The joint delegation committees tasked to work on House Local Bill 17-44 met yesterday with House legal counsel John Cool to draft the certified question.
Palacios, R-Saipan, said the move was recommended by the Senate.
“We will get the court’s opinion so that we do not have to go through the process of a lawsuit,” he added.
The certified question, he said, will be based on the Senate contention that a local gambling bill is unconstitutional.
Palacios said the House disagrees with the Senate.
The idea of bringing a certified question to the court is to save taxpayer money, he added.
He said the two houses challenging each other in court will cost more.
“With this certified question we will be able to hopefully have the justices come up with their opinion on the issue,” Palacios said.
If the court’s decides that that the local bill is unconstitutional, he added, “then, we are going to have to do it through an initiative.”
If the court decides that it is constitutional, “of course we will have to go ahead and act on it in the session.”
Rep. Stanley T. Torres, the author of the casino measure, said he supports the idea of bringing the issue to the court through a certified question.
“At least we would know and see where to go,” said Torres, Ind.-Saipan.
The delegation’s Ways and Means and Judicial and Government Operations Committees have conducted six public hearings on the gambling bill.
