Anti-casino signatures returned

Deputy Attorney General Gilbert Birnbrich gave individuals leading three petitions to repeal the Saipan casino and electronic gaming laws a chance to “withdraw” these petitions and “submit” them after curing “identified defects.” This also allows the group to gather more signatures to reach the minimum required number, as there were only less than 3,000 signatures at the time of submission.

The signatures have since reached over 3,300, according to one of the petitioners yesterday.

The Office of the Attorney General received the three referendum petitions on June 6. That’s 151 days before the November elections, or a day earlier than the deadline that is 150 days before the race.

But Birnbrich, in a June 13 letter to Russell Schow, executive director, Marianas Economic Research and Development Foundation, cited major defects that led him to give the group a chance to withdraw the petitions and submit a “late-filed petition no later than 120 days” before the election.

Schow said yesterday that “at this point, it was out of my hands but it will be resubmitted.”

Leila Staffler, a concerned citizen, said yesterday that “over 3,300 signatures” have so far been gathered and the signature-gathering will continue for two weeks more.

The three referendum petitions, led by concerned citizens, include one to repeal Public Law 18-38 or the original law that allows an exclusive casino license on Saipan; one to repeal Public Law 18-43, which repealed the original casino measure or P.L. 18-38; and the third, to repeal Public Law 18-30, which allows electronic gaming on Saipan.

Staffler said every petitioner wants to have a chance at voting on the casino issue in the November elections.

‘Non-compliance’

Birnbrich said a cursory review of the petitions shows that “they do not comply with the constitutional requirements.”

Article 9 Section 2 of the NMI Constitution requires that a referendum petition “contain the full text of the law sought to be rejected.”

The NMI Administrative Code 5-50-220 echoes this requirement: “Each referendum petition shall contain the full text of the law sought to be rejected and all signature pages shall be attached to a copy of the petition containing the full text of the laws sought to be rejected.”

“Accordingly, I would be required to reject the petitions as they do not comply with the requirements of Section 2(a),” Birnbrich said in his two-page letter to Schow.

The deputy AG said Schow was quoted in the media as saying they do not have a sufficient number of signatures in the submitted petitions to meet the constitutional requirements.

Schow told Saipan Tribune yesterday that at the time of the petitions’ submission, there were only 2,960 signatures gathered.

A petition needs the signatures of at least 20 percent of qualified CNMI voters, or over 3,220 signatures.

Birnbrich said if the number of signatures in the petitions at the time of the June 6 submission was insufficient, the group will not be able to supplement the petitions with additional signatures.

2 types of petitions

The regulations contemplate two types of referendum petitions that propose to repeal law.

One is the timely petitions that are filed no later than 150 days prior to the election.

The second one is the late-filed petitions that are submitted after the timely deadline and no later than 120 days prior to the election.

“As it stands now, your petitions would be considered timely and would be governed by NMIAC 5-50-240 as you submitted them on June 6, 2014—151 days before the upcoming election,” Birnbrich told Schow.

That same section of the administrative code states that within 30 days of receiving a timely petition, the attorney general shall give the party who submitted the petition notice of the number of valid signatures submitted in support of the petition.

If a sufficient number of signatures were submitted as specified in the Constitution, but the attorney general was “unable to certify a sufficient number of signatures to meet the constitutional requirements, the party who submitted the petition shall have an additional 10 days to file additional signatures in support of the petition.”

It goes on to say that “if an insufficient number of signatures were submitted, the party circulating the petition shall not receive any additional time to obtain signatures.”

“Thus, if the petition does not have the requisite number of signatures, it will be rejected and you will not be able to add additional signatures,” Birnbrich told Schow.

The third major concern is the absence of the address or phone number of the contact person for the petitions.

Birnbrich cited NMIAC 5-50-215, which states that the “attorney general shall refuse to certify petitions that are not accompanied by [a written statement identifying the name of a person submitting the petition, and his or her address and phone number].”

“Because of these identified defects and the news reports that you have not met the constitutional signature requirements, as a courtesy, I am giving you an opportunity to withdraw your petition. You would then still be able to submit a late-filed petition no later than 120 days before the next election,” Birnbrich told Schow.

The deputy AG, however, told Schow that if the petitioners decide to withdraw and re-submit under the late-filed provision and the requisite number of signatures is not certified as valid, they will not have another opportunity to submit additional signatures.

Schow said the deputy AG’s letter simply tells them to “clean it up and resubmit it.”

Clarification

Schow also said he has nothing to do with the “No casino” signs on Saipan, contrary to what some community members may have thought.

“I have nothing to do with that and I am not against casinos, as long as it is done after being approved by the CNMI people and for the highest benefits to the community,” he added.