Springfield Voters Legal Brief

8/12/2019 Springfield Voters Legal Brief

1/52

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Supreme Judicial CourtNO. SJ C- 11641

SUFFOLK COUNTY

STEVEN P. ABDOW, ET AL. ,PLAI NTI FFS- APPELLANTS,

v.

GEORGE DUCHARME, DANI EL RI ZZO ANDDOMI NI CJ . SARNO, ET AL.

I NTERVENERS- APPELLANTS,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OFTHE COMMONWEALTH,DEFENDANTS- APPELLEES.

ON RESERVATI ON AND REPORT OF THE SI NGLE J USTI CE

BRIEF OF INTERVENERS DOMINIC J. SARNO, ET AL.

Fr ank E. Ant onucci ( BBO #020260)ANTONUCCI & ASSOCI ATES83 St at e St r eet , Sui t e 203Spr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s 01103( 413) 737- 4667Ant onucci 51@ver i zon. net

Edwar d M. Pi kul a ( BBO #399770)Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d Law Depar t ment36 Cour t St r eetSpr i ngf i el d, MA 01103( 413) 787- 6085epi kul a@spr i ngf i el dci t yhal l . com

Dat ed: Mar ch 21, 2014


2/52

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

I SSUES PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Nature of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Course of Proceedings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Statement of Facts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I . THE PETI TI ON VI OLATES THE EXCLUDEDMATTERS PROVI SI ON OF ARTI CLE 48. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. The Localities Exclusion IncludesMatters Affecting More Than One

Locality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. The Petition Addresses ExcludedMatters Because Its Statewide Vote

Predominantly Affects Just Four

Municipalities Pursuant to the

Express Provisions of the Gaming

Act.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

C. The Nullification of SpringfieldsHost Community Agreement Would

Intrude on a Local Matter.. . . . . . . . . . . . 17

I I . THE PETI TI ON FAI LS TO SATI SFY ARTI CLE48 S RELATEDNESS REQUI REMENT BECAUSE I TCONTAI NS PARTS NOT OPERATI ONALLY RELATEDTO EACH OTHER SO AS TO PRESENT A UNI FI EDSTATEMENT OF PUBLI C POLI CY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

I I I . THE ATTORNEY GENERAL S SUMMARY OF THEPETI TI ON FOR THE BALLOT VI OLATES THEREQUI REMENT OF ARTI CLE 48 THAT I T BE FAI RAND CONCI SE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CONCLUSI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

ADDENDUM

CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE


3/52

i i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Ash v. Attorney General,

418 Mass. 344 ( 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13- 14

Bowe v. Sec'y of Com.,320 Mass. 230 ( 1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 17

Carney v. Attorney General, (Carney II),451 Mass. 803 ( 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15, 17, 18

Christian v. Sec'y of the Commonwealth,

283 Mass. 98 (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8, 9, 17

Mass. Teachers Assoc. v. Sec'y of Commonwealth,

384 Mass. 209 ( 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Mount Washington v. Cook,288 Mass. 67 ( 1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16

Opinion of the Justices,294 Mass. 607 ( 1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Opinion of the Justices,303 Mass. 615 ( 1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Opinion of the Justices,334 Mass. 721 ( 1956) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Powell v. Cole-Hersee Co.,

26 Mass. App. Ct . 532 ( 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18- 19

Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. Sec'y of Com.,402 Mass. 750 ( 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Yont v. Sec'y of Com.,275 Mass. 365 ( 1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


4/52

i i i

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND RULES:

Mass. Const. Amend. Ar t . 48, Par t I I , 2. . . . . . . .passimMass. Const . Amend. Ar t . 89. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Massachuset t s General Laws

c. 23K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 11, 17, 19c. 23K, 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20c. 23K, 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 13c. 23K, 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 13, 18c. 23K, 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11c. 43B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18c. 59. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 24c. 121A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22c. 121A, 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 23c. 249, 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

c. 24 of t he Act s of 1746. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25St . 1971, c. 813, 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25c. 169, Act s of 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21c. 468 of t he Act s of 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Mass. R. App. P. 16( j ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

MISCELLANEOUS:

Bal l ot I ni t i at i ve Pet i t i on 13: 09. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .passim


5/52


6/52


7/52

3

2. Course of ProceedingsOn August 7, 2013, a coal i t i on of r egi st er ed vot er s

f i l ed t he Pet i t i on. ( SAF 7- 9 - R. A. 40; R. A. 151) .

On Sept ember 4, 2013, t he At t orney Gener al s Of f i ce

i ssued a deci si on r ef usi ng t o cer t i f y t hat t he Pet i t i on

compl i ed wi t h t he r equi r ement s of Ar t i cl e 48. ( SAF 10

- R. A. 40; SAF, Exh. 7 - R. A. 154) .

Fol l owi ng t hi s deni al , on Sept ember 10, 2013, t en

r egi st er ed vot er s f i l ed t hi s act i on i n t he Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t f or Suf f ol k Count y, seeki ng r el i ef i n t he

nat ur e of mandamus, pur suant t o G. L. c. 249, 5.

( SAF 11 - R. A. 40) . These t en pl ai nt i f f s and t he

At t or ney Gener al agr eed to an or der r equi r i ng the

At t or ney Gener al t o r el ease a summar y of I ni t i at i ve

Pet i t i on 13- 09 t o t he Secr et ar y of St at e, and t he

Secr et ar y of St at e t o pr epar e and r el ease to t he

pl ai nt i f f s bl ank bal l ot f or ms . . . . (SAF, Ex. 8

R. A. 166; see SAF, Ex. 9 - R. A. 170) . Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed

suf f i ci ent si gnat ur es t o meet t he r equi r ement s of

Ar t i cl e 48 ( SAF, Ex. 10 R. A. 173) , and t he Pet i t i on

has been assi gned bi l l number H. 3842 by t he Cl erk of

t he House of Repr esent at i ves, but has not been enact ed

i nt o l aw. ( SAF 13 - R. A. 41; SAF, Ex. 11 R. A. 176) .


8/52

4

On Febr uar y 6, 2014, t he Si ngl e J ust i ce ( Spi na, J . )

per mi t t ed anot her gr oup of r egi st er ed vot er s, Geor ge

Duchar me, et al. , as wel l as f i ve appl i cant s f or gami ng

l i censes f r om t he Commi ssi on ( col l ect i vel y, t he

Duchar me I nt er vener s) , t o i nt er vene i n t hi s mat t er .

