The odds that New Jerseyans will get to decide next year whether to expand casino gambling to the northern part of the state appear to have gotten longer.
TRENTON -- The odds that New Jerseyans will get to decide next year whether to expand casino gambling to the northern part of the state appear to have gotten longer.
Leaders in both houses of the state Legislature have been pushing competing resolutions to place a question on next November's ballot asking voters whether to amend the state constitution to allow two casinos to be built in north Jersey. Currently, the constitution allows casino gambling only in Atlantic City.
But both the state Senate and state Assembly need to agree on a single proposal to put before voters. And though the houses seemed to inch closer to a compromise Monday, they remained divided on key elements when the day ended.
That means lawmakers are unlikely to have a uniform plan as a crucial procedural deadline arrives Tuesday -- which could prevent the issue from ever making it to the ballot next year.
North Jersey casino plans advance despite fears it will 'kill' Atlantic City
Both Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson) stood by their respective measures Monday.
"The Speaker and Assembly moved a bill the Senate should support," said Tom Hester Jr., a spokesman for Prieto. "The speaker has no plan to post the Senate bill."
Sweeney, south Jersey's top lawmaker, told reporters Monday that navigating the issue has been difficult as he tries to do what's best for the state as a whole, while also refusing to sacrifice Atlantic City.
The goal of north Jersey casinos would be to keep the Garden State competitive as Atlantic City's market continues to shrink amid the ever-increasing number of gambling halls that have popped up in neighboring states. But some fear the expansion could destroy Atlantic City, which has seen four casinos close and more than 10,000 jobs lost over the last two years.
"This is directly in my backyard," said Sweeney, a likely candidate for governor in 2017. "No one feels it harder than I do. And no one had fought harder to help Atlantic City than I have. If I wasn't the Senate president, gaming would already be taking place in northern New Jersey."
The Legislature has two ways to put a question on the ballot: Both houses must pass the resolution by a simple majority in two consecutive legislative years or by a three-fifths super majority in one legislative year.
To achieve the former, the Senate and Assembly would have to agree on a compromise plan by Tuesday because the resolution would have to sit on lawmakers desk for 20 days before a vote and the legislative calendar ends Jan. 12.
But since it appears unlikely Sweeney and Prieto will reach a last-minute deal by the end of the day, lawmakers are now left with three options:
* The Senate can agree to the Assembly version and vote on that by Jan. 12.
* The Assembly can agree to the Senate version and vote on that by the same date.
* Both houses could still reach a compromise by the summer and approve the deal with a one-off vote.
Still, all three scenarios are questionable. A similar vote last year on a north Jersey casino resolution failed to achieve a super-majority.
If none of the three happen, the next time lawmakers could vote to place casino expansion on the ballot would be 2017.
The battle is essentially a standoff between the north and south factions of the Legislature.
Though it's unclear where the new casinos would be located in north Jersey, both plans call for the gambling halls to be located at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. Lawmakers said the locations would be decided through later legislation.
But Assemblyman Christopher Brown (R-Atlantic) said during a public hearing Monday that studies show Atlantic City could lose two or three more casinos and 14,000 more jobs if gambling halls open in the north.
"There's not all the sudden thousands of people who say, 'I've never tried gambling. Let me start,'" Brown said. "It's not a growth market. ... You're taking from other people's shares of the market."
Proponents of the Assembly plan have said the Senate version gives too much to Atlantic City, while proponents of the Senate plan argue that the Assembly version doesn't help the struggling city enough.
Lawmakers remained stuck on two points Monday: Who would be allowed to build the casinos and how much tax revenue from the new gambling halls would be dedicated to help Atlantic City recover.
The Senate version (SCR185) requires that both of the new gambling halls be owned by companies that already have licenses in Atlantic City as a way to make sure the north and south operations are connected. The Assembly version (ACR2) requires that of only one of the owners.
Both houses made last-minute amendments to their resolutions Monday. The Senate required that a company receiving a license for one of the new casinos must compile it within a certain time frame -- an apparent effort to keep Atlantic City casino owners from dragging out the process.
Meanwhile, the Assembly adjusted its formula to give a larger share of the tax revenue to help Atlantic City.
But neither change was enough to reconcile the plans.
Brent Johnson may be reached at bjohnson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @johnsb01. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.