Track owner fights ban on racing

Sues to keep greyhound measure off Nov. ballot

Carney, owner of the Raynham-Taunton dog track, wants to keep a question on banning greyhound racing off the ballot. (John Tlumacki/Globe Staff)

The owner of Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park, the most successful dog track in the state, has filed suit in the Supreme Judicial Court to prevent a ban on commercial dog racing from being placed on the November statewide ballot.

"My position is, we'll be doing everything we can to keep it from going on the ballot in 2008," said Brockton businessman George Carney. "If we don't prevail in court, I plan to put on a very vigorous campaign to fight this in November. They're not going to have an easy day with George."

If the proposed ban, "An Act to Protect Greyhounds," goes forward and wins voter approval this fall, dog racing would be banned in the state as of Jan. 1, 2010, putting an end to racing at the Raynham-Taunton track and at Wonderland in Revere.

Violators would face minimum fines of $20,000 by the State Racing Commission.

Carney has run his dog track off Route 138 in Raynham for the past 40 years. His operation features live greyhound racing six days a week year-round, and simulcasting of dog, harness, and horse races elsewhere throughout most of the day and night. The track took in more than $121 million in wagers in 2006.

If the ban on dog racing wins approval, Carney says, it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks.

"Everybody is aware of how tough the economy is in Massachusetts," he said. "Do they want to put that many people out of work?"

Carney's suit is no surprise to the Committee to Protect Dogs, sponsor of the anti-racing effort. "He'll do whatever he can to see the question stopped. It's his only hope to keep the cruelty of greyhound racing from public discussion," said Christine Dorchak, committee cochairwoman.

Dorchak's organization is an umbrella group that includes the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and Grey2KUSA.

In his court suit, Carney's attorney, Lee Kozol, contends that the ballot initiative doesn't meet state requirements for such questions because "it would operate only in particular districts or localities."

Attorney General Martha Coakley has already certified the initiative as meeting state requirements. It was submitted for the ballot several months ago as a petition bearing about 100,000 signatures. A total of 66,000 were needed. Coakley deemed the proposed act in proper form to be placed before Massachusetts voters.

Carney's suit seeks to overturn Coakley's approval.

"They are arguing [the initiative] is district-specific, when it should apply to the whole state," said Harry Pierre, spokesman for the attorney general's office. "They say our office should not have allowed the proposed law on the ballot."

Late last week, a Suffolk County justice agreed to put the case before all the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court. A hearing is set for May 7.

In 2006, Carney successfully stopped, through a Supreme Judicial Court suit, a similar initiative from being placed before voters.

"That initiative proposal called for the abolition of dog racing, along with a number of amendments related to dog fighting and police dogs," Kozol explained. "The Supreme Judicial Court found in that case the initiative contained unrelated subjects, and it must contain only related subjects."

In 2000, animal activists were successful in placing a similar proposed ban on commercial dog racing before Massachusetts voters. It was narrowly defeated, with 49 percent in favor of the ban.

The state Legislature will have an opportunity to enact a law banning dog racing this spring. Hearings have already begun on the measure. If legislators choose not to act on the petition initiative, it would go the ballot route.

Christine Legere can be reached at christinelegere@yahoo.com.