( SAF 14 - R. A. 41) . On Febr uary 10, 2014, t he Ci t y of

Spr i ngf i el d, t he Ci t y of Rever e, and addi t i onal

r egi st er ed vot er s al so moved t o i nt er vene i n t hi s mat t er

as def endant s, seeki ng t o rai se addi t i onal ar gument s i n

suppor t of t he At t or ney Gener al s deni al of

cer t i f i cat i on.

On Febr uary 24, 2014, on j oi nt mot i on, t he mat t er

was reserved and r epor t ed wi t hout deci si on t o t he f ul l

Cour t f or det er mi nat i on on t he r ecor d bef or e t he Si ngl e

J ust i ce i n SJ - 2013- 356. ( R. A. 746) .

3. Statement of FactsOn May 14, 2013, i n connect i on wi t h i t s appl i cat i on

t o oper at e a casi no i n Spr i ngf i el d, Bl ue Tar p

r eDevel opment LLC ( MGM Spr i ngf i el d) ent er ed i nt o a

host communi t y agr eement wi t h t he Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d

( t he Host Communi t y Agreement ) , i n accor dance wi t h t he


9/52

5

pr ovi si ons of G. L. c. 23K. ( See SAF 36 - R. A. 54) . 1

On J ul y 15, 2013, by publ i c r ef er endum, a maj or i t y of

vot er s i n Spr i ngf i el d vot ed t o per mi t t he oper at i on of a

gami ng est abl i shment l i censed by t he Commi ssi on i n the

Ci ty. Id. On December 23, 2013, t he Commi ssi on i ssued

a posi t i ve sui t abi l i t y det er mi nat i on, wi t h condi t i ons,

t o MGM Spr i ngf i el d. ( SAF, Ex. 36 R. A. 481) . MGM

Spr i ngf i el d f i l ed a RFA- 2 appl i cat i on seeki ng t o be

l i censed t o oper at e a casi no i n Spr i ngf i el d, whi ch i s

pr esent l y under Commi ssi on r evi ew. ( SAF 36 - R. A. 54) .

I n t he appl i cat i on, MGM st at ed i n sect i on 2- 27 t hat :

The at t ached $800 mi l l i on budget i t emi zes hardconst r ucti on cost s, t enant f i t - out cost s,desi gn/ l egal / pr of essi onal f ees, oper at i ngsuppl i es and equi pment , FF&E i ncl udi ng gami ngequi pment , pr e- openi ng expenses, l and,l i censi ng f ee, capi t al i zed i nt er est, upf r ont

cost s pursuant t o t he Host Communi t y Agreementand ot her pr oj ect cost s. Tot al capi t ali nvest ment cal cul ated i n accor dance wi t h 205CMR 122. 0 i s expect ed t o exceed $500 mi l l i on.

( See SAF 36 - R. A. 54- 55) . MGM st ated i n sect i on 2- 19

t hat : Under t he Aver age Case Scenar i o, MGM Spr i ngf i el d

i s proj ect ed t o generat e gami ng r evenue of $412. 2

1As not ed i n t he St atement of Agr eed Fact s, t heHost Communi t y Agreement may be vi ewed i n i t s ent i r et yonl i ne. Host Communi t y Agreement By and Bet ween Ci t y ofSpr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s and Bl ue Tarp ReDevel opment ,LLC, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / massgami ng. com/ wp-cont ent / upl oads/ Spr i ngf i el d- Host - Communi t y-Agreement . pdf .


10/52

6

mi l l i on, $485. 0 mi l l i on, $499. 5 mi l l i on, $512. 0 mi l l i on

and $524. 8 mi l l i on, r espect i vel y, dur i ng t he f i r st f i ve

year s of oper at i ons. ( See SAF 36 - R. A. 55) .

Spr i ngf i el d i s t he onl y ci t y or t own i n Regi on B,

one of t he t hr ee r egi ons f or pot ent i al gami ng

est abl i shed by t he Legi sl at ur e, wi t h a f ul l y appr oved

Host Communi t y Agreement . ( SAF 36 R. A. 54- 55) .

Moreover , i t i s t he onl y one of t hr ee communi t i es t hat

sat i sf i es al l of the cr i t er i a f or el i gi bi l i t y f or a

gami ng l i cense set out i n Sect i on 15 of t he Gami ng Act ,

i ncl udi ng bei ng par t y t o an appr oved Host Communi t y

Agr eement . The Host Communi t y Agr eement was appr oved by

t he vot er s af t er a l engt hy compet i t i ve sel ect i on

pr ocess, and wi l l pr ovi de mi l l i ons of dol l ar s i n f i scal

benef i t s, as wel l as needed j obs and a st i mul us t o

economi c act i vi t y f or t he Ci t y. ( See SAF 36 -

R. A. 54.


11/52

7

ARGUMENT

I. THE PETITION VIOLATES THE EXCLUDED MATTERS

PROVISION OF ARTICLE 48.

Ar t i cl e 48 expr essl y excl udes f r om t he bal l ot

i ni t i at i ve pr ocess cer t ai n mat t er s deemed nat ur al l y

unsui t abl e f or popul ar l awmaki ng. Bowe v. Secy of

Com., 320 Mass. 230, 247 ( 1946) . Among t he excl uded

mat t er s i s t he so- cal l ed l ocal i t i es excl usi on.

Speci f i cal l y, Sect i on 2 of Ar t i cl e 48 pr ovi des t hat :

No measur e . . . t he oper at i on of whi ch i sr est r i cted t o a par t i cul ar t own, ci t y or ot herpol i t i cal di vi s i on or t o par t i cul ar di s t r i ct sor l ocal i t i es of t he commonweal t h; . . . shal lbe pr oposed by an i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on.

Her e, al t hough t he Pet i t i on pur por t s t o be a st at ewi de

ban, i f enacted, t he oper at i on of t he measur e woul d be

pr i nci pal l y and expl i ci t l y r estr i ct ed t o onl y f our

ci t i es and t owns t hose i n whi ch casi nos and/ or sl ot

par l or s ar e ul t i mat el y per mi t t ed.

