CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/22/2023 1

Constitutionality of a Ballot Measure 

Ajax Gaming Ventures v. Brown 

(William E. Smith, D.R.I. 1:06-cv-336) 

The suit challenged the constitutionality of a ballot measure in an 

upcoming election. The court denied immediate relief, because 

constitutionality could be assessed after the election. The measure 

did not pass. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot measure; intervention. 

The deadline for printing ballots and other election materials in Rhode Island for the 2006 general election was August 9.1

 On Friday, July 21, a casino 

developer associated with Donald Trump and its municipal partner, the 

Town of Johnston, filed a federal action to enjoin inclusion on the ballot of a 

constitutional amendment that would have permitted Harrah’s and its municipal partner, the Town of West Warwick, to establish a casino with the 

Narragansett Indian Tribe.2

 The plaintiffs alleged that the proposed amendment violated equal protection and the First Amendment because it would 

bestow discriminatory commercial and political benefits on the ethnic tribe 

and its business partners.3 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion 

for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.4

Rhode Island’s supreme court had declined to issue an advisory opinion 

on the matter.5

On Monday, the tribe and its partner developer moved to intervene,6 a 

motion that was granted by stipulation on August 9.7

 Judge William E. Smith 

allowed Rhode Island’s attorney general to participate in the case as an amicus curiae.8

1. Opinion, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC v. Brown, No. 1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. Aug. 8, 2006), 

D.E. 17; Agreed Statement of Facts, id. (July 28, 2006), D.E. 9; see Eleventh-Hour Ruling Likely on West Warwick Casino Vote, Providence J. Bull., July 26, 2006, at B1 (“If the ballot is not 

set by Aug. 9, the state faces $1 million in extra preparation and printing costs, said Peter 

Kerwin, spokesman for Secretary of State Matt Brown.”). 

2. Complaint, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC, No. 1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. July 21, 2006), D.E. 1; 

see Johnston Files Suit to Block Casino Vote, Providence J. Bull., July 22, 2006, at A1. 

3. Complaint, supra note 2; Opinion, supra note 1, at 1–3. 

4. Motion, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC, No. 1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. July 21, 2006), D.E. 2. 

5. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 904 A.2d 67 (R.I. 2006); see Agreed Statement 

of Facts, supra note 1, at 3; see also Court Refuses to Consider Casino Vote, Providence J. 

Bull., July 14, 2006, at A1. 

6. Intervention Motion, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC, No. 1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. July 24, 

2006), D.E. 5. 

7. Stipulation, id. (Aug. 9, 2006), D.E. 18. 

8. Opinion, supra note 1, at 3 n.2; see Transcript at 37, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC, No. 

1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. Aug. 7, 2006, filed Oct. 2, 2006), D.E. 30. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Smith for this report by telephone on May 23, 2012. 
Constitutionality of a Ballot Measure 

2 Federal Judicial Center 10/22/2023 

Judge Smith held a status conference on Tuesday, July 25.9 It was his 

practice in emergency cases to quickly assemble the parties for a conference 

and work toward stipulated facts.10 Three days later, the parties filed an 

agreed statement of facts.11 On August 7, a little more than two weeks after 

the case began, Judge Smith held a hearing,12 and on the following day he denied the plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief.13 “While it is probably true 

that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for at 

least one claim—perhaps even a substantial likelihood of success—this Court 

is not persuaded of the potential for irreparable harm to Plaintiffs if the referendum question appears on the ballot.”14 The constitutionality of the 

amendment could be tested after the election, and it might not even pass.15

In fact, the amendment failed.16 On November 13, the parties stipulated 

dismissal of the case.17

9. Docket Sheet, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC, No. 1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. July 21, 2006). 

10. Interview with Hon. William E. Smith, May 23, 2012. 

11. Agreed Statement of Facts, supra note 1, at 3; Transcript, supra note 8, at 83 (“I want 

to thank all counsel for . . . working together to develop a stipulation of facts that allows this 

case to be decided on an expedited basis”). 

12. Docket Sheet, supra note 9; Transcript, supra note 8. 

13. Opinion, supra note 1; see U.S. Court Keeps Casino Question on Nov. Ballot, Providence J. Bull., Aug. 9, 2006, at A1. 

14. Opinion, supra note 1, at 7. 

15. Id. at 8–9. 

16. See Scott Mayerowitz, No Question, Casino Rejected, Providence J. Bull., Nov. 8, 2006 

(reporting that the vote against the amendment was approximately 63%). 

17. Stipulation, Ajax Gaming Ventures, LLC v. Brown, No. 1:06-cv-336 (D.R.I. Aug. 8, 

2006), D.E. 31.