SJC rules that initiative to ban dog racing illegal

The state's highest court yesterday ruled Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly should not have certified a ballot initiative that could have outlawed greyhound racing in Massachusetts.

The ballot initiative would have let voters decide on Nov. 7 whether to phase out greyhound racing by 2008, which would have effectively closed Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere and Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Track. The question would have also created tougher penalties and expanded laws on abuse and neglect of dogs.

But the Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that the ballot question would confuse voters by combining separate issues onto one vote.

``The petition's proposal to expand existing criminal sanctions against cruelty to animals bears no meaningful operational relationship to laws that would abolish an established, highly regulated enterprise, pari-mutuel dog racing . . . The aggregation of these two very different sets of laws into one petition that the voter must accept or reject would operate to deprive voters of their right," Chief Justice Margaret M. Marshall wrote for the court.

Joel A. Kozol , the attorney representing George L. Carney Jr. , owner of Raynham dog track , said the decision sets an important precedent for ballot initiatives. ``You've got to give them a clear choice, you cannot combine unrelated matters," Kozol said.

Opponents have also cited the economic impact of abolishing greyhound racing in the state.

But supporters of the ballot initiative said they were shocked by the court's decision.

``It's a sad day for dogs in the Commonwealth. We're extremely surprised and disappointed that Massachusetts voters will not be permitted to vote to protect dogs in November," said Christine Dorchak , chairwoman of the Committee to Protect Dogs.

Dorchak said her organization , along with other animal-rights groups, will continue working to ban greyhound racing. In 2002, voters narrowly defeated a similar ballot question. Dog-racing foes collected more than 150,000 signatures to put the issue to voters again in November.

Decertification of ballot initiatives by the high court is unusual. And Reilly, who certified the ballot measure last September, issued a statement saying that while his office makes every effort to evaluate initiative petitions, ``we recognize that the court has the last word on what the constitution requires, and we respect the court's decision."