A. The Localities Exclusion Includes MattersAffecting More Than One Locality.

As a pr el i mi nar y mat t er , t he ef f ect of a pet i t i on

need not be l i mi t ed t o onl y one muni ci pal i t y to f al l

under t he l ocal i t i es excl usi on. For exampl e, i n

Christian v. Secy of the Commonwealth, t he Cour t hel d

t hat a stat ut e creat i ng a di vi si on f or smoke i nspect i on


12/52

8

vi ol at ed t he l ocal i t i es excl usi on because i t was

r est r i ct ed t o Bost on and t went y- ei ght ot her ci t i es and

t owns. 2 283 Mass. 98, 102- 03, 105( 1933) .

I n i t s r evi ew of t he mat t er , t he Cour t deemed i t

per mi ssi bl e t o exami ne t he debates of t he

Const i t ut i onal Convent i on f or t he pur pose of

ascer t ai ni ng t he vi ews present ed t o t he Convent i on and

t he under st andi ng of i t s member s, al t hough t he pl ai n

meani ng of t he wor ds used i n t he amendment cannot be

t her eby cont r ol l ed. Id. at 103 ( quot i ng Yont v. Secy

of Com., 275 Mass. 365, 369 ( 1931) ) . The Cour t

t her ef or e not ed t hat :

t he or i gi nal r esol ut i on r epor t ed t o t heConst i t ut i onal Convent i on wi t h r espect t oexcl uded mat t ers under t he r ef erendum r ead asf ol l ows: No l aw . . . t he oper at i on of whi ch

i s r est r i cted t o a t own, ci t y or ot herpol i t i cal di vi si on of t he Commonweal t h, shal lbe t he subj ect of such r ef er endum pet i t i on. Amendment s were of f ered by Mr . J oseph Wal ker ,of Br ookl i ne, t o so much of t he r esol ut i onquot ed above, by i nsert i ng af t er t he wor ddi vi si on t he wor ds or t o a par t i cul ardi st r i ct or l ocal i t y, and by i nser t i ng bef or et he wor d t own t he wor d par t i cul ar .

2 Those ci t i es and towns cover ed a wi de- r angi ngar ea of over 300 squar e mi l es, i ncl udi ng Ar l i ngt on,Bel mont , Bost on, Br ai nt r ee, Br ookl i ne, Cambr i dge,Cant on, Chel sea, Dedham, Ever et t , Lynn, Mal den, Medf ord,Mel r ose, Mi l t on, Needham, Newt on, Qui ncy, Revere,Saugus, Somer vi l l e, St oneham, Wakef i el d, Wal t ham,Wat er t own, Weymout h, Wi nchest er , Wi nt hrop, and Woburn.Id. at 101.


13/52

9

Id. at 104 ( quot i ng Debat es i n the Const i t ut i onal

Convent i on 1917- 1918, vol . I I , pages 677, 702- 03) . Mr .

Wal ker st at ed t hat he added t he wor ds di st r i ct or

l ocal i t y t o make i t cl ear t hat i t was si mpl y a l i t t l e

wi der t han a si ngl e ci t y or t own. I t mi ght appl y t o a

gr oup of ci t i es or t owns. Id. at 105 ( quot i ng Debat es

i n t he Const i t ut i onal Convent i on 1917- 1918, vol . I I ,

page 693) .

As not ed i n Christian, bef or e t he adopt i on of t hese

amendment s, i n answer t o an i nqui r y, Mr . Wal ker sai d:

I t has been poi nt ed out t o me t hat by si mpl ysayi ng t own or ci t y I was per mi t t i ng a St at ewi de r ef er endum or a St at e wi de i ni t i at i vepet i t i on on a mat t er af f ect i ng, f or i nst ance,t he met r opol i t an di st r i ct or a gr oup of ci t i esor any l ocal i t y whi ch coul d not be def i ned byt he wor ds a t own or ci t y. Ther ef or e I ami nser t i ng t hese wor ds so that a pr ovi si on

whi ch r el at es t o a par t i cul ar di str i ct l i ket he met r opol i t an di st r i ct woul d not be t hesubj ect of a St at e wi de i ni t i at i ve orr ef erendum.

Id. at 104.

I n t he year s si nce Christian, t he Cour t has on

sever al occasi ons i nval i dat ed pr oposed l egi sl at i on

af f ecti ng mul t i pl e muni ci pal i t i es. See, e.g., Opinion

of the Justices, 294 Mass. 607, 609 ( 1936) ( i ni t i at i ve

vi ol at ed t he l ocal i t i es excl usi on because by i t s t er ms

i t r equi r ed t he creat i on of publ i c t axi cab st ands i n


14/52

10

ci t i es, but not i n t owns) ; Opinion of the Justices, 303

Mass. 615, 626 ( 1939) ( bi l l not appl i cabl e t o Dukes

Count y and Nant ucket Count y vi ol at ed t he l ocal i t i es

excl usi on) ; Opinion of the Justices, 334 Mass. 721, 743

( 1956) ( hol di ng t hat pr oposed l egi sl at i on creat i ng t he

Massachuset t s Por t Aut hor i t y t o t ake over , f i nance, and

oper ate t he Sumner Tunnel , ai r port s i n East Bost on and

Bedf or d, t he Myst i c Ri ver Br i dge, and t he pi er s and

har bor f aci l i t i es of t he por t of Bost on was r est r i ct ed

i n i t s oper at i on t o a par t i cul ar t own, ci t y or ot her

pol i t i cal di vi s i on or t o par t i cul ar di s t r i ct s or

l ocal i t i es of t he Commonweal t h, and was t hus an

excl uded mat t er ) .

B. The Petition Addresses Excluded MattersBecause Its Statewide Vote PredominantlyAffects Just Four Municipalities Pursuant to

the Express Provisions of the Gaming Act.

Al t hough i t pur por t s t o be a st atewi de ban, t he

Pet i t i on, i f enact ed, woul d pr edomi nant l y af f ect at most

f our ci t i es or t owns. Unl i ke any of t he ot her cases

i nvol vi ng t he l ocal i t i es excl usi on, t he Pet i t i on at

i ssue woul d r epeal a st at ut e t hat has di vi ded t he st at e

i nt o t hr ee di f f er ent geogr aphi c r egi ons and l i mi t s t he

i ssuance of cat egor y 1 l i censes t o one muni ci pal i t y i n

each r egi on.


