Not only would she not dare to deign ask commoners, er, voters, for their votes in 2009, she is not even allowing them to do so in 2014, over one of the most contentious issues facing our state and it’s communities. Casino’s are a tax on the poor, on working families, and their social costs will be born by the least among us in desperate communities that are already in economic trouble. Instead of siding with the people of the Commonwealth, she sided with big business and corporations (and I suspect her donors too). We need a Democrat in the Corner Office.
Please share widely!
I found her reasoning a bit difficult to follow too, but I’m inclined to defer to someone who knows better than I on such matters.
One: I’ve long been on record with a blanket opposition to ballot questions. We are not a direct democracy.
Two: Even if I believed ballot questions were legit, I still (generally) agree with Coakley’s ruling: In this instance the ballot question, it appears, would not attack the law directly (it is not a wholesale repeal but amendment of Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws) but instead would place restrictions on the existing gaming commission. You can’t do that. It would be like trying to ban drugs by banning the physical exchange of money. If I tried to make a law that said ‘no person shall place in their hands currency of any kind for the express purpose of putting it in another persons hand’ then a whole host of problems arise, not least of which is freedom of speech. So no matter the righteousness of the cause (banning drugs, stopping casinos,etc) you can’t clever your way out of it…
In fact, I think Coakley is doing the anti-casino forces quite the favor: an industry that has the money to hire a full half of all the lawyers on the planet are not going to take this sitting down and would, if the initiative passed, be all over this, using Coakleys same argument, and win.
it would have been nice for them to say something about it in the months that the Repeal the Deal folks were working with the AG’s office.
There is no do-overs in the process, so committees rely on the AG’s office to say, “hey, this language is funny/doesn’t work” and the AG’s office didn’t do that here. It led the committee to believe the question was okay until it was submitted — when it would be too late to fix it.
Agree or disagree with the Repeal the Deal folks, that was a pretty low blow and speaks a lot about how the process works and what went down here.
… if that’s the AG’s job. Would you want the AG having that kind of sway over the language of a ballot question? I, personally, would not.
Oh, sure, you’d like AG Coakley to step in on this one, where you agree, but what about a question with which you do not agree? The NRA wants to support a ballot initiative to equip everybody over 7 years old with a free 9 milli… Do you really want the AG stepping in and giving them pointers on what language works and doesn’t work?
Legislators are elected to legislate and nobody else can do it: I continue to think ballot initiatives are bad for this very reason. If, as is obviously the case here, if the legislature doesn’t rule with or for the will of the people then the people have to get rid of the legislators, not step in and legislate for them…
the way it is done. Right or wrong, the groups always work with the AG’s office in crafting language that will pass muster. Given that longstanding practice, this is like a knife in the back.
I have some ambivalence for ballot initiatives myself, mostly based on the right-wing nonsense you see in other states. But we all know that it’s not that easy to “get rid” of the legislators if they don’t do what we like, particularly when their opponents in our two-party system would generally be worse.
AG Coakley agrees to injunction that allows Ballot Initiative to collect petitions.
Sounds like someone who’s willing to let the law be decided upon it’s merits.
But unconstitutional to let the voters decide if the Commonwealth should allow casinos to be opened. Am I missing something?
The AG expressly addresses just this issue in her letter that denied certification to the anti-casino forces. You should read the entire thing.
Basically the ballot initiative for dogs, in ’07, specifically outlawed dog racing and provided for a staged withdrawal from the activity. The AG was sued at the time for certifying the initiative. She won the case on the grounds that dog racing was already heavily regulated and that track owners had no expectation that they could not, if the legislature or the people so desired, be regulated out of existence. The specific action of unwinding the law over time ameliorates the taking. The fact that the industry (sic) was heavily regulated meant that grown ups (double-sic) were there to do the unwinding.
The anti-casino ballot initiative makes two mistakes; a) a blanket illegailty that would stop casinos as well as push present licensees (pari mutual wagering) into a legal grey area and B) a specific, and immediate, ban on the Mass Gaming Commission from doing commission stuff… that is to say enacting the duly enable regulations that the lege setup. In contrast to the dog petition, which said ‘dog racing will become illegal and we’ll unwind it slowly”, the anti-casino petition says “casinos and slots ARE illegal and all gaming business stops IMEDIATELY.” That’s taking.
What I don’t get is why the anti-casino forces didn’t use the dog racing initiative as a basic framework. Everything that holds true for the regulations and regulators regarding the dog tracks will soon hold true for the casinos. You have to accept that it’s a law before you can repeal it. The ballot initiative seems to want to deny that the lege legitimately passed a law (however awful) and that there are consequences of that. I guess that’s what comes from trying to legislate with your heart on your sleeve.
Dog racing owners have no constitutionally protected property interest in their actual licenses, but casino license applicants have a constitutionally protected property interest in their expectation that the Commission will rule, up or down, on their application. Still not buying it.
The two ballot initiatives are only superficially similar. It’s a square peg with rounded corners, but that doesn’t make it any easier to put it in the round hole.
Consider this thought experiment: Take the anti-casino ballot initiative from 2013, replace any mention of ‘casinos’ with the words ‘racing dogs’. Then take it back in time to 2007, and put that in place of the proposed ammendment…. Does the AG still certify it? No. Why? Because the ballot initiative says everything stops: that means, the moment the law passes, the dog track owners become instant criminals, all the dogs are freed and the state licensing process becomes instantly invalid. That’s clearly a taking that is not permissible.
