IN RE ADVISORY OPINION (CASINO II)
Decision Date | 19 September 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 2005-134-M.P.,2005-134-M.P. |
Citation | 885 A.2d 698 |
Parties | In re ADVISORY OPINION TO the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (CASINO II). |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
To the Honorable House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations:
We have received from the Honorable House of Representatives a resolution requesting, in accordance with article 10, section 3, of the Rhode Island Constitution, our written opinion concerning the constitutionality of pending legislation. The proposed enactment at issue, entitled "Establishment and Extension of Gambling Activities and Other Facilities," would amend legislation that was passed by the Legislature in 2004 and codified at G.L. 1956 chapter 9.1 of title 41 (2004 Casino Act), but then vetoed by His Excellency Donald L. Carcieri, the Governor of Rhode Island. The Governor sent a request to the Rhode Island Supreme Court seeking an advisory opinion concerning the constitutionality of the 2004 Casino Act. Three-fifths of the Legislature voted to override the Governor's veto. An advisory opinion was issued on August 12, 2004, indicating that the 2004 Casino Act indeed was constitutionally infirm, largely because the state would not be operating the casino as required by article 6, section 15, of the Rhode Island Constitution. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor (Casino), 856 A.2d 320 (R.I.2004) (hereinafter Casino I).
In 2005, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives which seeks to revise chapter 9.1 of title 41 ("the proposed Casino Act"). Before voting on the newly proposed Casino Act—indeed, before consideration of the legislation by the House Finance Committee—the House of Representatives submitted the following questions to us in a request for an advisory opinion:
After those questions 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 of Representatives. On June 27, 2005, the House of Representatives, the Governor, and the Attorney General all submitted briefs explaining their positions. In addition, amicus curiae briefs were filed by Lincoln Park, Inc. (Lincoln Park), Newport Grand Jai Alai, LLC (Newport Grand), the Town of West Warwick and, jointly, Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (Harrah's), and the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe). After the Court granted a one-week extension, parties submitted reply briefs on August 3, 2005.1 Each of the interested parties was given the opportunity to present oral argument on August 15, 2005.
I
Introduction
While we are constitutionally obligated to issue advisory opinions in certain situations, we are conversely prohibited from issuing advisory opinions when other circumstances exist.
Casino I, 856 A.2d at 324 (quoting In re Advisory Opinion (Chief Justice), 507 A.2d 1316, 1318-19 (R.I.1986)).
Since the proposed legislation is still in the House Finance Committee, there is no doubt that it is pending in the traditional sense. And, while we do have an obligation to render an advisory opinion on pending legislation when requested to do so by the Legislature, id., we are nonetheless hesitant to do so in this situation. The legislation at issue not only is pending; it is in a largely underdeveloped and inchoate state.
Separate and apart from our substantive concerns, the proposed Casino Act requires technical revision. For example, after the proposed Casino Act was drafted, the Lottery Commission, the entity designated in the proposed statute to operate the proposed casino, proposed G.L.1956 § 41-9.2-2(1), was abolished by P.L. 2005, ch. 234, and replaced by the State Lottery Division of the Department of Administration. Although this substitution of a key governmental agency in the proposed Casino Act does not alter our analysis here,2 we respectfully suggest that it would seem proper for the honorable members of the House to revise the legislation to reflect this change.
Another inherent complication of the proposed Casino Act is the fact that proposed § 41-9.2-5(a) calls for a specific special election "to take place on November 8, 2005." Proposed § 41-9.2-5(e) states that: "In the event that the affirmative vote of both the Town of West Warwick and the electors of the state does not occur * * * then this chapter shall cease to have effect, and shall become null and void." Read together, these provisions constitute a sunset clause, nullifying the entire statute, effective November 8, 2005, absent majority statewide and local approval at a November 8, 2005 special election. With the November 8, 2005 deadline looming, it appears unlikely that the General Assembly can amend, consider, and pass the legislation; that the Governor can consider, and then sign or veto that legislation; that the General Assembly can consider an override of a veto, if any; and that the Secretary of State can place the question on the ballot for a special election, all by that date. We duly note that we received this request late in our own 2004-05 term and that we then set the schedule for briefing and oral argument at the earliest possible time.
Also complicating our analysis is the fact that the proposed Casino Act will not be the final statement of the rights and responsibilities of the parties; the proposed legislation directs the Division to enter into a master casino service contract with the casino service provider. Proposed § 41-9.2-9(a). The uncertainty that flows from the lack of a written and executed contract has significantly complicated our attempt to render advice on the constitutionality of the proposed Casino Act.
Nonetheless, we will adhere to our constitutional obligation to answer proper requests for advisory opinions when it is possible for us to do so. We proceed to answer the questions propounded as best we can, reviewing the proposed Casino Act on its face and avoiding any speculation resulting from its inchoate state.
II
Standard of Review
The applicable standard of review is as follows:
Casino I,856 A.2d at 327 (quoting In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives, 485 A.2d 550, 552 (R.I.1984)).
Question I:
State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Six v. Kansas Lottery
...authorizing Missouri state lottery); cf. In re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 856 A.2d 320 (R.I.2004) (Casino I); In re Advisory Opinion (Casino II), 885 A.2d 698 (R.I.2005) (insufficient control over selection of games and managers, lack of a centralized computer authority, and insufficient......
-
Rhode Island Economic Dev. V. Parking Co.
...the principle that legislative enactments enjoy a presumption of validity and constitutionality." In re Advisory Opinion to House of Representatives (Casino II), 885 A.2d 698, 702 (R.I.2005). "The act must stand as valid, unless we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is contrar......
-
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State
...does not make it so for purposes of fulfilling the very explicit terms of our Constitution.” In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives (Casino II), 885 A.2d 698, 707 n. 8 (R.I.2005). However, we are also cognizant of our role in evaluating the constitutionality of legislation. ......
-
Peter Scotti & Assocs., Inc. v. Yurdin
...Rhode Island Economic Development Corp. v. The Parking Co., L.P. , 892 A.2d 87, 100 (R.I. 2006) ; In re Advisory Opinion to House of Representatives (Casino II) , 885 A.2d 698, 702 (R.I. 2005) ; Parkway Towers Associates v. Godfrey , 688 A.2d 1289, 1293 (R.I. 1997). We have also stated that......