15/52

11

Speci f i cal l y, G. L. c. 23K per mi t s t he est abl i shment

of up t o f our casi nos i n t he st at e, i ncl udi ng up t o

t hr ee cat egory 1 est abl i shment s wi t h both tabl e games

and sl ot machi nes, and one cat egory 2 est abl i shment

wi t h onl y sl ot machi nes. G. L. c. 23K, 2, 19. Such

gami ng l i censes, whi ch t he Commi ssi on i s i n t he pr ocess

of awar di ng, ar e t o be i ssued onl y t o t hose appl i cant s

t hat meet t he var i ous el i gi bi l i t y cri t er i a set out i n

G. L. c. 23K, 15. Among ot her cr i t er i a, Sect i on 15

r equi r es t hat an appl i cant pay a $400, 000 appl i cat i on

f ee, ent er i nt o a si gned agr eement wi t h the host

communi t y, and pr evai l i n a cer t i f i ed and bi ndi ng vot e

on a ballot question at an election in the host

community i n f avor of t he l i cense. G. L. c. 23K, 15.

The f act s r el at i ve t o t hi s Pet i t i on ar e uni que i n

t hat t he Gami ng Act i s so recent t hat t he ef f or t t o

r epeal i t i s occur r i ng whi l e t he Commi ssi on i s f i ni shi ng

i t s det er mi nat i on of whi ch appl i cant s i n each r egi on

wi l l r ecei ve l i censes. ( See SAF 36 - R. A. 54) .

However , Spr i ngf i el d has al r eady met t he el i gi bi l i t y

cri t er i a of G. L. c. 23K, i ncl udi ng ent er i ng i nt o t he

Host Communi t y Agr eement on May 14, 2013, whi ch was

appr oved by t he Ci t y s vot er s by r ef er endum on J ul y 15,

2013. ( SAF 36 - R. A. 54) .


16/52

12

Fur t her mor e, Spr i ngf i el d i s t he onl y muni ci pal i t y

i n i t s r egi on wi t h an appl i cant f ound t o be sui t abl e by

t he Commi ssi on f or a cat egory 1 l i cense and i s t hus

poi sed to be t he host communi t y t o one of t he

Commonweal t h s t hr ee cat egory 1 casi nos. I ndeed, t he

Gami ng commi ss i on has announced i t s i ntent i on t o award a

Cat egory 1 Li cense by May 30, 2014. ( SAF 49 -

R. A. 62) .

I n r evi ewi ng an i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on, t he At t or ney

Gener al s det er mi nat i on of whet her a pet i t i on cont ai ns

an excl uded mat t er , l i ke t he r evi ew by t hi s Cour t , i s

not l i mi t ed t o t he f ace of t he pet i t i on. A r evi ew must

consi der t he f act ual i mpact of a pet i t i on. Yankee

Atomic Electric Co. v. Secy of Com., 402 Mass. 750, 759

( 1988) . Al t hough t he Pet i t i on her e pur por t s t o ban

casi no gami ng st at ewi de, t he cl ai m of st at ewi de

appl i cat i on i s, under t he por t i ons of t he Gami ng Act not

addr essed by t he Pet i t i on, gr ossl y over st at ed.

Gi ven t hat t he Pet i t i on addr esses onl y l i mi t ed

por t i ons of t he Gami ng Act , t he pr ohi bi t i on i t pr oposes

wi l l pr edomi nant l y i mpact , at most , onl y one

muni ci pal i t y i n each of t he thr ee regi ons cr eat ed by t he

Legi sl at ur e i n t he Gami ng Act f or a cat egor y 1 l i cense


17/52

13

and one communi t y f or a cat egory 2 l i cense; at best , a

t ot al of f our muni ci pal i t i es st at ewi de.

The Pet i t i on does not i nval i dat e any of t he r egi ons

est abl i shed i n t he Gami ng Act ; Regi on A, ( East er n) ,

Regi on B ( West er n) , or Regi on C ( Sout heast er n) . However ,

i t woul d nul l i f y t he val i d Host Communi t y Agr eement

ent er ed i nt o by Spr i ngf i el d and t he t hr ee ot her

communi t i es t hat may be el i gi bl e t o host a casi no or

sl ot s par l or under t he Gami ng Act . No ot her ci t i es or

t owns are aut hor i zed by l aw t o ent er i nt o such Host

Communi t y Agreement s. See G. L. c. 23K, 2, 15. As

di scussed i n det ai l bel ow, t hi s i s a cr i t i cal

di st i ncti on. The f actual i mpact of t he Pet i t i on i s t o

al l ow t he ot her 347 muni ci pal i t i es acr oss t he st at e t o

i nval i dat e t he l ocal gover nment act i on of , at most , f our

communi t i es. Because t he Pet i t i on s ban i s r est r i ct ed

t o t he one muni ci pal i t y i n each Regi on i n whi ch a casi no

wi l l be al l owed, i t const i t ut es an excl uded mat t er under

Sect i on 2. Mass. Const . Amend. Ar t . 48, Par t I I , 2.

Ot her cases i n whi ch t hi s Cour t has f ound a

st at ewi de appl i cat i on t o pr oposed l aws pr act i cal l y

af f ect i ng a l i mi t ed number of muni ci pal i t i es are

di st i ngui shabl e. I n Ash v. Attorney General, t he

cer t i f i cat i on of an i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on seeki ng t o ban


18/52

14

r ent cont r ol was uphel d by t hi s Cour t wher e onl y seven

muni ci pal i t i es then had r ent cont r ol . 418 Mass. 344,

347, 349 ( 1994) . The Cour t r easoned t hat al t hough

appl i cat i on may not be uni f or m, t he ban st i l l appl i ed

st at ewi de because any ci t y or t own coul d have sought t o

i mpl ement r ent cont r ol . Id. at 347- 48. Her e, however ,

unl i ke r ent cont r ol , under t he Gami ng Act , once t he

Commi ssi on awar ds f our l i censes, no other muni ci pal i t i es

wi l l be per mi t t ed t o host a gami ng est abl i shment .

