Council sends three election questions to voters: social districts, keno and casino-style games of chance

The City Council voted on Sept. 24 to place three separate charter questions before Portsmouth voters in the Nov. 4 municipal election: whether to allow social districts, whether to prohibit keno, and whether to prohibit casino-style games of chance.

On the first question, the council approved a motion to place the following question on the ballot: “Shall we allow the operation of social districts within the City of Portsmouth?” Attorney Jane Farini briefed the council on the new state enabling law, which permits municipalities to designate outdoor areas where alcoholic beverages sold by licensed establishments may be consumed if the municipality establishes a plan and obtains New Hampshire Liquor Commission approval. Farini said administrative rules from the Liquor Commission were not yet available and that a local management and maintenance plan would be required if voters approve social districts.

The council also approved a motion to schedule a public hearing on the social-district ballot question for Oct. 6, so voters would have a public forum between 15 and 30 days before the election as required by state law.

On keno, the council voted to put a question asking whether the city should prohibit keno games on the ballot. The council amended the question language during the meeting to use the word “prohibit” for clarity and approved scheduling a public hearing on Oct. 6.

On games of chance — the lottery commission’s statutory category for certain table games such as blackjack, poker, roulette and money wheel — the council approved a ballot question that would prohibit those games if voters approve the question. City staff said that if voters approve a prohibition, the New Hampshire Lottery Commission could not issue a license for a games-of-chance facility in the city; if voters reject the prohibition, licensing remains possible subject to state rules and any necessary local approvals.

Councilors and members of the public debated the social-district question at length. Supporters said the ballot question gives voters an opportunity to choose whether the city should be able to permit outdoor drinking areas; opponents — including public-health presenters and residents — warned about potential impacts on youth, enforcement burdens for police and public-works staff, insurance liability and the lack of administrative rules. Attorney Farini and others noted the Liquor Commission must approve district plans and participating businesses would require specific license amendments. The council’s motions to place the three questions on the ballot passed; each question also was set for a required public hearing on Oct. 6.

Councilors and staff said that, should voters approve social districts, the council and city staff would still have to adopt a local plan, license participants and work with the Liquor Commission on signage, beverage containers and management requirements. If voters do not approve the social-district question, municipalities cannot create social districts under the current law.