House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s plan to bring casinos and racinos to the state looks on its face to be facing long odds — if the only casino vote on record is a harbinger of the measure’s fate.
But, much like his predecessor, DeLeo is the house dealer, so to speak, and as is the case for most gambling, the odds favor the house when he unveils his plan in the next week or two. Much of the success for DeLeo’s plan also rests on what the ultimate game is — to simply pass the bill into law or have enough firepower to overcome Gov. Deval Patrick, who has stated his opposition to slots at race tracks and holds the wild card of a veto.
In 2008, under then-Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a vehement opponent to casino gambling, the House killed Patrick’s plan for three destination casinos without any provisions for slots. By a 106-48 vote, lawmakers voted to send the bill to a study committee, effectively killing the measure. But the vote was even wider because two Republicans, Reps. Elizabeth Poirier of North Attleboro and Richard Ross of Wrentham indicated after the roll call that they had intended to vote yes instead of no, according to the House journal.
Given the final 108 members opposed to Patrick’s plan, that means DeLeo has to flip at least 35 votes just to pass his plan. And he would have to completely reverse the results, finding 106 votes, if an override to Patrick’s veto becomes necessary.
“Speaker DeLeo believes members like him will be very moved for the importance of bringing jobs to Massachusetts,” says Seth Gitell, DeLeo’s spokesman, in explaining how the speaker will turn the one-time opponents. Gitell also pointed out that the slots component, with its near-immediate return, will be a huge attraction for many lawmakers with the gaping budget hole facing them for this year and next.
There’s also the “speaker effect” to consider. Many lawmakers acknowledge DiMasi’s heavy hand in defeating Patrick’s plan. Now that he has resigned, those who may have supported gambling as a way to raise revenues are now free to vote for such a plan.
“Sal DiMasi’s gone, and they’re not under the strong thumb of his influence. I think people will be absolutely more honest with the way they approach the subject than they had in the past,” says Rep. Paul Kujawski a Democrat from Webster.
Kujawski was away from the State House for a family commitment when the 2008 vote occurred, but he says he would have voted for Patrick’s plan and will vote for DeLeo’s plan when it is introduced.
Rep. Garrett Bradley, a Democrat from Hingham, bucked DiMasi and voted to keep Patrick’s bill alive two years ago. He says nothing has changed his mind in the interim and the worsening economy has probably moved as many people into the pro-gambling column as has DiMasi’s departure.
“I think it’s a little of both,” says Bradley. “It’s not the same bill…. There was a bloc of votes that voted against the casinos [in 2008] because they were told by DiMasi they’d have an opportunity to vote on racinos. That didn’t happen under him, obviously.”
A look at the numbers of the 2008 vote make predicting the outcome somewhat murky. Of the 106 who voted against the casino bill then, 11 have left the House, but it’s uncertain whether all their replacements can be counted in DeLeo’s corner. Also, five others who voted to keep Patrick’s bill alive have left, but again, who knows what the new legislators will do?
Five members who did not vote at all on the bill in 2008 will likely cast their lot with DeLeo this time around. They include Kujawski, Rep. Christine Canavan of West Bridgewater and DeLeo lieutenant and longtime family friend Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein of Revere. Both Canavan and Reinstein represent districts dealing with the closing of dog tracks.
Canavan, who was tending to her sick father when the vote was taken in 2008, says she would have voted for Patrick’s bill despite being a member of DiMasi’s leadership team. She concedes some legislators might get grief for being a DiMasi puppet if they change their vote from two years ago, but that decision could be easily mitigated by the current economic climate.
“Anyone who was to change their vote could look at it and say we need the funds,” says Canavan. “People have the right to get more information. You don’t have to be stagnant your entire decision-making life. A decision that wasn’t good five years would look better now because circumstances change.”
Even if DeLeo can keep all 46 votes from two years ago, then whip all 16 new members and turn the five no votes, he’d still have to find 14 more just to pass the bill and then 25 more to override a veto.
Rep. Alice Peisch, a Democrat from Wellesley, voted to kill Patrick’s bill and says she needs to be convinced of the merits of switching her vote, which hasn’t happened yet. Peisch acknowledged some of the votes two years ago were to appease DiMasi, but she says hers was a vote of conscience.
“It was that bill and my position, then as now, is I need to be convinced the benefits outweigh the costs,” she says. “I certainly was genuinely motivated by my vote last time by a lack of information and data…. I need to be persuaded and shown how many jobs we are talking about, what’s the level of income, what’s the basis for those assumptions. I also want to be shown to what extent is this likely to have an impact on the revenues the [state] Lottery produces.”
Rep. Ruth Balser, a Democrat from Newton, says her vote to kill Patrick’s bill was one of conscience, not sheepishness. She says she’s even more adamant about voting against a gambling proposal this time around because of the addition of slots. But, she says, no one should underestimate the power of a speaker, either then or now.
“There’s certainly a trend for members voting that is consistent with their leadership,” says Balser. “It’s very difficult to defeat a speaker’s agenda, so I would not be surprised” if DeLeo rounds up the votes.
Canavan says she is convinced the immediate and future revenue benefits will far outweigh any concerns her colleagues will have. And she says there’s a different air to the run-up to the vote this time around.
“Life is much easier with a speaker who supports it,” she says.
Jack Sullivan is the senior investigative reporter for CommonWealth magazine. He can be reached at jsullivan@commonwealth.org or 617-224-1623.