I n Carney v. Attorney General (Carney II), 451

Mass. 803 ( 2008) , t hi s Cour t , r el yi ng on Ash, hel d t hat

t he pr oposed ban of l i ve gr eyhound r aci ng appl i ed

st at ewi de even t hough, as a pr act i cal mat t er , i t

af f ect ed onl y t he t wo ci t i es wi t h gr eyhound t r acks. Id.

at 810- 13. The Carney II pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat t he

proposed ban on greyhound r aci ng shoul d be excl uded

because i t t akes dead ai m at t he onl y t wo l ocal i t i es

wher e dog r aci ng cur r ent l y exi st s or i s l i kel y t o exi st

i n t he f or eseeabl e f ut ur e. Id. at 810. However ,

al t hough t her e wer e onl y t wo l i censed dog t r acks under

t he st at ut e at i ssue i n Carney, t hat st at ut e al so

al l owed dog r aci ng at maj or st at e or count y f ai r s, whi ch

coul d be hel d anywhere. Id. at 811- 12. Thi s Cour t

not ed t hat t he st at ut e as i t wi l l exi st at t he t i me t he


19/52

15

pr oposed l aw woul d t ake ef f ect per mi t s ( dul y l i censed)

dog races t o be conduct ed at any of a gr eat many

l ocal i t i es i n t he Commonweal t h. Id. at 812. The

pl ai nt i f f s i n Carney II argued t hat economi c r eal i t i es

pr event ed t hat f r om occur r i ng. Id. The Cour t r ej ect ed

t hat ar gument , r easoni ng [ t ] hat t he pr esent economic

r eal i t i es of t he i ndust r y mi ght make t hi s pr ospect

unl i kel y t o mat er i al i ze i s i r r el evant . . . . Id.

Her e, i t i s not a mat t er of mer e economi c r eal i t y, but

t he st at ut or y f r amewor k enact ed by t he Legi sl at ur e that

expr essl y l i mi t s t he number and l ocat i on of casi nos t o

one i n each of t he t hr ee geogr aphi c r egi ons.

Si mi l ar l y, t he cont i nued exi st ence of t he r egi onal

and ot her l i mi t at i ons under t he Gami ng Act t hat ar e l ef t

unchanged by t he Pet i t i on di st i ngui shes t hi s case f r om

cases such as Mount Washington v. Cook, 288 Mass. 67, 74

( 1934) and Mass. Teachers Assoc. v. Secy of

Commonwealth, 384 Mass. 209, 224 (1981) , where t he Cour t

not ed t hat r est r i ct i on t o a par t i cul ar t own, ci t y or

ot her pol i t i cal subdi vi si on or t o par t i cul ar di str i ct s

or l ocal i t i es must be speci f i ed i n t he l aw i t sel f i n

t er ms whi ch expr essl y or by f ai r i mpl i cat i on ar e

geogr aphi cal l y descr i pt i ve of t er r i t or i al di vi s i ons of

t he Commonweal t h, i n or der t hat t he l aw be an excl uded


20/52

16

mat t er . Mount Washington, 288 Mass. at 74. Her e, t he

t er r i t or i al di vi s i ons and ot her l i mi t at i ons ar e

expr essl y set f or t h i n t he Gami ng Act , por t i ons of whi ch

t he Pet i t i on seeks t o r epeal . The f ai r i mpl i cat i on of

t he Pet i t i on, when vi ewed i n l i ght of t he pr ovi si ons of

t he Gami ng Act , whi ch est abl i shes t hat j ust f our

muni ci pal i t i es may pot ent i al l y host gami ng

est abl i shment s. The Commi ssi on i s i n t he pr ocess of

det er mi ni ng whi ch appl i cant s wi l l r ecei ve l i censes t o

oper at e i n whi ch muni ci pal i t i es, and has i n f act i ssued

a l i cense f or t he Town of Pl ai nvi l l e, wher e const r uct i on

on t he st at e s onl y sl ot s par l or has st ar t ed, but t he

f act r emai ns onl y f our muni ci pal i t i es i n t ot al may

ul t i mat el y ser ve as host s. 3

I n l i ght of t he r ecor d of t he Debat es i n t he

Const i t ut i onal Convent i on, and because t he pr ovi si ons of

t he Pet i t i on t hat cl ai m t o oper at e st at ewi de ar e l ar gel y

i l l usor y, t he Cour t shoul d hol d t hat t he Pet i t i on i s

r est r i ct ed i n oper at i on t o par t i cul ar di str i ct s or

3 The Pet i t i on s provi si on bar r i ng t he Commi ssi onf r om accept i ng appl i cat i ons f or i l l egal gami ng i si r r el evant t o t he anal ysi s wi t h r espect t o Spr i ngf i el d.MGM Spr i ngf i el d has al r eady been f ound t o be a sui t abl ecandi date by t he Commi ssi on and i t s appl i cat i on has beenf ul l y submi t t ed and i s, at t he t i me of t hi s br i ef i ng,under consi derat i on by t he Commi ssi on. ( SAF 36 -R. A. 54- 55) .


21/52

17

l ocal i t i es, as t hi s phr ase i s used i n Ar t i cl e 48, and

consequent l y f al l s wi t hi n mat t er s whi ch ar e excl uded

f r om an i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on as l ocal mat t er s. See

Christian, 283 Mass. at 105 ( quot i ng Debates i n

Massachuset t s Const i t ut i onal Convent i on 1917- 18, Vol .

I I , page 693) . ( SAF, Ex. 6 - R. A. 150) .

C. The Nullification of Springfields HostCommunity Agreement Would Intrude on a Local

Matter.

The Pet i t i on i mpermi ssi bl y i nt r udes on l ocal

mat t ers, par t i cul ar l y the Host Communi t y Agr eement

al r eady execut ed bet ween the Ci t y and MGM Spr i ngf i el d

and approved by Springfield voters. See Bowe, 320 Mass.

at 247 ( Unl ess t he cour t s had power t o enf orce t hose

excl usi ons, t hey woul d be f ut i l e, and t he peopl e coul d

be har assed by measur es of a ki nd t hat t hey had sol emnl y

decl ar ed t hey woul d not consi der . ) . The Pet i t i on, i n

ef f ect , woul d nul l i f y t he Host Communi t y Agr eement and

i t s l ocal appr oval vot e, whi ch ar e mat t er s of uni quel y

l ocal concer n.