Now, to continue the thought experiment, take the other side: place the dog racing initiative in place of the anti-casino initiative… replace all mention of ‘racing dog’ with ‘casino’ and put in place the gradual unwinding of the law rather than a blanket refusal to countenance. In fact, make the Gaming Commission the agent of that unwinding rather than interdicting their stated purpose. Does the AG still refuse to certify? I say no.
The refusal to countenance the existing contracts, by specifically forbidding the Commission to license, and it’s immediacy, is what is at issue. It creates the taking and that can’t happen. In the case of the dog racing that was absent: that law said, more or less, ‘after a certain time, we will stop licensing.’
The law states that the application and licensing are a privilege not a “contract.”
You assert that you know what the law is, therefore implying that you have read the law. But you, apparently, are ignorant of what the AG says in her letter to John Ribeiro, denying certification. You read the law but you won’t read the letter? The AG addresses all these concerns in her letter.
The law states that the license is a privilege that can be revoked. Massachusetts case law has established that any bidding creates an implied contract, doubly so when the bidding accompanies a non-refundable fee and a limited number of licenses. (not open ended licensure as in driving or liquor, for example)
All of this is in the AGs letter denying certification. Many people seem, simply, to be unwilling to believe it. You act like the AG is merely handwaving. She addresses all the concerns quite clearly. It’s right there.
You have no idea what I have read or written for that matter when it comes to this legislation and the current political and legal processes.
On the heels of the Carney case the “takings” clause is a stretch. No matter what you or I think, opine or say on this blog it is going to the SJC.
… as you seem to be as confused about what the AG said as you are about what ‘ad hominen’ means. I must conclude that you have not read it at all since you make such definitive, and definitively wrong, statements.
If you were to try to convince me that black was white, I can reasonably assume that you are blind. It is no different here: since you try to convince me that the AG made up her argument out of whole clothe by making statements that clearly not informed by what the AG actually wrote:but since you can obviously write, I must assume that can read, only in this instance, you refuse to do so.
Now if I choose this failing on your part to refuse to vote for you as the CommonWealths next AG, that’s not ‘ad hominen’ as there are pertinencies and particularities quite glaring so as to not recommend you to the position.
However, If I merely took the stance that, since you mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberry, as reason to refuse to vote for you as the next AG for the CommonWealth… that WOULD be ‘ad hominen’.
when the statute specifically contains language that precludes formation of a contract or property right.
The AG address concerns and the “taking” clause but does so with error.
SJC says, Carney at 817, “…a taking claims cannot arise in an area voluntarily entered into which…and subject to pervasive government control.”
What happened was labor groups and casino lobbyists (including those working for Coakley) swayed her into coming up with a bogus argument to keep the question off the ballot. The law itself explicitly states that the application fee does not constitute a contract between the state and the casinos. We’ll see what the SJC has to say about the whole thing.
Yet regardless of where you stand on casinos, the fact that Coakley is so quick to ask “How high?” when insiders demand she jump doesn’t bode well for her candidacy. The perception that Martha is a puppet was something Brown cudgeled her with in the closing week of the Senate campaign.
Headline: “More Reasons…” but you only cite the rejection of the casino question in your post. I’m not a legal expert who can weigh in on her decision, but as pointed out, it can be reviewed/appealed in court. So if Coakley made bad or (as you implied) biased call, then it will be corrected.
But it seems you want to pile it on in terms of your opposition to her candidacy. Hey, I and everyone else gets it, she f*cked up in 2010. But she has some of the highest poll #s in the state…that gives her plenty of reason to run again. I’d be very surprised if I support her in the primary, but trashing her seems to be a disproportionate reaction.
Fells Acre, the Tim Murray business, failing to nail Cahill as well as she could, and generally using the office for purely political purposes. And now serving her donors instead of giving the people the decency of a vote on whether they want to enable a predatory industry in our Commonwealth. I strongly
doubt she’s learned anything as a candidate. Her vs Grossman will be a real snoozer. I hope Wolf, Cap or Curtatone can get in soon and get in fast.
But Murray and Cahill…? Are you one of the apologists for Tim’s shenagians with McLaughlin? Murray proved himself to be unfit for public service, it is as simple as that. As for Cahill, your acting like a back seat driver. Coakley had little to work with in terms of how current law is written and 12 jurors sent that message.
Funny, Coakley can’t do anything right in your book…to harass on Murray, not tough enough on Cahill. Again, I’m no Coakley fan, I to don’t think she’ll be a better candidate and I agree with you about Coakley v Grossman. But this incessant whining about her is tiresome.
Very very Tiresome. thanks Pogo. This diary has pushed my mind wide open to listen hard to Martha Coakley and her supporters. And I hope the haters keep all this negative silly sh-t in this diary and don’t endlessly repeat it point by point in for the next 14 months.
Please … deep breaths.
I hope I don’t get branded as a “hater” each time I criticize Ms. Coakley — particularly regarding her role in the Murray/McLaughlin situation.
I knew lots of people who couldn’t stomach her the last time around, long before her terrible campaign became obvious. The Fells Acre day care case was one very big reason. Another was her lack of concern for civil liberties. The press likes to pretend that people are wary of her simply because she ran a bad campaign last time; but it’s much worse than that.