## Facts

- Massachusetts enacted the Expanded Gaming Act (2011), creating the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and authorizing up to three casino licenses and one slots-parlor license.
- Ten Massachusetts voters sponsored an initiative petition to (1) redefine “illegal gaming” to again include casino and slots gambling authorized by the 2011 Act, (2) bar the Commission from approving applications for such gaming, and (3) abolish pari-mutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound races.
- The Attorney General refused to certify the petition under Article 48, concluding it involved an excluded matter: an alleged taking without compensation based on asserted implied contractual/property rights of gaming license applicants to receive a decision on their applications (and related arguments concerning licensees).
- The sponsors filed an action in the nature of mandamus to compel certification; multiple interested parties intervened opposing certification.
- A single justice reserved and reported the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court; the Secretary of the Commonwealth was directed to prepare ballot materials pending the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition was an “excluded matter” under Article 48 because it would effect a taking of property without just compensation by extinguishing asserted rights of gaming applicants or licensees.
2. Whether the petition was an impermissible “local measure” because it primarily affected particular municipalities associated with proposed or potential gaming facilities.
3. Whether the petition violated Article 48’s related-subjects requirement by combining casino/slots gambling restrictions with abolition of simulcast greyhound wagering.
4. Whether the Attorney General’s summary of the petition was sufficiently fair and accurate for initiative purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Attorney General erred in refusing to certify the initiative petition.
- The court ordered relief in the nature of mandamus requiring certification so the measure could be presented to voters.
- The court concluded the petition did not fall within Article 48’s taking-without-compensation exclusion.
- The court held the petition was statewide in operation and not a prohibited local measure.
- The court held the petition’s provisions addressed related subjects.
- The court upheld the fairness and accuracy of the Attorney General’s summary.

## Legal Principles

- Regulation of gambling is a core exercise of the Commonwealth’s police power; the Legislature or the voters may withdraw previously authorized gambling without compensating affected parties.
- Applicants for heavily regulated licenses do not obtain a constitutionally protected property or contract right merely by applying, spending money, or expecting agency action under an existing statutory scheme.
- A gaming license or opportunity to operate under a statutory authorization remains subject to the Commonwealth’s retained authority to alter or abolish the regulatory framework; there is no protected right in the continued existence of the authorizing statute itself.
- An initiative is not a barred local measure when it changes generally applicable state law (such as a statewide definition of illegal gaming) even if practical effects are concentrated in certain municipalities.
- The related-subjects requirement is satisfied when provisions are logically connected and directed to a common purpose, such as limiting forms of gambling permitted in the Commonwealth.
- The Attorney General’s initiative summary must be fair and accurate; a summary meeting that standard does not impede certification.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court required certification of an initiative to repeal expanded gambling and abolish simulcast greyhound wagering, holding that the measure presented a coherent statewide policy question and did not trigger Article 48’s excluded-matter, local-measure, or related-subjects prohibitions.


Abdow v. Att'y Gen., 468 Mass. 478, 11 N.E.3d 574 (2014)