DiMasi poses referendum on casinos

Just two months after defeating Governor Deval Patrick's casino proposal, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi proposed yesterday to reopen the state's heated debate on gambling by putting a nonbinding question on the November ballot.

Senate President Therese Murray said she was open to DiMasi's idea for a referendum, which would probably trigger a frenzy of spending by casino interests trying to sway public opinion.

But Patrick administration officials quickly signaled opposition. They said that Massachusetts residents have already spoken in favor of casino gambling in various public opinion polls and that the state should focus on life sciences and clean-energy legislation for the remainder of the 2008 legislative season.

"Poll after poll has shown solid support for the governor's resort casino proposal," said Daniel O'Connell, Patrick's economic development secretary and chief adviser on gambling issues. "With all due respect to the speaker, we feel that a nonbinding referendum may not be the best course of action at this time."

O'Connell's statement suggested that the administration would wait until at least 2009 to try again in the Legislature.

Putting a question on the ballot would require approval of the House, Senate, and the governor. His aides would not say yesterday whether the governor would veto such a bill because it is not yet known how a referendum question would be worded.

The dynamics of a nonbinding referendum - basically, an official measure of voter sentiment that lawmakers could use, or not, as a guide for action - could draw groups on both sides of the question into an expensive public relations showdown. Casino supporters would be expected to spend heavily.

Under one possible scenario, the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos in Connecticut might decide to oppose a Massachusetts referendum to stave off regional competition. If they lost and casinos were approved in the Bay State, they could team up with a local partner or forge ahead on their own.

Explaining his surprise move yesterday, DiMasi said in a written statement that he was worried about budget deliberations getting bogged down by casino amendments and passionate debate of the type that gripped Beacon Hill for months until Patrick's plan was defeated in March.

DiMasi released a statement proposing the referendum just before the Senate began debate on the state budget yesterday. Among the items the Senate was considering: a procasino amendment introduced by Senate Republicans.

"I remain opposed to casino gambling," DiMasi said in his statement. "Rather than have our budget negotiations stall over a potential casino impasse, I suggest we put this before the voters in a nonbinding referendum question and reconsider it next year."

The chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat who supports casinos, first argued in favor of a nonbinding referendum in March, saying House opponents would be persuaded if the public is given a chance to voice its opinion.

"Given the magnitude of what the Senate is considering," DiMasi said, "I would support as a compromise Senator Panagiotakos's proposal to put an advisory question on casinos before voters this fall."

Casino lobbyists, lawmakers, and political observers puzzled over DiMasi's sudden move, because there had been no indications that the Senate was poised to adopt the Republican amendment favoring casinos, and it failed on a 29-to-9 vote later in the day.

Panagiotakos said that if DiMasi is serious, he should file legislation for the referendum and send it to the Senate. A spokesman for DiMasi said the speaker planned to discuss the issue with Murray and Patrick.

"It's an interesting ploy by DiMasi," said the Rev. Richard McGowan, a Jesuit priest and professor of economics who studies gambling at Boston College and who believes that voters would back casinos. "But given DiMasi's status right now, the governor probably thinks he can get a better deal."

Last year, Patrick proposed a plan to license three resort casinos in Western Massachusetts, Southeastern Massachusetts, and metropolitan Boston, which he estimated would generate 20,000 jobs and $2 billion in economic activity. But DiMasi was adamantly opposed to the legislation, saying it would introduce a "casino culture" to Massachusetts.

Since the defeat in March, the governor has sought to focus on other proposals, although earlier this month he told the Brookline Chamber of Commerce that his gambling plan "may yet come back in the Legislature." He did not elaborate.

"Someone said it's like a bad penny that keeps turning up," DiMasi said this week at a breakfast at the UMass Club.

Polling has suggested that state voters are in favor of casino gambling, but not by big margins. A Globe poll last September indicated that 53 percent of Massachusetts residents supported the governor's proposal. That raises the possibility that a nonbinding referendum could slip the other way, against casinos, or that even a victory for casino opponents would be clouded by heavy opposition.

Murray said through a spokesman that she was open to the idea of putting the question to voters Nov. 4.

"If a separate piece of legislation were to be filed by the speaker in regard to a referendum, she would support a full debate by the Senate," said her spokesman, David Falcone.

Secretary of State William F. Galvin said his office would need to be notified by late June in order for the question to join other likely ballot questions, including proposals to eliminate the state income tax and ban greyhound racing.

Ballot questions have had varying degrees of success in other states, said David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"There will be a lot of people trying to make the case pro or con," Schwartz said. "There will be lots of numbers flashed around on both sides. And lots of money."

In 2006, gambling-related ballot questions in five states triggered $53.7 million in spending, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Nearly 90 percent of the money was spent by progambling interests. Still, only one of the five ballot questions was approved.

There was little surprise yesterday that the gambling debate had bubbled up again.

"From day one, my sense was we would probably get a week or a month reprieve, and then we'd be back in one way or another," said Dennis Murphy, the lobbyist for casino and real estate mogul Donald Trump. "It's not going to be shut off quickly."

Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.