As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer, more constitutional lawyers suggest the referendum may be legally-binding and hold up in a court of law.

When City Council approved a May 15 referendum on whether to toss two state-licensed slots casinos off the Delaware River waterfront, city and state lawyers called it folly...

But now some of those experts, after reading arguments by anti-casino activists and revisiting the 2004 law legalizing slot parlors, say that it is not an open-and-shut case and that the law may allow the city to dictate where casinos are built.

"They've convinced me that local government has zoning power with regard to casinos - and I had thought not," said Bruce Ledewitz, professor of constitutional law at Duquesne University.

Paul Boni, outside attorney to Casino-Free Philadelphia, put together a 5-page legal brief describing the case. It was sent to press, City Council, the Mayor, and of course the PA Gaming Control Board.

(The legal brief is attached below.)

In short, we argue Act 71 explicitly had pre-emption of city zoning control taken out of the language -- deemed unconstitutional due to a lack of specific standards by Supreme Court; and since no standards have been added to Act 71, it still is unconstitutional to include pre-emption.

The actual motivation behind those who would seek to halt this referendum is not on the basis of any alleged illegality. Rather what is now laid bare is their fear of the shifting tide on public opinion about putting massive casinos in residential neighborhoods. This force is growing and government officials should recognize that fighting it is a political miscalculation.