Opponents of slots in Prince George’s County say they’re vindicated by a recent legal opinion from the state attorney general that giving county voters the power to trump statewide voters in a referendum on the issue is unconstitutional.

A bill submitted last week by Sen. Douglas J.J. Peters (D-Dist. 23) of Bowie calls for a referendum to allow a slots casino in Prince George’s, but requires that the measure get a majority of votes statewide and within the county.

An opinion issued Friday by the office of Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, however, found such a measure would violate the Maryland Constitution, which does not allow statewide laws to be put to local referendum.

The Prince George’s County Council voted down a proposal to ban slots outright in November, instead passing a resolution asking state lawmakers to enact such a conditional referendum.

That decision was “the chump’s way, the coward’s way,” said community activist and slots opponent Arthur Turner, who supported the ban when it was being considered in the county.

“This is a great victory for the people,” Turner said of the opinion, adding he thinks opposition to slots is growing.

Council Chairwoman Andrea Harrison (D-Dist. 5) of Springdale and Councilman Eric Olson (D-Dist. 3) of College Park, both of whom supported banning slots, said they weren’t surprised by the opinion but were worried about what a statewide referendum could mean for the county.

“It concerns me that you could have the whole state deciding the fate of what happens in Prince George’s County,” Olson said.

Harrison said although she thought Peters’ bill had enough votes for Senate approval, she did not know if it would pass in the House.

While the opinion affirmed the county’s right to enact zoning laws to regulate slots, neither Olson nor Harrison would say Monday whether the County Council was likely to reconsider a ban on the gambling machines.

But Peters, who is opposed to slots but thinks the issue should be decided by voters, said Friday’s opinion doesn’t mean the bill is finished.

Peters said he spoke with Gansler’s office Monday, and expects to receive suggestions for amendments within the next few days that would remove the constitutional problems with the bill but preserve its intended effect.

dleaderman@gazette.net