The Associated Press

Legal Arguments Filed In Casino Referendum Appeal

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office filed legal documents in the state Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday defending its decision to exclude from the November ballot a voter referendum calling for repeal of the state’s 2011 gambling law.

The office said the proposed referendum would violate the state constitution. It argues that the state already has an “implied contract” with casino license seekers, which include Wynn and MGM, and that the ballot referendum amounts to an uncompensated taking of private property.

The filing, among several made by Wednesday’s deadline, come as the state Supreme Judicial Court is set to hear arguments on May 5 in an appeal brought by a local group opposed to casino gambling in Massachusetts.

The group wants the court to overturn Attorney General Martha Coakley’s ruling and allow Massachusetts residents to vote on ballot question it has proposed.

The Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University, which is among the groups and individuals that have filed papers supporting the anti-casino referendum, argues that allowing casinos to open in Massachusetts would have “grave implications” to public health.

“Massachusetts voters should not be denied the opportunity to be heard directly on the question of whether to invite a predatory and toxic industry to do business in the Commonwealth,” the institute wrote.

Opponents of the proposed anti-casino voter referendum also have submitted legal arguments in advance of the May 5 court date.

Among those were Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, Revere Mayor Daniel Rizzo, and other residents and organizations in those two communities, which are potential sites for resort-style casinos.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on
  • CircusMcGurkus

    Well, John Adams seems to differ with Martha Coakley. “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection,
    safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit,
    honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men:
    Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and
    indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or
    totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and
    happiness require it.” MA Const. pt. 1 Art. 7. That pretty much covers it. Let the people decide.

  • Mr. Sequel

    Considering the various cultures that have evolved within a variety of environments, it is reasonable to conclude that the traditions and political principles found among them would be just as diverse.

Most Popular