R.I. court finds casino proposal unconstitutional

Eric Tucker

Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005 | 9:41 a.m.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A bill that would allow the Narragansett Indians to open a casino in West Warwick does not pass constitutional muster, the state Supreme Court said in an advisory opinion Monday, responding to a request by legislators who crafted the bill.

In its advisory opinion, the court said the measure does not give the state operational control over the proposed casino and fails to satisfy a constitutional requirement that lotteries in Rhode Island be state-run.

Las Vegas-based Harrah's Entertainment has partnered with Narragansett Indian Tribe in an effort to build a casino in West Warwick. Lawyers presented oral arguments last month to a three-justice panel of the state's highest court.

The opinion said the legislation leaves the state Lottery Division without control over key operations at the proposed casino, including the types of table games played there, the extension of credit to gamblers and the power to choose a casino service provider.

Without direct authority over those parts of the operation, the justices wrote, "the state simply cannot in good faith be said to be operating the casino."

The justices note that the proposed legislation does give the state more power -- including the ability to direct daily revenue, set the odds of winning and determine the number of table games and video lottery terminals -- than a bill that came before the court last year.

But they said the pending legislation was still constitutionally flawed.

"To summarize, we interpret the proposed Casino Act as granting to the Lottery Division the power to make decisions concerning many, but not all, operational aspects of the gaming enterprise," the opinion reads.

This is the second consecutive year that the Supreme Court has advised against the constitutionality of the casino proposal.

The bill's principal sponsor, Rep. Timothy Williamson, D-West Warwick, said he planned to incorporate the Supreme Court's suggestions and introduce new legislation in the General Assembly next year.

"I don't think it's a setback at all," Williamson said.

In August 2004, the court issued an advisory opinion that found the proposed casino unconstitutional. The court said the legislation gave operational control of the casino to Harrah's rather than to the state.

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.

Representatives from Harrah's and the tribe and their legislative backers retooled the legislation and resubmitted it in the General Assembly this year. They have said the new version was constitutionally acceptable because it gave the state control over the proposed casino.

Carcieri praised the court's opinion on Monday.

"For two years in a row, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ruled the Harrah's casino legislation unconstitutional," the governor said in a statement. "I have said all along that this is nothing but a Harrah's casino. For the second time in a row, the Supreme Court has agreed with me."

Sandra Lanni, a lawyer for the House of Representatives, did not immediately return a call for comment Monday. Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas of the Narragansetts also did not return a phone message Monday. But in an interview on WPRO-AM on Monday afternoon, Thomas said the casino proposal was not dead.

"At the end of the day, I mean, come on, we've jumped more hurdles than anybody I know," Thomas said, adding that the tribe would not walk away from the casino plans.

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.