The candidates for Governor and Attorney General are all over the place on the possibility of a ballot question to undo the casino law this fall. As today’s helpful Globe story outlining some of the positions puts it,
They position themselves as bold and gutsy truth-tellers. But when asked about the thorny issue of casinos and whether they believe voters should be allowed to repeal the state gambling law, some candidates running for governor and attorney general resort to sidestepping and evasion.
The refusal of several candidates of both parties to say whether they support placing a repeal referendum on the ballot in November and how they would vote on that question underscores how fraught the politics of casinos have become in Massachusetts, three years after lawmakers opened the state to Las Vegas-style gambling.
In light of this, we thought a visual aid might be helpful. Herewith, a guide to where the candidates stand (at least as of today). On the ballot question, a “yes” vote is a vote to undo the casino law; a “no” vote leaves things as they are now.
| Candidate | Question should be on the ballot? | How would you vote? |
| Avellone | Yes | No |
| Berwick | Yes | Yes |
| Coakley | No* | No |
| Grossman | ??? | No |
| Kayyem | Yes | No |
| Baker | Yes | ??? |
| Fisher | Yes | Yes |
| Falchuk | Yes | No |
| McCormick | Yes | Yes |
| Healey | Yes | Yes |
| Tolman | Yes-ish** | No |
| Miller | Yes | ??? |
*In her capacity as Attorney General, Coakley has already issued a ruling that the question cannot legally be on the ballot; that ruling is on appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. The usual disclosure: I am part of the legal team challenging her ruling.
**The Globe reports: “Democrat Warren Tolman initially declined to say where he stands on placing the question on the ballot, instead issuing a statement that spoke to his general philosophy on ballot questions. Pressed again for an answer, an aide said Tolman would vote against a repeal but ‘hopes it does get on the ballot.'”
Frankly, I cannot see any plausible reason why any candidate should decline to take a position on either question. Tough to see how the mantle of “bold and gutsy truth-teller” applies to anyone who wouldn’t take a stand.
His position is something to keep in mind if it comes down to Baker/Coakley.
Obviously Berwick has the best approach which is why he should be nominated.
Berwick and Healey — powerful combination!
They wouldn’t be running on the same ticket since she is further down the ballot-but I agree their embrace of these positions shows this is a mainstream consensus emerging among the voters of this primary. Being on the sidelines won’t be comfortable for long.
They aren’t literally a package deal on the ballot the way Gov and LG are, but if they are both our party’s nominees then many of us will be encouraging votes for both and cast our own votes accordingly.
I wonder where the LG candidates stand. While not a particularly powerful office, the LG seems to be akin to a VP of Business Development for the Commonwealth. It would be nice to know how they approach the issue.
I’ll see what we can find out.
And might as well through Treasurer in that mix as well. And also to see if they view the office’s lottery function as one of management, promotion, or both?
I was at a forum in Lexington a few weeks ago, and Tolman and Healey both seemed pretty unequivocal that they thought it should make the ballot, Tolman just said he would vote against it. I’m curious why the Globe didn’t seem to get in touch with Tolman himself, instead of just an aide?
the Globe initially talked with Tolman himself, and he equivocated. The clarification came later, via an aide. Hence the “-ish.”