Ohio lawmakers pursue casino relocation, consider tougher standards for amendments in future

Ohio lawmakers scramble to react to casino plan

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A deal on a new site for a proposed Columbus casino hasn’t erased looming questions that were raised by the voter-authorized plan to put casinos in the state capital and three other cities.

Since the fall election, four constitutional amendments have been floated at the Statehouse that would tweak the casino plan or the state initiative process that made it possible. Constitutional law experts say the extent of the response shows how placing such detail in the constitution can backfire.

One resolution sought to return more casino profits to the state. Another called for allowing casino gambling in a given county only with the approval of the county’s voters. A third proposal, which looks like it will stick, asks voters to authorize a different location for the Columbus casino.

The last seeks broader change: It would require all future ballot initiatives to obtain 67 percent voter approval to pass, rather than a simple majority.

Constitutions are intended to be aspirational and broad in thinking, laws or statutes somewhat more specific and regulations the most specific, said Ruth Colker, a professor at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

“This amendment turns that whole idea on its head because it’s so highly specific,” she said. “What we saw when the people adopted such a specific constitutional amendment was, oops, it didn’t really work.”

On Wednesday, state lawmakers formalized their intention to go forward with a May ballot measure intended to relocate the Columbus casino described in the casino plan voters approved in November. The initial amendment contained specific descriptions of the parcels where the casinos would be built, in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and in Columbus’ Arena District.

The ballot issue will ask voters to move the Columbus casino to the site of the former Delphi auto parts plant on the city’s west side. Although it may appear to be a Columbus-specific change, the question must be decided by the entire state.

“The nature of a constitutional amendment is that it should have something to do with the structure of the government and the rights of the people in relation to the government,” said David Forte, a professor at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. “Implanting a statute into a constitutional amendment prevents the statute from being modified easily for good and practical reasons and it distorts the whole constitutional structure.”

Lawmakers of both parties in the Ohio House — led by Democratic state Rep. Ted Celeste and Republican state Rep. Kevin Bacon — began the process Wednesday to lobby for a bill placing the Columbus location change on May’s ballot. The bill must first clear the Legislature by a three-fifths majority — 60 of 99 votes in the House, 20 of 33 in the Senate.

“Neighborhood and business leaders have rallied in support of the Delphi site,” Celeste said in a statement. “Now, we as lawmakers must work together to garner consensus and combine our efforts to provide jobs and help jump-start the local economy.”

Penn National Gaming Inc., developer of the Columbus casino, has already approved the Delphi site as an alternative to its preferred location in the downtown Arena District. The Delphi plant closed in 2007. It sat on a 114-acre site near the neighborhood hardest hit in the nation by the foreclosure crisis.

City leaders worried that casino activity in the family-friendly Arena District could hurt existing business there, including the National Hockey League’s Blue Jackets, movie and concert venues, and restaurants.

Forte said the effort it will take to make a seemingly simple adjustment to the four-city plan could justify pursuit of requiring stronger support on future amendments. A supermajority is already required when amending the U.S. Constitution.

“Imagine what the framers in Philadelphia would have thought if we could do that to our U.S. Constitution after they fought so hard,” Forte said. “It’s sort of a Rube Goldberg result.”