Reps. Stanley T. Torres and Joseph M. Palacios are urging any anti-gambling advocate to file the lawsuit right away.
They also wish the Supreme Court would act on the issue “expeditiously” because “the people have been waiting to see things get better.”
Torres, Ind.-Saipan, and Palacios, R-Saipan, said they won’t support Senate Bill 17-90 which was passed by the senators last week. The bill calls for a referendum on the Saipan casino issue.
Torres, the author of the casino measure of House Local Bill 17-44, said the Senate’s proposal will delay efforts to “alleviate the people’s sufferings.”
Palacios said the people have suffered long enough from the 16-hour cut, payless paydays, delayed scholarship checks and medical referral trips.
The Retirement Fund is also on the verge of collapse, so “we can’t waste our time,” he added.
Torres said even if the Saipan voters allowed the Legislature to enact a casino measure, senators are likely to propose amendments.
The Senate is dominated by the members from Rota and Tinian, which have casinos.
Torres said the Senate can “manipulate” Saipan casino legislation.
“We are not going to let the Senate dictate what to do with the Saipan casino legislation,” he added.
Torres admitted that an investor will likely wait for a court ruling before deciding to open a casino on Saipan.
Sen. Frank Q. Cruz, R-Tinian, in a separate interview said they will challenge the local casino bill because they believe it is unconstitutional.
Sen. Ralph DLG Torres, R-Saipan, reiterated that his S.B. 17-90 will expeditiously resolve the controversy.
Once approved in the referendum, he added, the Saipan casino proposal will assure investors that they can do business here.
But Palacios wonders why the Senate came up with S.B. 17-90 only recently.
The senators could have done it the first time the House offered a Saipan casino measure last year, he added.
He also doubts the sincerity of the senators because not too long ago, the Senate adopted a resolution vowing not to pass any Saipan gambling measure.
“And now that the Saipan delegation has taken action they would come up with another delaying tactic which would cost CNMI taxpayers $65,000,” Palacios said referring to the cost of a special election.
Palacios said the Senate should instead “take us to the court now.”
In case the Supreme Court declares the local bill unconstitutional, Palacios said he will ask the Senate “if it has an alternative solution to help restore the CNMI economy?”
But if its legality is upheld by the court, Palacios said the Saipan delegation “will move on without Rota and Tinian.”
However, he added, the local casino bill will still provide the two islands with benefits from the casino revenue for their Retirement Fund contributions, medical referrals and low-income utilities assistance program.
