Rhode Island news | projo.com | The Providence Journal

« Police: Hit-run victim was Providence man, 33 | Today | Party for Corrente kicks off R.I. film fest tonight »

August 8, 2006

Update: Judge denies bid to block casino question

PROVIDENCE -- A federal judge refused to intervene in the state casino debate today, rejecting a bid to block a ballot question planned for November that would amend the state Constitution to allow a casino in West Warwick.

But U.S. District Judge William E. Smith hinted that the proposed amendment may be unconstitutional and left open the possibility of revisiting the issue in the future, even after the election.

"Even if the measure passes in November, it must pass through the judicial gauntlet (this Court and the Court of Appeals) before it becomes a constitutional fixture," he wrote.

In the nine-page opinion released this afternoon, Smith said "that while plaintiffs and the attorney general have raised serious constitutional questions regarding the proposed constitutional amendment, the dispute is simply not yet ripe for adjudication." Interfering with "an election is one of the most drastic powers of equity within the arsenal of the federal district court. While this court clearly has that power, prudence requires enormous discretion in its exercise."

The ballot question asks voters to approve a constitutional amendment to allow a casino to be privately built and run by the Narragansett Indians and their partner, Harrah's, in West Warwick. The state Constitution currently allows state-operated gambling facilities.

-- projo.com staff writer Steve Peoples

Today's ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Town of Johnston and Colorado developer David H. Nunes, who tried to build a casino in Johnston. Joined by the attorney general's office, they argued that the amendment would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The judge today suggested that the proposed casino may indeed be unconstitutional on the very grounds argued by its opponents. But he said that the attorney general's office and others failed to convince the court of the "irreparable harm" that would result in the ballot question going forward.

The judge also pointed out that there's a good chance that voters would reject the question, rendering his intervention unnecessary.

"This court may never be called upon to rule on the constitutionality of the proposed amendment: the electorate may vote it down in November," Smith wrote. "Courts should not wade into constitutionally torrid waters unless doing so is unavoidable."

Posted by Steve Peoples at 5:42 PM | Permalink

August 8, 2006

Update: Judge denies bid to block casino question

Comments

Post a comment