In re Advisory Opinion from House of Representatives
| Decision Date | 24 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-134-M.P.,05-134-M.P. |
| Parties | In re Request for ADVISORY OPINION FROM the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (casino bill). |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Pursuant to Article X, Section 3, of the Rhode Island Constitution, the Rhode Island House of Representatives (the House) has transmitted to the Justices of this Court a resolution, numbered 2005-H 6396 (as amended on the floor of the House), requesting an Advisory Opinion on the constitutionality of a bill currently pending before the House, which bill is numbered 2005-H 6429, and is entitled, "An Act Relating to Sports, Racing and Athletics — and Extension of Gaming Activities to Include a State-Operated Casino." The House resolution seeks our written Opinion on the following questions of law with respect to the proposed legislation (i.e. 2005-H 6429):
"(1) Would the proposed act, if duly enacted into law and approved by the electors of the state and the town of West Warwick, comply with the requirement of Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations that all lotteries permitted in Rhode Island be operated by the state?
(2) Would the proposed act, if duly enacted into law and approved by the majority of the electors of the state and the majority of the electors of the town of West Warwick at the special election provided for by the proposed act, comply with the provisions of Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations requiring a statewide and municipal referendum to become effective?
(3) Would the proposed act, if duly enacted into law and approved by the electors of the state and the town of West Warwick, violate the equal protection clause of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in: (a) granting to the Narragansett Indian Tribe and its chosen partner the right to enter into an exclusive contract as casino service provider; or (b) in providing that the state retain a share of net casino gaming income that is different from the share of net income that the state retains from other gambling facilities in the state?
(4) Would the proposed act, if duly enacted into law and approved by the electors of the state and the town of West Warwick, be violative of the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE ADVISORY OPINION (CASINO II)
...were sent to the Supreme Court in the form of Resolution 2005-H-6396, the Court issued In re Request for Advisory Opinion from the House of Representatives (casino bill), 875 A.2d 445 (R.I.2005) (mem.), setting forth an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule as requested by the House......