Casino law repeal blocked from House calendar

A controversial bill repealing and reenacting in its entirety the Saipan casino law, which is a subject of lawsuits and criticism, failed to muster enough votes to be placed on calendar yesterday afternoon. It was instead referred to the Ways and Means Committee for further review. But author House floor leader Ralph Demapan (Cov-Saipan) said this won’t stop the Lottery Commission—which meets again today—from deciding whether to grant and to whom an exclusive license to develop a minimum $2-billion integrated casino resort on Saipan.

Concerned citizen Leila Staffler shows a stack of the referendum petitions with over 3,000 signatures to repeal the Saipan casino and electronic gaming laws, during yesterday afternoon’s House session. (Haidee V. Eugenio)

Meanwhile, the House passed 12 bills and resolutions yesterday, including a resolution on a June 30 joint legislative session to receive Gov. Eloy S. Inos’ State of the Commonwealth Address. But the House rejected the Senate’s version to increase cigarette tax gradually, leading to a House-Senate panel to work on a “compromise” version.

Vice speaker Frank Dela Cruz (Ind-Saipan), Rep. Ralph Yumul (Ind-Saipan), Rep. Janet Maraita (Ind-Saipan), and other members pushed for the casino-law-repeal-and-reenact bill’s referral to committee for review and to give the public a chance to comment on it, rather than have it placed on calendar.

Demapan noted that the motion was only to place the bill on calendar—but not for action yesterday.

Still, some members said even if it was not meant to be acted on, its mere placement on calendar means it goes straight to members’ voting without undergoing committee review.

After a lengthy debate, the motion to place Demapan’s HB 18-195 on the bill calendar yesterday was defeated at 2:16pm by a vote of 10-8, with one voting “present” and one excused absence.

After the voting, the speaker allowed the public comment period to be re-opened, wherein concerned citizen Leila Staffler stood up “on behalf of the 3,000-plus voters” who signed petitions to repeal the casino law.

“We respectfully request that the referendum process is allowed to take its course…Every voter in this stack wants to have a chance at voting on this issue in November,” Staffler, showing lawmakers the referendum petition and signatures gathered so far.

Staffler told lawmakers that if they repeal and reenact the casino law by way of passing HB 18-195, “you are robbing 3,000 people from all over every district their right to a referendum process.”

Sneaky approach

Staffler said while the reason stated for HB 18-195 was to clarify ambiguities in the casino law and ratify the Lottery Commission good faith actions, the petitioners “fear that the decision to repeal and reenact, as opposed to amend the casino bill, is a misguided attempt to nullify our referendum efforts.”

Staffler said they are targeting over 4,500 signatures, much more than the required number to placed them on the ballot.

The referendum petitions were to repeal the original Saipan casino law or Public Law 18-38, the law that repeal it or PL 18-43, and the electronic gaming law or PL 18-30.

Staffler said ultimately HB 18-95’s proposed amendments are “cosmetic.”

“If that’s the case, then we humbly ask that we include a clause to protect the referendum from further cosmetic amendments…” she told lawmakers.

Sean King of Park Strategies and consultant for Marianas Stars Entertainment Inc.—one of the two casino applicants—echoed Staffler’s comments that the bill, in so many ways, “is a cosmetic attempt to avoid the referendum without addressing the core issues that bother so many people.”

But King said it’s not their place to say whether there will be casino gaming or whether there should be a referendum. He also welcomes further review of the “repeal and reenact” bill.

“And again we’re not saying there even should be casino gaming on Saipan but if there is, it should be done through a thorough, deliberative manner and why not two licenses? Means more money and more revenue for the people of the CNMI. Only if there is gaming. We’re not saying there should be one way or another but if [there is], let’s do it right, the more money, the better,” said King, who was in the House gallery during yesterday afternoon’s session.

Also with King in the House gallery was former U.S. Interior deputy assistant secretary for insular affairs David Cohen, now also consultant for Marianas Stars.

Marianas Stars suggests granting two casino licenses instead of one. The other casino applicant is Best Sunshine International Ltd.

King said the push for two licenses instead of one shouldn’t be taken as a sign that Marianas Stars is worried about not being granted a license. He said Marianas Stars has a “great business plan” and “great corporate record.”

“Everything appears to be going well. We’re not concerned but many times before there was a discussion of this being multi-license. On Tinian where we have the Dynasty there were five licenses issued. All of a sudden in [PL] 18-38—which became 18-43 when it was passed—all of a sudden…one license. We’re not saying it was but it gives an impression that perhaps it’s designed for one person. I can tell you that wasn’t us. So why not [have two licenses]? I know this is driven a lot by retirees’ pension benefits so why not more money for the people of the CNMI?” he added.

Saipan voters had twice rejected casino questions on the ballot.

Another concerned citizen, Glen Hunter, wrote to lawmakers, asking them to “repeal the Casino Act and place an initiative on this general election ballot” because the “people deserve to be heard.”

“This simple process could halt all current legal actions and allow the good people of the CNMI the power to determine if the Constitutional ban on casino gaming in Saipan should be lifted or retained,” Hunter told lawmakers.