A group led by several prominent Republicans of Rhode Island have sued to force the state to go to the voters for permission to have sports betting, something the legislature legalized last November.
The lawsuit is led by Dr. Daniel Harrop, who argues that the state constitution requires any “new types of gambling” to be submitted to the voters. Currently sports betting is offered at the state’s two Twin River casinos. He is allied with former state Republican Part Chairman Brandon Bell, and Joe Larisa Jr., a former chief of staff to then Governor Donald Carcieri, although he is paying for the suit.
Larisa told reporters last week, “This isn’t an anti-sports betting suit. It isn’t an anti-online sports betting suit. We are just saying let the people vote. If one provision of our Constitution is, ‘eh, we’ll disregard it this time,’ then all provisions of our Constitution are in jeopardy.”
The current GOP Chairman Sue Cienki added, “This is just about good government. Let the people decide.”
About a year ago the legislature passed a sports betting bill for the casinos in Lincoln and Tiverton. It went live the day after Thanksgiving amidst optimistic estimates of substantial tax revenues. Several months later lawmaker added mobile sports betting to the mix.
As of last month actual revenues for sports betting have been less than half what had been predicted, according to the state lottery, which operates the games. It was arrived at by a consultant hired by the Revenue Department, Christiansen Capital Advisors, LLC; according to that department’s spokesman, Paul Grimaldi.
Raimondo’s 2020 budget included an estimated $30 million from sports betting. Grimaldi said that much revenue won’t be realized until 2024. This fiscal year it estimates revenue of $2.65 million.
Those figures might have to be adjusted downward if the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe is able to open a casino in Taunton, Massachusetts, or if sports betting is legalized in the Bay State or Connecticut. The most profitable aspect of sports betting is mobile wagers, according to the consultant.
The state had hoped to make $11.5 million from sports book this year, but the predictable results of the Super Bowl made a big dent in those profits. The state gets 51 percent of the profits of sports book. If the profits are lower, it’s percentage reflects that.
Those who say the state legalized sports betting by legal means, argue that the voters previously authorized sports book when they voted for table games in 2012 and 2016, because the measure included references to Class III gaming.
That’s Governor Raimondo’s position. A spokesman responding to the lawsuit stated, “Multiple legal opinions have affirmed that sports betting was already approved by the voters. The revenue from sports betting supports investments in education, health care, infrastructure and more, and we remain confident that it will be upheld in court.”
Her administration promises to continue developing a mobile app and online betting portal while the litigation moves forward.
Last year when the legislation was moving forward House GOP Leader Blake Filippi unsuccessfully offered an amendment to require asking for an advisory opinion from the Rhode Island Supreme Court. At that time opponents raised the idea of eventually filing a lawsuit to challenge the law.
Senate President Dominick Ruggerio, who was sports betting’s chief cheerleader in the legislature fired off an email attacking the lawsuit: “Sports wagering is a popular entertainment option that helps to offset reliance on taxes,” he wrote. “It is stunning that a Republican group, which one might think would support individual liberties and lower taxes, would instead seek to obstruct legal sports wagering. All of the legal advice I have received has been consistent — the voters approved sports wagering when they approved casino gaming, and I am very confident that the state will prevail in any challenge.”
The GOP lawsuit states: “Unlike table games (and video lotteries in Tiverton), sports betting was never approved by Rhode Island voters,” the suit says. “Sports betting appeared nowhere in the 2012 or 2016 ballot questions expanding the types of gambling to be conducted at the casinos. … As a matter of law and logic, Rhode Island voters could not and did not knowingly approve a new type of gambling — sports betting — that was neither referenced in the questions nor handbooks.”
The GOP group argues that “Class III gaming” is too much of a catchall phrase and that voters could never have discerned from that description that it would include sports book. Especially since the Supreme Court at that time had not yet hinted that it would lift the ban on sports betting—something it did about a year ago.
Rhode Island is the only New England stand that offers sports book.
