Casino news from http://www.projo.com/news/
In a federal lawsuit seeking to stop the West Warwick casino proposal, the Town of Johnston and a casino developer linked to Donald Trump argue that the proposal denies them constitutional rights, including the First Amendment guarantee to petition the government.
In a sharply worded brief filed Wednesday, the Narragansett Indian Tribe and its casino partner, Harrah's Entertainment, accuse the plaintiffs of "forum-shopping," and counter that the First Amendment never guaranteed political success.
The General Assembly voted in June to place a question on the ballot asking voters to amend the state Constitution to allow the West Warwick casino.
The lawsuit, filed last month by the Town of Johnston and Ajax Gaming Ventures, asks a U.S. District Court judge to force Secretary of State Matt Brown to remove the question from the ballot.
Written briefs were filed this week in the case. In its brief, Ajax Gaming and the Town of Johnston cast the dispute in broad constitutional terms.
"While the parties will submit to the court legal arguments on countless points of law, when all is said and done, this court will decide whether or not the voters of the state of Rhode Island should be presented on election day with a ballot question that offends the Constitution of the United States by violating both the First" Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"The West Warwick resolution impermissibly bestows upon a single, private, for-profit business entity, a constitutionally protected exclusive right and privilege to own and operate a resort casino within the state of Rhode Island, while simultaneously forever 'fencing out' Ajax and all other similarly situated parties who desire to own and operate a resort casino within the state of Rhode Island."
The Town of Johnston is also "fenced out," the motion reads.
The casino resolution "virtually strips" the plaintiffs of the constitutional right to "seek redress through legislation or through judicial intervention."
"The voters of Rhode Island should be spared from educating themselves and voting on an amendment that violates the United States Constitution," the brief argues. "Moreover, entry of a preliminary injunction will avoid irreparable harm to both Ajax and the Town of Johnston, both of whom favor a fair and open ballot question on casino gaming."
In a response, Harrah's and the tribe charge that the lawsuit is "taking forum-shopping to new heights."
"Having waged a protracted and (to date) futile war over the casino question in the General Assembly, the anti-amendment plaintiffs brazenly ask this federal court to do what the state's highest court unanimously refused to do and what other courts reflexively decline to do -- scuttle the process for submitting a state constitutional amendment to the people for their consideration."
Harrah's and the tribe argue that the amendment does not say the West Warwick casino "shall be the only casino in Rhode Island for all time." Others "will be free to persuade legislators that another casino is in the public's best interest, too. So the anti-amendment comrades' cries of 'monopoly' ring hollow.
"The anti-amendment allies basically suggest that the First Amendment right 'to petition the government for redress of grievances' is breached whenever a clique with full access to the political process doesn't prevail." Quoting an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Harrah's and the tribe argued: "The First Amendment guarantees the right to advocate; it does not guarantee political success."
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch filed his own brief, urging the court to grant the injunction and stop the casino question from appearing on the ballot.
" . . . The proposed constitutional amendment -- constitutionally mandating a benefit to one privately owned and operated entity to the exclusion of all others -- is clearly and palpably unconstitutional," Lynch's office wrote.
U.S. District Judge William E. Smith has scheduled a hearing in the case for Monday.
|
|