In the spring of 2015, state lawmakers passed a bill authorizing the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes to pursue a site for a small- to medium-size casino that could protect Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun from a potentially lethal competitor about to sprout in Massachusetts.

The measure was the first step in a two-part process meant to culminate in Connecticut’s first commercial gaming facility. Critics derided it as “kicking the can down the road.”

Now, with the Jan. 4 start of the General Assembly’s 2017 session approaching, might the can be about to stop rolling? Might the legislature act on Part Two: a bill legalizing commercial, state-regulated gaming?

Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano, for one, doesn’t think so.

“I don’t fully appreciate the newsworthiness of a third casino, when, in actuality, according to the attorney general, we shouldn’t do it,” Fasano, of North Haven, said last week. He called the 2015 legislation “a ridiculous, stupid bill” that has fostered “false hopes.”

“That’s why I was against it,” he said.

Fasano said Attorney General George Jepsen’s April 15, 2015, letter to legislative leaders, which cited “uncertain legal questions” surrounding state authorization of a casino outside tribal lands, still defines the issue. Jepsen wrote that such authorization could violate the state’s gaming agreements with the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans, jeopardizing the state’s 25-percent share of slot-machine revenues.

“He’s advised strongly against a casino off reservation,” Fasano said. “Being a lawyer, I know a client needs to respect the advice he gets.”

Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said he expects a proposal to come forward during the upcoming session — provided the tribes have settled on a casino site.

“We can’t act until we hear back from the tribes,” he said.

Duff chided opponents of a third casino. 

“I find it interesting that Republicans are out there talking about jobs, and this has implications for jobs,” he said. “These are good, middle-income jobs that pay health benefits, retirement benefits, that pay for kids to go to college and that keep roofs over people’s heads.”

The debate largely has been framed as an economic one. It’s estimated that MGM Springfield, the $950 million resort casino being built in Massachusetts, will divert thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars a year away from Connecticut when it opens in late 2018.

Duff said Democrats “wouldn’t do anything to put the compact (gaming agreements) in harm’s way.”

Since mid-October, the partnership formed by the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans — MMCT Venture — has been vetting responses to its second request for proposals. Sites in East Hartford, East Windsor, Hartford, South Windsor and Windsor Locks are in the running.

The process is well behind schedule. Originally, the tribes had intended to have a casino site selected in time for the legislature to act on a bill during its 2016 session. Opening a Hartford-area facility ahead of MGM Springfield’s debut was said to be of the utmost importance. But the prospect of that happening seems to be growing remote.

Last week, developers pitching the East Hartford proposal — perhaps the most aggressive of the candidates, at least publicly — called on the tribes to consider seeking legislative approval for a “temporary” casino that could prevent MGM from gaining a foothold in the Greater Hartford market. Silver Lane Partners, which controls a former Showcase Cinemas property along Interstate 84, envisions such a facility operating for up to two years — long enough to get a permanent one built.

The tribes did not respond to the suggestion.

In a phone interview, Bobby Soper, president and chief executive officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, said the tribes have been proceeding apace with their consideration of the site proposals. During an authority conference call last week with investors and gaming industry analysts, the only mention of the third-casino effort came when an analyst brought it up near the end of the call.

“This process includes a significant amount of due diligence,” Soper said. “We took a step back to open it up to more proposals, and we’ve been assessing those. Our goal remains the same: During the next legislative session, we intend to have a site selected and presented to the legislature. We want to give the legislature enough time to consider it. This is going to be good for Connecticut no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. It’s about preserving jobs and revenue. We don’t think it’s a Democratic thing or a Republican thing.”

Election affects support

In general, the notion of a third casino has been popular with more Democrats than Republicans.

The Senate passed the 2015 bill authorizing tribes to form a joint venture in a 20-16 vote. Eighteen of the 21 Democratic senators supported it, including Andrew Maynard of Stonington and Cathy Osten of Sprague. Only two of the 15 Republican senators voted in favor, both from southeastern Connecticut: Paul Formica of East Lyme and Art Linares of Westbrook.

In the House, the vote in favor of the bill was 88-55. Seventy-three of the 83 Democrats who voted supported it. Only 15 of the 60 Republicans who voted backed it. Seven of the 11 representatives from southeastern Connecticut districts voted for it. The four opposed were Democrat Diana Urban of North Stonington and Republicans Devin Carney of Westbrook and Aundre Bumgardner and John Scott, both of Groton.

Overall, Republicans gained ground on Election Day, picking up three Senate seats to pull into an 18-18 tie with Democrats in that chamber and gaining eight House seats to narrow the Democrats’ advantage there to 79-72. In southeastern Connecticut, Republican Heather Somers won Maynard’s open Senate seat, while in the House, Democrats Christine Conley and Joe de la Cruz ousted Scott and Bumgardner, respectively. Newcomers Chris Soto, a Democrat, and Holly Cheeseman, a Republican, also won House seats. Both replaced Democrats.

In the upcoming session, the local delegation’s four senators appear to be third-casino backers, based on their election campaign statements. Osten, whose 19th District includes Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, is the delegation’s most ardent advocate of a third casino. She said last week that she expects a bill legalizing commercial gaming to come up as soon as the tribes have chosen a casino site. She said she will support such a bill. 

Urban, whose 43rd District borders the Mashantuckets’ reservation, also affirmed her position on a third casino, vowing to be vocal in opposing legislation allowing one.

“I approach it from being chair of the Committee on Children and as an economist,” she said. “Gambling is not something I want to see expanded.”

Urban said that while a third casino might initially harm Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, “resources eventually will reallocate to restore equilibrium.” A third casino, she said, will not preserve all the jobs and revenue that the existing casinos provide.

“My position is that we have two casinos that are working on product development — they’ve got golf courses, music and everything else, and they’re doing more all the time. That’s a good thing," Urban said. "I don’t think adding a casino is growing the economy. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that doesn’t make economic sense. We should be thinking about what we can do to help Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun partner with the Seaport and the aquarium to make this area a real destination.”

Support from the newly elected

Both Conley and de la Cruz, the newly elected Groton representatives who displaced third-casino opponents, said they would support a bill legalizing commercial gaming in the state.

“We all should be supporting it,” Conley said.

De la Cruz deferred to the tribes, saying that if they’ve determined they need a third casino to protect their existing businesses, the region should get behind them.

“I wish we only needed two,” he said.

Legislative action isn’t the only thing affecting the fate of a third Connecticut casino. Litigation also promises to be a factor.

MGM Resorts sued state officials over the 2015 bill soon after Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed it into law. MGM claimed the law is unconstitutional because it granted the tribes the exclusive right to pursue a third Connecticut casino. MGM said it was “ready, willing, and able” to compete for a casino in the state. Connecticut argued that nothing in the law prohibited MGM or any other entity from pursuing casino site proposals.

In June, a federal judge granted the state’s motion to dismiss the suit, prompting MGM to appeal. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to take place Monday in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.

If the General Assembly does vote to legalize commercial gaming, paving the way for a third casino, more litigation is likely to ensue. On that, both sides agree.

b.hallenbeck@theday.com