Unl i ke Carney II, l ocal appr oval under G. L. c. 23K

i s not si mpl y a mat t er of zoni ng pr ovi si ons or

mi ni st er i al i ssuance of l ocal l i censi ng. Rat her , her e,

Spr i ngf i el d has ent ered i nt o a bi ndi ng Host Communi t y


22/52

18

Agreement approved by t he ent i r e government al body as

wel l as t he vot er s of onl y t hat communi t y. See G. L.

c. 23K, 15 ( r equi r i ng appl i cant s t o pr ovi de a si gned

agreement bet ween t he host communi t y and t he appl i cant

and r ecei ve a cer t i f i ed and bi ndi ng vot e on a bal l ot

quest i on at an el ect i on i n t he host communi t y i n f avor

of such l i cense) . The negot i at i on and appr oval by t he

l ocal gover nment and vot ers of a Host Communi t y

Agr eement di st i ngui shes t he cur r ent case f r om Carney II

because t he Host Communi t y Agreement i n thi s case

i nvol ves t he exer ci se of l ocal sel f - gover nment pr ot ect ed

by Home Rul e aut hor i t y under Ar t i cl e 89 as wel l as t he

Home Rul e Procedures Act . See G. L. c. 43B. The

gr eyhound r aci ng l i cense at i ssue i n Carney II di d not

i nvol ve any si mi l ar exer ci se of Home Rul e power s

pr ot ect ed by Ar t i cl e 48 s excl usi on of l ocal mat t er s

f r om stat ewi de i ni t i at i ves.

I n Powell v. Cole-Hersee Co., t he Appeal s Cour t

hel d t hat a l aw may not be subj ect t o a r ef er endum i f

any si gni f i cant par t of t he l aw r el at es t o an excl uded

mat t er :

We do not conf i ne our exami nat i on . . . , butl ook, i nst ead, t o t he ent i r e l aw. Ther ef er endum pr ovi si ons of t he Const i t ut i on donot per mi t a l aw t o be di smember ed andsubj ect ed t o r ef er endum i n par t s. A r ef er endum


23/52

19

pet i t i on appl i es t o a l aw enact ed by t hegener al cour t ( ar t . 48, t he Ref er endum, I I I , 1) , not t o par t s or sect i ons of l aws. Rep.A. G. , Pub. Doc. No. 12 at 331, 333- 336 ( 1927) .Rep. A. G. , Pub. Doc. No. 12 at 312, 313( 1966) . Compare Paisner v. Attorney General,390 Mass. 593, 598 ( 1983) ( t he popul ari ni t i at i ve i s conf i ned t o l aws andconst i t ut i onal amendment s) ; Opinion of theJustices, 397 Mass. 1201, 1209 ( 1986) . I tf ol l ows t hat a l aw i s not subj ect t or ef er endum i f any si gni f i cant par t r el at es t oan excl uded mat t er . See Yont v. Secretary ofthe Commonwealth, 275 Mass. 365, 368- 370( 1931) ; Ward v. Coletti, 383 Mass. 99, 106- 108( 1981) . See also McCarthy v. Sheriff ofSuffolk County, 366 Mass. 779, 780 n. 3 ( 1975) .

26 Mass. App. Ct . 532, 535 ( 1988) . Even i f par t of t he

i mpact of t he Pet i t i on i s t o out l aw casi no gami ng, t he

f ul l i mpact i ncl udes t he nul l i f i cat i on of t he Host

Communi t y Agr eement , whi ch i s a val i d exer ci se of l ocal

sel f - government , prot ect ed by t he Home Rul e Amendment .

As such, t he Pet i t i on i s not a pr oper measur e f or

cer t i f i cat i on.

The uni quel y l ocal i mpact on Spr i ngf i el d cannot be

over st at ed. Spr i ngf i el d has spent consi der abl e t i me and

ef f or t i n r el i ance on t he avai l abi l i t y and l ong- t er m

vi abi l i t y of t he gami ng l i censes t o be i ssued by t he

Commi ssi on pur suant t o G. L. c. 23K. I n t he event t hat

MGM Spr i ngf i el d i s gr ant ed a gami ng l i cense, MGM

Spr i ngf i el d i nt ends t o devel op an appr oxi mat el y

$800, 000, 000 mi xed- use l ei sur e, ent er t ai nment , r et ai l
http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=a4cacde57e07362e6b6af5df5cac456b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b26%20Mass.%20App.%20Ct.%20532%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=24&_butInline=1&_butinfo=MASS.%20ANN.%20LAWS%204%201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAA&_md5=85758c3f3379f86151e3c9ad32022d43http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=a4cacde57e07362e6b6af5df5cac456b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b26%20Mass.%20App.%20Ct.%20532%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=24&_butInline=1&_butinfo=MASS.%20ANN.%20LAWS%204%201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAA&_md5=85758c3f3379f86151e3c9ad32022d43


24/52

20

r esi dent i al and of f i ce devel opment i n t he hear t of

downt own Spr i ngf i el d s Sout h End ( t he Pr oj ect ) . ( See

SAF 36 R. A. 54) . The Pr oj ect i s desi gned t o

cat al yze si gni f i cant r egener at i on i n t he ar ea of

Spr i ngf i el d t hat was di r ect l y af f ect ed by t he 2011

t ornado. As not ed i n t he desi gn f eat ur es i ncor por at ed

i nt o t he Host Communi t y Agreement , some of t he Proj ect

ar ea s exi st i ng bui l di ngs and f aades, i ncl udi ng t he

f aade and t ur r et s of t he Sout h End Communi t y Cent er ,

wi l l be i ncor por at ed i nt o t he Pr oj ect . Thi s t ype of

r evi t al i zat i on i s one of t he r easons why t he Legi sl at ur e

passed t he Gami ng Act . See G. L. c. 23K, 1. I ndeed,

t he Act i ncl udes a number of f i ndi ngs made by t he

Legi sl at ur e t hat t he l egal i zat i on of casi no gami ng woul d

pr ovi de much needed economi c st i mul us t o addr ess bl i ght

and pover t y, i ncl udi ng: new empl oyment opport uni t i es

. . . par t i cul ar l y oppor t uni t i es f or t he unempl oyed,

. . . pr omot i ng l ocal smal l busi nesses and t he t our i sm

i ndust r y, i ncl udi ng t he devel opment of new and exi st i ng

smal l busi ness and t our i sm ameni t i es such as l odgi ng,

di ni ng, r et ai l and cul t ur al and soci al f aci l i t i es, and

r ecogni zi ng t he i mpor t ance of t he Commonweal t h s uni que

cul t ur al and soci al r esour ces and i nt egr at i ng t hem i nt o

new devel opment oppor t uni t i es. Id.


