MAINTAIN A NARROW APPROACH TO CHANGING CONSTITUTION

It looks like the Missouri General Assembly is acting promptly in addressing its legal problems with riverboat gambling legislation. Good. In this case, the will of a majority of Missourians (who have spoken to the gambling issue) is being carried out in the aftermath of a badly designed law and an unfavorable court ruling. Doing this work, the legislature should keep its eye on the ball and its task simple. Lawmakers must not weigh down the new measure with provisions that stray from the intent of the original. They should do nothing other than correct the mistake.

On Tuesday, the Missouri House passed legislation legalizing some riverboat games questioned by the state Supreme Court, a mere seven days after the high court declared portions of the gambling law at odds with the Missouri Constitution. The House effort reflected a unity of purpose: the vote was 113-44. The Senate Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on the matter Wednesday, with debate on the legislation expected on the Senate floor today. The legislation should be ready for the governor's signature in short order, then directed to secretary of state's office before Monday's 5 p.m. deadline for inclusion on the April 5 ballot. That is, unless snags develop.

The potential snags are worrisome. While Sen. Harry Wiggins, who chairs the Senate Ways and Means panel, promised to send to voters "the narrowest possible bill," House Speaker Bob Griffin has said he would like the amendment to include a provision for extending riverboat gambling opportunities to the Lake of the Ozarks, something not addressed in the original legislation. Such a stipulation this time would, in effect, hold voters around the state hostage to this very parochial matter. Such an approach puts Speaker Griffin in conflict with many of his party colleagues, who prefer a plain-language approach that will satisfy the constitutional questions. The House may have already acted, but the speaker's influence may yet be felt. Our preference -- and it's not really that since we're removed from the issue -- would be for the legislature to take care of the business at hand (getting the basic law corrected) and then take up the Lake of the Ozarks question later in the session.

Opponents of riverboat gambling in Missouri might see the court ruling as an opportunity to again derail the development plans along the state's two major rivers. We believe in the popular vote, and if these opponents can rally the forces to beat the April issue, more power to them. (It is interesting that in the last 16 years, Missouri voters have addressed gambling issues seven times -- bingo, lottery, parimutuel wagering, among others. Only one issue was defeated, a technical change in 1988 that would loosen the rules governing bingo.) Our hope is this is decided at the ballot box, not through some legislative antics.

This seems a rather clear-cut issue. A mistake was made in writing legislation, the Supreme Court caught the mistake and voters, whose intent seems clear to allow riverboat gambling, should be plainly asked to make the corrections. Let's not convolute the issue. The House has sent forward a clean amendment. The Senate should follow suit. Let's get the matter on the April ballot so that the design of Missouri citizens is fulfilled.