House committee deadlocks on governor's executive order moving casino duties to Lottery Commission; sends report to full House

The House Committee on Judiciary, Government and Operations debated the governor's executive order that transfers some casino-regulatory functions from the Commonwealth Casino Commission to the Lottery Commission and, after extended legal argument, voted to draft a committee report referring the matter to the full House for decision.

The committee's discussion centered on whether the executive order (EO) effectively rewrites statutes by shifting regulatory duties created by law and whether such a transfer is constitutional. Committee members heard legal analysis from the committee's counsel, Joe Hallahan, and outside counsel Attorney Robbie Glass. Hallahan told the committee, "The way the EO was drafted, I do think that it's unconstitutional and usurps the authority." Glass cautioned that only a court can resolve constitutional questions: "Neither the executive branch nor ... the legislative branch can declare something unconstitutional. That's the job of the courts," he said.

Why it matters: The transfer would assign duties established by statute to a different statutory body, potentially changing how gaming regulation and licensing are handled. Members raised additional practical concerns, including unpaid regulatory fees by IPI (noted as unpaid since 2020), a halted $250,000 general-fund payment, and whether vendors and building leases tied to casino operations could become obligations of the central government.

Most committee members said the question of constitutionality is one for the courts, and several urged the Legislature to consider statutory changes instead of relying on an EO. Representative Daniel Aquino emphasized that statutory agencies must operate within powers granted by law and cited the CNMI Supreme Court's 1999 advisory-opinion precedent (request for advisory opinion 1999, MP-1) as authority for the principle that the legislature, not the governor, establishes or abolishes statutorily created agencies. Hallahan and other members also discussed case law cited during the meeting; Hallahan recommended the committee consider whether the EO effectively abolishes or merely reallocates functions of the Casino Commission.

The committee repeatedly distinguished discussion from formal action. Members debated referring the constitutional issue to the courts, drafting a committee report for the full House, or attempting a committee-level vote. Some members objected to sending the matter directly to the courts from the committee, saying the full House should decide or that the committee could vote now if a quorum of members were present.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to dissolve into committee of the whole (to allow outside counsel Robbie Glass to participate): motion passed by voice vote during the meeting recess.

- Motion to draft a committee report that the full House decide on the governor's executive order (roll call): carried, tally reported as 6 yes, 2 no. The roll call includes several named votes read during the meeting (Yes: Representative John Paul Sablan; Representative Joseph Flores; Representative Daniel Aquino; Representative Blossom [surname only given]; Representative Joel Camacho; plus one additional affirmative; Nay: Representative Marissa Flores; Representative Diego Camacho). The committee officially recorded the motion as carried and directed staff to prepare a committee report for the House session.

- Motion to table House Bill 24-37 pending further amendments: motion carried by voice vote; HB 24-37 was tabled.

- Motion to withdraw earlier action and table House Bill 24-28 pending comments from the Attorney General's Office (AG's comments due by July 30): motion carried by voice vote; HB 24-28 was tabled pending AG comments.

- Motion to adjourn the committee meeting: carried by voice vote.

Discussion highlights and clarifications

- Statutory status: Committee counsel and members agreed the Commonwealth Casino Commission (CCC) and the Lottery Commission are statutory bodies. Members cited 4 CMC a7 1501 (statute creating the Lottery Commission) during the discussion to note the lottery agency's statutory limits to overseeing lottery operations.

- Due process concerns: Some members said the EO could affect commissioners' statutory protections, including removal only for cause, and thus could raise due-process questions if duties or membership are altered.

- Financial implications: Attorneys and members noted that the CCC has been operating on regulatory fees, not general-fund appropriations, and raised the prospect that shifting duties could create general-fund liabilities (for vendor contracts, leases or unpaid salaries) if regulatory fee revenue does not materialize.

- Enforcement and continuity: Committee members stressed that an absence of live gaming does not eliminate regulatory responsibilities; enforcement, compliance reviews, licensing and other duties may persist even if gaming operations are inactive.

What the committee did: Because members could not reach a consensus on whether the EO is lawful or how to proceed legislatively, the committee voted to draft a committee report and place the EO before the full House for a decision. The committee also tabled two bills (HB 24-37 and HB 24-28) and set a July 30 deadline for AG comments on HB 24-28.

Next steps: The committee directed staff to prepare the committee report for the House session. Members said the full House will receive the report, debate the EO on the floor, and take any subsequent action. Several members suggested litigation is a possible next step if the House or other parties seek a judicial determination on the EO's constitutionality.

Ending note: Committee members thanked Attorney Robbie Glass and counsel Joe Hallahan for their time and legal input. The committee adjourned after completing the actions above.