25/52

21

The l egi sl at i ve f i ndi ngs i n t he Gami ng Act l i kel y

have mor e bear i ng on Spr i ngf i el d than any ot her ci t y or

t own. Spr i ngf i el d was on t he ver ge of bankrupt cy i n

2003, whi ch l ed t o a st ate t akeover of i t s gover nment

t hr ough a Fi nance Cont r ol Boar d. See Ch. 169, Act s of

2004, and f i ndi ngs t her ei n. Under t he pr ovi si ons of

Chapt er 468 of t he Act s of 2008, Spr i ngf i el d emer ged

f r om gover nment by t he Cont r ol Boar d i n J ul y 2009 onl y

t o f ace a wor l dwi de f i nanci al cr i si s and has f aced

budget cut s i n each year si nce. I t i s al so st i l l

r ecover i ng f r om t he devast at i on caused by a t or nado i n

J une 2011, and t he bl ue t ar ps ar e st i l l evi dent on

r oof t ops t hr oughout t he pat h of t he t or nado. That

nat ur al di sast er caused over $100 mi l l i on dol l ar s of

damage t o muni ci pal i nf r ast r uct ur e, i ncl udi ng two

school s and a communi t y cent er l ocat ed i n one of t he

poor est nei ghbor hoods i n Spr i ngf i el d. 4 The Spr i ngf i el d

Host Communi t y Agreement woul d go a l ong way i n hel pi ng

t o t r ansf or m t he l and use i n t he Ci t y s most bl i ght ed

and i mpover i shed areas.

4 See Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s Depar t ment ofHousi ng and Communi t y Devel opment Di sast er Recover yAct i on Pl an FY2013, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. mass. gov/ hed/ communi t y/ f undi ng/ cdbg- dr - act i onpl anappr oved. pdf.
http://www.mass.gov/hed%20/community/funding/cdbg-dr-actionplanapproved.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/hed%20/community/funding/cdbg-dr-actionplanapproved.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/hed%20/community/funding/cdbg-dr-actionplanapproved.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/hed%20/community/funding/cdbg-dr-actionplanapproved.pdf


26/52

22

The Pr oj ect wi l l al so f aci l i t at e t he devel opment of

non- gami ng rel ated busi nesses and wi l l have a

si gni f i cant economi c i mpact on t he Ci t y. Appr oxi mat el y

2, 000 const r uct i on j obs and appr oxi mat el y 3, 000

per manent j obs wi l l be cr eat ed by t he Pr oj ect , pr ovi di ng

empl oyment oppor t uni t i es t o r esi dent s of Spr i ngf i el d and

t he sur r oundi ng communi t i es. ( See SAF 36 R. A. 54) .

I n f ur t her ance of t hese l egi t i mat e publ i c pur poses,

t he vot er s of Spr i ngf i el d appr oved t he cont r act bet ween

t hei r l ocal gover nment and MGM Spr i ngf i el d, an appl i cant

t hat has been f ound sui t abl e under t he Gami ng Act and

appear s t o be on t he ver ge of obt ai ni ng a l i cense.

( SAF 49 - R. A. 62) . MGM Spr i ngf i el d execut ed a Host

Communi t y Agr eement wi t h Spr i ngf i el d, i n accor dance wi t h

t he pr ovi si ons of t he Gami ng Act , i n whi ch MGM

Spr i ngf i el d has agr eed t o pr ovi de si gni f i cant

compensat i on t o t he Ci t y f or Di r ect and I ndi r ect

Communi t y I mpact . ( SAF 36 - R. A. 54) . The uni que

ci r cumst ances are f ur t her hi ghl i ght ed by t he t er ms of

t he Host Communi t y Agr eement ut i l i zi ng ur ban r enewal

aut hor i t y under G. L. c. 121A gr ant ed by t he st at e

l egi sl at ur e t o Spr i ngf i el d and onl y one ot her

muni ci pal i t y. See G. L. c. 121A, 5.


27/52

23

Under t he pr ovi si ons of G. L. c. 121A, 5,

Spr i ngf i el d and Bost on ar e t he onl y t wo muni ci pal i t i es

i n t he st at e aut hor i zed to under t ake ur ban renewal

pr oj ect s under t hi s st at ut or y f r amework wi t hout appr oval

by t he st at e agency responsi bl e f or appr ovi ng si mi l ar

pr oj ects i n al l ot her muni ci pal i t i es. As such, al l owi ng

t he Pet i t i on t o go f or war d woul d i nval i dat e t hi s l ocal

aut hor i t y r eser ved t o Spr i ngf i el d. Fr om a f i scal

st andpoi nt , t he pr ovi si ons of t he Host Communi t y

Agr eement i n Sect i on 3. 5 est abl i shi ng t he Chapt er 121A

Agr eement , cr eat es f i nanci al obl i gat i ons of MGM

Spr i ngf i el d whi ch r epr esent or appr oxi mat e t he best

est i mat e, at t hi s date, of t he aver age annual t ax whi ch

woul d ot her wi se be due the Ci t y f or l ocal t axes assessed

pur suant t o G. L. c. 59. The val ue and t ax amount s pai d

under t he 121A Agr eement assur e t hat t he Ci t y wi l l

r ecei ve t he f ul l measur e of r evenue whi ch can r easonabl y

be garner ed f r om t hi s devel opment , and guarant ees

payment s t o t he Ci t y, as can be cal cul ated by t he t er ms

f ound i n Sect i on 3. 5 of t he Host Communi t y Agreement ,

over t he 40 year t er m t ot al $960, 226, 751. 99. I n

addi t i on, t he Ci t y wi l l r ecei ve a per cent age of gr oss

gami ng r evenues, pr oj ect ed t o add approxi mat el y

$1, 290, 000 per year usi ng a base case pr oj ect i on of


28/52

24

$479, 000, 000 of annual gross gami ng r evenues. ( See SAF

36 R. A. 54) . These addi t i onal payment s cal cul at e

out t o a t ot al $51, 600, 000 over t he 40 year agr eement ,

ar e onl y avai l abl e under a Chapter 121A agr eement and

woul d not be avai l abl e under t axes assessed under

Chapt er 59.

