People Against a Casino Town
News from PACT
Casino opening no deterrent to opposition
 
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 25, 2004

The Town That Wouldn't Give Up

Florence may go down in history as the town that wouldn't give up. In spite of local media hoopla about the opening of a casino in this small coastal town, the opponents are still as vigorous and determined as ever.

"Why should we give up?" said PACT President, Susie Dewberry, "The casino compact is illegal, and we believe we will win in court." According to Dewberry, "the Governor has thrown up every legal obstacle his Oregon Department of Justice attorneys can dredge up, just to keep the courts, and the people, from hearing the facts of the case."

Yard Sales, Antique Sales, Art Sales

Financing of the group's lawsuit is also an issue, said Dewberry, "It's pretty clear to us that the Governor is trying to out-money us with his procedural tactics. But we're in this for the long haul. Every day it's a battle to keep coming up with new strategies to raise the money to pay our attorneys - but we somehow manage to do it. And every day is one more day closer to the time when we will have our case heard in court - something that the Governor obviously does not want to occur."

Governor Plays Dodge-em

The latest "dodge-em strategy," as Dewberry puts it, was when the Governor tried to move the case to the federal courts - a tactic the group is fighting vigorously. "This is about the Oregon Governor violating Oregon laws and the Oregon Constitution," said Dewberry, "not federal laws."

Dewberry's assertions about state law taking precedence over federal law has recently been supported by two more legal decisions. Within the last year, in both Wisconsin and New York state, the courts have ruled that their governors overstepped their authority by entering into agreements with casinos in violation of their state constitution. This is the same argument made in PACT's lawsuit.

There's No Way We'll Give Up

"The detrimental effects a casino brings don't stop at the casino door. The effects spread out into the surrounding community because of the essential predatory nature - casinos prey on the weakest in a community. And the taxpayers must pay for the all the social costs associated with addictive gambling - poverty, crime, bankruptcy, disruption of families, abuse of children, the list goes on and on," explained Dewberry. "We have a petition signed by over 2,300 people, all saying they don't want a casino in Florence. We get comments from people each and every day asking PACT to keep fighting and protect their town. There's no way we'll give up with that kind of support."

*****

BACKGROUND

PACT LAWSUIT: 

The Oregon Constitution prohibits the State's authorization and operation of casinos in Oregon. "The legislative assembly has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit, casinos from operation in the State of Oregon." (Article XV, section 4(12))

Panzer v. Doyle, Wisconsin Supreme Court No. 03-0910-0A, May 13, 2004
"We hold that the Governor exceeded his authority when he agreed unilaterally to a compact term that permanently removes the subject of Indian gaming from the legislature's ability to establish policy and make law." "We hold that the Governor acted contrary to the public policy embodied in state law and therefore acted without authority by agreeing to allow the FCP Tribe to conduct new games that are prohibited by Article IV, section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution and by Wisconsin's criminal statutes." 

Saratoga County v. Pataki, 2003, N.Y. Int. 83, June 12, 2003 "Unsurprisingly, every State high court to consider the issue has concluded that the State Executive lacks the power unilaterally to negotiate and execute tribal gaming compacts under IGRA." (U.S. Supreme Court review denied in Pataki v. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 03-392, November 2003)

Related Links:
PACT   SEARCH   FACTS   LAWSUIT   LINKS   NEWS   RESEARCH   ACTION