Published August 2, 2010

As I drove to the South Shore for a camping weekend, the illuminated sign in front of the IBEW local was unmissable: “Governor Patrick, sign the casino bill.”

Maybe the sign should have read: “Governor Patrick, veto the casino bill.” The governor said he won’t sign it. With the possibility of enough votes for an override, a veto may be the quickest way to bring casinos to Massachusetts.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, the most visible supporter of casinos and slots, delivered a compromise bill to the governor on Saturday. But Patrick said no deal. The bill would license two slot parlors, and Patrick will only allow one.

Here are three possible scenarios going forward:

1. Gov. Patrick signs the bill. Massachusetts would allow three resort-style casinos and slot machines at two racetracks (“racinos”). Massachusetts would also permit two slot parlors under a competitive bidding process. This is, of course, what DeLeo, et al., want but do not expect. The governor said he won’t sign it.
2. Gov. Patrick strikes the slots provision and sends the bill back. DeLeo, et al., do not want this option. There is not enough time to negotiate another compromise with lawmakers.
3. Gov. Patrick vetoes the bill.
1. The deal is dead. Better luck next (legislative) year. Or…
2. The Legislature extends its session and overrides the veto. This is what DeLeo, et al., are hoping for. (The House has enough votes for an override, but the Senate appears to fall just short.)

For some perspective, listen back to Radio Boston’s very first show, on Sept. 21, 2007. The topic: Can Massachusetts hit the jackpot?

Further Reading:

• WBUR: Lawmakers Agree On Gambling Bill; Veto Looms
• WBUR’s Curt Nickisch: Slots Stalemate Mires Gambling Bill In Uncertainty
• Radio Boston’s week in review (listen for Craig Sandler’s expert analysis)
• The Boston Globe: Patrick’s stand on casinos a gamble