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.