Justices say Hinds judge right in dismissing anti-gambling initiative

Jack Elliott Jr.

Thursday, Sept. 7, 2000 | 3:55 a.m.

JACKSON, Miss. - A Hinds County judge did not go too far in blocking an anti-casino initiative, the Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled.

The justices, in a 8-1 decision Thursday, sided with Circuit Judge James Graves. Graves ruled last May that by law Mississippians must be told the financial affect of constitutional changes. He also ruled Elizabeth Stoner's proposal to force a statewide vote on gambling did not include estimated tax losses should casinos be closed.

In arguments in March before the Supreme Court, Joseph Deprimo, an attorney for Tupelo-based American Family Association Law Center, argued Graves was limited to reviewing only the initiative's title and summary. Deprimo said Graves should not have addressed the issue of economic impact.

The initiative was challenged in circuit court by the Mississippi Gaming Association, which contended that judges have authority to look at the entire content of initiative proposals.

Three times Stoner tried to use the initiative process to get the statewide vote on gambling. Courts ruled against her all three times, citing problems over wording. Her plan would make casinos and lotteries illegal, if voters agreed.

Stoner argued that all she had to do was indicate whether there would be an economic impact and she did that in saying there would be none.

Her attorneys said any detailed estimate of economic impact would come after signatures are gathered, and that such information must come from state financial experts, not Stoner.

Justice Mike Mills, writing for the court, said the history of the initiative law in Mississippi and other states "has exposed the danger that special interests can easily manipulate and control the initiative process."

"Care must be taken to ensure that the rights of individuals, minorities, and separate regions of the state are not easily trampled and ignored by majority impulses," Mills wrote.

He said the law's requirement for an economic impact statement is a "reasonable" check against abuses.

Justice Kay Cobb, in the lone dissent, said the Legislature did not make the initiative process easy, and "that is as it should be."

"However, neither did it make the process impossible to accomplish, and certainly it did not vest any authority in any court to determine at the outset, before the initiative is even put before the voters, that a proposed initiative measure, with only a ballot title and summary, is unconstitutional," Cobb wrote.

Cobb said the Hinds court should be ordered to review only the ballot title and the summary prepared by the attorney general, nothing else, and then allow Stoner to proceed with the other hurdles on getting the issue on the ballo9-07 0242 ?KCr