Top Rhode Island court hears arguments on tribal casino

Eric Tucker

Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2005 | 9:53 a.m.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Supporters of a proposed Narragansett Indian casino told Rhode Island's high court on Monday that the state would have operational control of the gaming site.

But opponents say the latest version of the Narragansetts' proposal would still be an unconstitutional expansion of gambling and urged a three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court to block the casino's advance.

The House of Representatives asked the high court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the casino proposed by Las Vegas-based Harrah's Entertainment and the Narragansett Indian Tribe. The justices did not indicate when they would rule on the request.

It's the second time in about a year that the court has taken up the casino question. Last year, the Supreme Court said the casino plan was unconstitutional because of the state's prohibition on any lottery not run by the state.

Harrah's and the tribe reworked their proposal, giving the state control over operations at the casino, and resubmitted it to the General Assembly.

The new version calls for Harrah's and the Narragansetts to enter a contract with the state to manage the casino. Backers say this satisfies the state constitution's requirement that lotteries be run by the state.

"This is a framework, and the framework makes it very clear that the provider operates for the state under the control of the state," said Sandra Lanni, an attorney for the House.

In a brief filed with the court, Lanni argued that the proposed casino legislation gives the state's division of lottery -- part of the Department of Administration -- "functional control over all games" at the casino. She wrote that the legislation authorizes the state to define the rules of play, odds of games and the minimum and maximum wagers.

"The casino is clearly being operated on behalf of the state, controlled by the state," Lanni told the justices Monday.

The tribe has tried for more than a decade to get approval to build a casino.

Last year, lawmakers agreed to put the casino proposal on a statewide ballot, asking voters to weigh in on the plan for a resort-style casino in West Warwick. But Gov. Don Carcieri stepped in, asking the Supreme Court for the advisory opinion, killing the initiative for the year.

Critics say the new proposal hinges too much on speculation and argue that it doesn't ensure sufficient state control of the casino.

Joseph Larisa, a lawyer representing Carcieri, said Monday that the proposal delegates to the Indian tribe the decision of which private entity will operate the casino.

"The General Assembly is not making the choice," he said.

Lawyers for the state's two existing gambling facilities -- the Lincoln Park dog track and Newport Grand jai alai -- also spoke out against the proposed West Warwick casino.

"With a private casino, there's a wide (open) range as to what's going to be permitted there," said Thomas Dickinson, an attorney for Newport Grand.

Supporters of the proposed casino said in June that a public vote had been delayed until November 2006 at the earliest. They said there wouldn't be enough time this year for lawmakers to vote on a referendum and campaign for public support.