Local Rep. Leads Defeat of Casino Bill

CONCORD, NH—Gov. Maggie Hassan fought for a casino and the Senate overwhelmingly passed casino gambling, but the House of Representatives refused to play along, voting Wednesday to kill the bill.

The bill was rejected by a 199 to 164 vote and followed some tradition: The 400-member House has never passed expanded gambling. 

Senate Bill 152 would legalize one "high-end" casino with up to 150 table games and no more than 5,000 video slot machines.

Rep. Stephen Spratt (D-Greenville) and Rep. Patricia Lovejoy (D-Stratham) opened the long floor fight. Spratt said the proposed casino would mean revenue for the state, and offset New Hampshire dollars flowing to out-of-state casinos. Lovejoy maintains that a casino would result in higher crime, greater problem gamblers and other social costs.

Referring to the social costs cited by opponents, Spratt said morality has never been successfully legislated in this country's history. 

One of the state representatives speaking against the casino bill has supported expanded gambling in the past. Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) said SB 152 gives a monopoly to one out-of-state company. "Greed is rampant from head to toe in this bill," Vaillancourt said.

Other speakers supporting the casino bill touted its economic benefits.

Rep. Gary Azarian (R-Salem) said the proposed casino would bring thousands of jobs to the state.

Casino gambling is coming to Massachusetts and that is changing everything, said Rep. David Campbell (D-Nashua). "These are the stark fiscal realities if we don't approve our own (casino gambling)," he said.

Rep. David Hess (R-Hooksett) questioned the bill's regulatory oversight, its lack of judicial review, and having the NH Lottery Commission as a top regulatory agency. Gambling itself is at question, Hess added. 

He asked, "How can we address unmet needs by creating more unmet needs?"

The Senate voted 16-8 to pass the casino bill in March. While it breezed through that chamber, a House committee spent almost a month studying proposed regulations, revenue projections and community impact of a casino before recommending, by a 23-22 vote, that the full House kill the bill.

Despite that committee vote, there were 17 amendments proposed that were never addressed by the committee. The amendments included ways to strengthen regulatory oversight, improve enforcement, better protect existing charitable gaming operators, and protect against undue political influence by casino operators. Another amendment aimed to protect existing, larger entertainment venues in New Hampshire, including the Capital Center for the Arts and the Verizon Wireless Arena.

Supporters argued New Hampshire should allow one casino to help fund state priorities – and Governor Hassan included a proposed $80 million casino license fee in her recommended budget. The backdrop to this historic debate is the emerging casino economy in Massachusetts. Hassan underscored that earlier this session:

"We can no longer pretend that expanded gambling isn’t coming to our communities,” she said in her budget address. “The question is: will we allow Massachusetts to take revenue from New Hampshire residents to fund its needs, or will we develop our own plan that will allow us to address social costs and invest in our priorities."

The bill calls for one location, which sponsors said would block proliferation, but that one venue is not identified in the legislation. Rockingham Park in Salem is one interested party, and there’s a proposed $600 million plan by Millennium Gaming for a casino and restoration of thoroughbred racing at the track.

"There will never be only one casino," Lovejoy, a member of the House committee researching the bill, said last week. "There is no state that has one casino. Proliferation is a given."

Casino Free New Hampshire and Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling were among the critics calling on state representatives to reject the casino bill.

Governor Hassan issued a statement expressing disappointment in the vote.

"It is disappointing to see the House of Representatives break from the New Hampshire tradition of open and thorough debate on key issues by voting against moving forward with full consideration of SB 152 and the thoughtful, bipartisan amendments being offered by members.

I remain committed to working with the legislature to finalize a balanced budget that restores the priorities that the people of New Hampshire support: job creation, higher education, economic development, strengthening our mental health system and protecting the health and well-being of our communities. Without passing SB 152, the path will be more difficult, but the people of New Hampshire expect us to do difficult things. We must work together to keep our state moving forward and to ensure a brighter, more innovative economic future for all Granite Staters."