Abdow v. Attorney General
468 Mass. 478
Mass.2014Background
- Massachusetts Expanded Gaming Act 2011 created the Gaming Commission and authorized casino and slots licensing and regulation of racing.
- Initiative petition seeks to ban casino/slots gambling and abolish parimutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound racing, by redefining 'illegal gaming' and prohibiting commission licensing.
- Attorney General declined to certify the petition under art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, prompting a suit for mandamus to compel certification.
- Court previously ordered summary transmission steps to enable signature gathering, with no ballot printing pending decision.
- Interveners argue five independent objections under art. 48: takings concerns, implied contract rights, local matters exclusion, related subjects, and summary fairness.
- Court reviews certification de novo and remands to certify the petition for ballot consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the petition effect an unconstitutional taking of property? | Interveners claim taking without compensation. | Gambling regulation falls under core police power; no compensable taking. | Not a taking; abolition permissible under core police power. |
| Does the petition cause an unconstitutional taking of an implied contract right to a licensing decision? | Petition would bar final licensing decisions, violating implied contract rights. | No implied contract right to a licensing decision; license is revocable. | No implied contractual right to final decision; no taking. |
| Is the petition barred by the local matters exclusion (locality requirement)? | Petition targets host communities and thus should be local. | Measure is statewide in scope and not restricted to particular municipalities. | Petition is statewide; local matters exclusion does not apply. |
| Do the petition's subjects satisfy the related subjects requirement? | The measures are sufficiently related to governing gambling suppression. | The subjects are germane and operationally related to a common anti-gaming policy. | Yes; related subjects requirement satisfied. |
| Is the Attorney General's summary fair under art. 48? | Summary misstates effects, prejudicing voters. | Summary reasonably conveys the measure; deference owed to AG's judgment. | Summary deemed fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1879) (police power not limited by contract; legislature may revoke charters)
- Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1887) (public health/morals power justifies prohibition without compensation)
- Boston Elevated Ry. v. Commonwealth, 310 Mass. 528 (Mass. 1942) (police power scope and limits in public welfare regulation)
- Carney v. Attorney Gen. (Carney II), 451 Mass. 803 (Mass. 2008) (relatedness test for initiative petitions; unified public policy required)
- Massachusetts Teachers Ass’n v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 384 Mass. 209 (Mass. 1981) (related subjects require common purpose and operational coherence)
- Mazzone v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515 (Mass. 2000) (art. 48 certification review and de novo standard)
- Albano v. Attorney Gen., 437 Mass. 156 (Mass. 2002) (relatedness and initiative construction principles)
- Ash v. Attorney Gen., 418 Mass. 344 (Mass. 1994) (localities exclusion and statewide initiative context)