A big question long ignored

Friday, June 19, 2009 12:59 PM PDT

Editorial: A big question long ignored

The governor might finally have to answer a fundamental question about gambling in Oregon.

The state constitution used to prohibit lotteries. The voters authorized an amendment allowing one state lottery in 1984. The amendment also provided that the legislature must prohibit casinos “in the state of Oregon.”

Federal law on Indian gaming allows tribes to conduct the same kind of games allowed in the state where they have land. But if Oregon specifically prohibits casinos, how did the tribal casinos come into being?

They were authorized by compacts, or agreements, between the tribes and the Oregon governors, first Kitzhaber and then Kulongoski.

In Florence, a group organized as People Against a Casino Town (PACT) and filed suit in 2003 against the state’s approval of the Three Rivers casino there. They cited the constitution, but the courts brushed them off with adverse rulings on various legal technicalities.

PACT won in the Court of Appeals, but the state appealed again. Now, finally, the Oregon Supreme Court has said yes, the casino opponents in Florence must get their day in court, in Lane County, to make their main point.

The main point is explained by Kelly Clark, the group’s lawyer: “For five years now we have been asking a very simple question: How is it, in a state whose constitution expressly prohibits casinos, that our governors keep siting casinos?”

Barring further delaying maneuvers and efforts to derail their suit by the state, the governor and attorney general will have to answer the question and say: “We can make compacts with tribes to authorize casinos regardless of the Oregon constitution because ... ”

Then Oregon voters will see if the reasoning holds up. (hh)

http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/06/20/news/opinion/3edi01_question061909.txt