SENATE President Jude U. Hofschneider on Friday said the Saipan and Northern Islands Legislative Delegation has no authority to pass a bill to authorize, establish, and regulate casino gambling in the third senatorial district which is Saipan and the Northern Islands.
House Local Bill 22-26 was pre-filed on October 26 and introduced on October 29 before being referred to a SNILD committee because it did not meet the required number of appearances on the House agenda.
In a letter to the SNILD chair, Senate Floor Leader Vinnie F. Sablan, Hofschneider said that there are issues with asserting that the delegation has the authority to enact a casino law through a local bill pursuant to Public Law 18-56.
The bill cites this law, which states that casino gaming and wagering is authorized in the CNMI provided that such gaming and wagering occurs in the casino facilities of the casino operator licensed pursuant to this chapter or in a casino licensed pursuant to the laws of a senatorial district.
“The assertion is that PL 19-56 authorized casino gaming in the CNMI; therefore, SNILD can enact its own local bill to establish a casino act… PL 18-56 did not expressly authorize any of the senatorial districts to enact a casino law through a local bill. HLB 22-26 further proposes regulations that are contrary to PL 18-56. Even if PL 18-56 did authorize SNILD to enact a casino act through local bill, HLB 22-26 conflicts with PL 18-56 that supersedes local law. PL 18-56 established a casino commission that regulates the casino in the third senatorial district and one exclusive license,” said Hofschneider.
He added, “SNILD cannot enact a local bill that supersedes or contradicts the authority of the casino commission established by PL 18-56. Moreover, SNILD cannot enact a local bill that increases the number of casino licenses in the third senatorial district when PL 18-56 established only one exclusive license. HLB 22-26 provisions are contrary to PL 18-56.”
Hofschneider also noted that the bill intends to establish a casino commission for the third senatorial district that would be considered an “agency of local government.”
He quoted Article VI, Section 8(a) of the CNMI Constitution which states that new agencies of a local government may not be established without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the persons qualified to vote from the island or islands to be served by the proposed agency of local government.
The Senate president said neither the public law nor 4 CMC Subsection 2301 intended or expressly authorized any of the senatorial districts to establish its own casino law.
The first and second senatorial districts or Rota and Tinian previously established their own casino acts through local initiatives authorized by Article XXI of the CNMI Constitution.
“P.L. 18-56 was the vehicle that established a casino law in the Commonwealth, but excluded regulation of the first and second senatorial district casinos… P.L. 18-56 simply intended to ratify the casino gaming already authorized in the first and second senatorial districts and at the same time, authorize an exclusive license casino in the third senatorial district to be regulated by PL 18-56,” said Hofschneider.
Moreover, he cited the CNMI Supreme Court’s ruling in Palacios v. Yumul which looked at the history of the second constitutional convention that enacted Article XXI by reviewing the relevant part of the journal which shows that the delegates had voted to delete the phrase “local law” unquestionably, which Hofschneider said indicates a clear intent not to allow the establishment of gambling by local law.
“The only local law authorized to establish local casinos is a local initiative pursuant to [Article XXI of the] CNMI Constitution…. The only other way to establish a casino in a senatorial district is through the enactment of a Commonwealth law,” he said.
In closing, Hofschneider said, “Based on the foregoing reasons, H.L.B. 22-26 is not legally sufficient and therefore, the SNILD does not have the authority to pass H.L.B. 22-26.”
