when speakers made key points.

The most vocal contingent opposing the development came from the Riverside Casino and Golf Resort in the small town of Riverside about 40 miles south of Cedar Rapids.

Riverside CEO Dan Kehl had said he likely would be forced to lay off about 250 of its 750 workers if the commission approved the Cedar Rapids project, which he said would take 30 percent or more of Riverside's business.

The Cedar Crossing Casino plan had called for a $138 million development that would include a casino, several restaurants and a 400-seat events center designed to attract touring entertainment acts, with most of the investors local business leaders. The city also would have built a $26 million parking ramp across the street.

More than 61 percent of voters in Linn County, which includes Cedar Rapids, supported the proposed casino during an election last year.

So how many bites of the apple do casino opponents get?

That tricky bit of business is now the question for the state’s highest court to answer. And judging from the direction of questioning by the justices — and, yes, it’s always a bit problematic to draw conclusions from that — there is a healthy skepticism that repeal belongs on the state ballot.

Noting that the Gaming Commission has already issued a five-year license for a slots parlor “at a great cost to the applicant, can that simply be taken away with a big never mind?” Justice Robert J. Cordy asked Thomas O. Bean, attorney for casino opponents.

“They can do this without compensation?” Cordy added.

Bean insisted, “We’re dealing with an extremely well-financed industry” that made its investments knowing full well that opponents could launch a repeal effort. “They followed the controversy.”

But they also depended on a 104-page law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Chief Justice Roderick Ireland asked, “What about the chilling effect?”

What indeed! If the ballot can be used to cancel a legally binding contract — and an exceedingly expensive one at that — then whose business is safe?

And, of course, because the initiative petition process can’t be used to make appropriations, there would be no way to compensate those would-be casino operators who had won licenses and paid for the privilege. Although if it went on the ballot and passed, casino operators could certainly sue for compensation, Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, arguing against the ballot question, told the court.

He also noted that there had been a way for casino opponents to get on the ballot legally with a simpler measure that would prohibit the Gaming Commission from issuing licenses. But they insisted on going full-throttle for a repeal of the gaming law and threw in repeal of dog racing simulcasts just for good measure.

They overreached. But beyond that they endanger the state’s already shaky reputation as a good place to do business. Let’s all hope the Supreme Judicial Court makes that clear too.