By ut i l i zi ng t he Chapt er 121A model , t he Ci t y can

bet t er pl an i t s f i nances and achi eve f ul l access t o t he

payment s made. Speci f i cal l y, t he guarant eed payment s of

$960, 226, 752. 99 wi l l be avai l abl e f or pur poses of

budget i ng and l i mi t t he r i sk of pr ot r act ed and

burdensome t ax appeal s, as wel l as t he need t o escr ow

f unds i n an over l ay account dur i ng t he sever al year

per i od whi l e an appeal i s pendi ng. I n addi t i on, under

t he Host Communi t y Agreement , payment s i n l i eu of t axes

wi l l be made sever al years bef ore t hey woul d normal l y be

due under Chapt er 59. Speci f i cal l y, whi l e tax payment s

under Chapter 59 woul d normal l y be assessed and pai d

based on a f ul l and f ai r val ue begi nni ng on t he openi ng

dat e of t he Pr oj ect ( ant i ci pat ed i n Fi scal Year 2017) ,

t he Host Communi t y Agr eement pr ovi des f or a t ot al of

$10, 000, 000 i n payment s due under t he 121A agr eement i n

advance. ( SAF 36 - R. A. 54) . I f MGM Spr i ngf i el d i s

gr ant ed a gami ng l i cense pur suant t o t he Gami ng Act ,


29/52

25

advance payment s i n l i eu of t axes woul d begi n i n Fi scal

Year 2014.

The l ong hi st or y of Massachuset t s ut i l i zi ng

gambl i ng t o gener at e revenue f or publ i c pur poses i s wel l

est abl i shed. As f ar back as 1746, t he Gener al Cour t

aut hor i zed r ai si ng f unds f or publ i c r oad i mpr ovement s

when i t enact ed An Act f or Rai si ng a Sum of Money By

Lot t er y or Lot t er i es f or Pavi ng and Repai r i ng t he Neck

Leadi ng Out of t he Town of Bost on. See Chapt er 24 of

t he Act s of 1746. Over t he l ast 40 years, Massachuset t s

has had one of t he most successf ul l ot t er i es i n t he

nat i on, gener at i ng $90. 7 bi l l i on i n sal es, awar di ng

$62. 1 bi l l i on i n pr i zes, r et ur ni ng $19. 7 bi l l i on i n net

pr of i t t o the Commonweal t h f or unr est r i ct ed l ocal ai d

avai l abl e t o ci t i es and t owns and payi ng $5. 1 bi l l i on i n

commi ssi ons and bonuses t o i t s st at ewi de network of

r et ai l er s. St . 1971, c. 813, 13; see About The

Lot t er y, avai l abl e at ht t p: / / www. massl ot t er y. com/ about .

Al t hough t he pr oponent s of t he Pet i t i on f ocus on t he

negat i ve i mpact s of gami ng, t he dest r uct i on of l ocal

economi c opport uni t i es cr eated and appr oved i n

accor dance wi t h st at e l aw and thr ough pur el y l ocal

acti on i s excl uded f r om t he i ni t i at i ve pr ocess.


30/52

26

II. THE PETITION FAILS TO SATISFY ARTICLE 48S

RELATEDNESS REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT CONTAINS

PARTS NOT OPERATIONALLY RELATED TO EACH OTHER

SO AS TO PRESENT A UNIFIED STATEMENT OF PUBLIC

POLICY.

Pur suant t o Mass. R. App. P. 16( j ) , t he Vot er s of

Spr i ngf i el d i ncor por at e by r ef er ence t he ar gument s of

t he Duchar me I nt erveners.

III. THE ATTORNEY GENERALS SUMMARY OF THE PETITION

FOR THE BALLOT VIOLATES THE REQUIREMENT OF

ARTICLE 48 THAT IT BE FAIR AND CONCISE.

Pur suant t o Mass. R. App. P. 16( j ) , t he Vot er s of

Spr i ngf i el d i ncor por at e by r ef er ence t he ar gument s of

t he Duchar me I nt erveners.

CONCLUSION

For t he above st at ed r easons, t he Vot er s of

Spr i ngf i el d r espect f ul l y submi t t hat t he Pet i t i on

vi ol at es t he l ocal i t i es excl usi on, and t he Cour t shoul d

af f i r m t he At t or ney Gener al s r ef usal t o cer t i f y t he

Pet i t i on on t hat gr ound, as wel l as t hose gr ounds set

f or t h i n t he br i ef of t he Duchar me I nt er vener s.


31/52

27

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

DOMENI C J . SARNO, DON SI LVERMAN,ROBERT TADDI A, CAROL KERR,DAWN ROGERS, MI CHELLE BARNABY,DEBORAH Y. LI TTLE, MARI O FI ORE,RAY CORPORALE, NI COLE GRI FFI N, i nt hei r capaci t y as vot er s ofSpr i ngf i el d,

By t hei r at t or neys,

/s/ Frank E. AntonucciFr ank E. Ant onucci ( BBO #020260)ANTONUCCI & ASSOCI ATES83 St at e St r eet , Sui t e 203Spr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s 01103( 413) 737- 4667Ant onucci 51@ver i zon. net

/s/ Edward M. PikulaEdwar d M. Pi kul a ( BBO #399770)Ci t y of Spr i ngf i el d Law Depart ment36 Cour t St r eetSpr i ngf i el d, Massachuset t s 01103( 413) 787- 6085

epi kul a@spr i ngf i el dci t yhal l . com

Dat ed: Mar ch 21, 2014


32/52

ADDENDUM


33/52

i

ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ful l t ext of I ni t i at i ve Pet i t i on 13- 09 ( R. A. 152) . . . . . 1

c. 23K, 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

c. 23K, 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

c. 23K, 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

c. 23K, 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

c. 121A, 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

c. 249, 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


34/52

Add. 1


35/52

Add. 2


36/52

Add. 3


37/52

Add. 4


38/52

Add. 5


39/52

Add. 6


40/52

Add. 7


41/52

Add. 8


42/52

Add. 9


43/52

Add. 10


44/52

Add. 11


45/52

Add. 12


46/52


47/52


48/52

Add. 15


49/52

Add. 16


50/52

Add. 17


51/52

Add. 18


52/52

Documents

Springfield Voters Legal Brief