Thursday, July 13, 2006

As reported by the Providence Journal: "One day after Gov. Donald L.
Carcieri and Atty. General Patrick C. Lynch asked the Rhode Island Supreme
Court to grant an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the casino
referendum that would put the issue of a Narragansett Indian casino to the
public vote in November, officials from state and local governments as well
as special interest groups are disappointed with the news. "Carcieri and
Lynch have asserted that the referendum to establish a Harrah's/Narragansett
casino in West Warwick suffers from two constitutional flaws: first, that it
may inappropriately give the Town of West Warwick and casino operators the
constitutional right to own and operate a casino and second, that it gives
only West Warwick veto power over a potential constitutional amendment.
According to Carcieri and Lynch, the first flaw would violate sections of
the state's constitution which assert that passages of constitutional
amendments must be made by a majority of voters at an election, not a veto
by any one group or municipality. The second flaw, the West Warwick veto
provision, could possibly violate two sections of the state constitution
which require majority rule.

".Casino proponents, on the other hand, seem to feel as though this is a
ploy by Carcieri to keep the vote away from the people. Carcieri himself had
challenged the constitutionality of a Rhode Island casino in general in
2004, thus creating the need for the referendum. In a press release offered
by Rhode Islanders for Jobs and Tax Relief, Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas of
the Narragansett Indian Tribe, who also serves as Chairman of Rhode
Islanders for Jobs and Tax Relief, expressed his disappointment in
Carcieri's decision to challenge the referendum."