AUGUSTA – A legislative committee on Wednesday unanimously lent its support to a bill that would restrict public access to some information the state gathers about those applying to operate slot machines in the state.

The Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, after removing a controversial section of the bill that would keep confidential applicants’ criminal and civil litigation histories, voted 11-0 to send the bill to the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee for review.

Rep. Pat Blanchette, a Bangor Democrat on the committee, said she was pleased with the panel’s strong support for the bill, LD 90, which advances plans for a $75 million racetrack casino at Bass Park, home to the Bangor Raceway.

“But I won’t have exactly what I want until there’s a ‘racino’ in Bangor,” added Blanchette, using the common moniker for a casino at a horse track.

The bill, submitted at the Maine Gambling Control Board’s request, would allow state gaming regulators to keep confidential sensitive personal and corporate information submitted by license applicants, including Penn National Gaming, Inc., the developer of the Bangor project.

Penn officials on Wednesday closely watched the nearly three-hour discussion of the bill, which they say is key to their plans to build the Bass Park complex.

Without assurance that such sensitive information will be protected, they have said they could not submit the rest of the information state gaming regulators need to complete the slots operator licensing process.

After the proceedings, Penn National executive Steven Snyder said he was satisfied with the bill’s contents and the committee’s unanimous support.

“I think this sends a strong message to the Legislature when they take this up in a floor vote,” Snyder said, repeating the company’s position that the removal of the exemption for criminal and civil litigation histories was “not an issue” for Penn.

Criminal and civil litigation histories are already considered public information under Maine law.

After the Judiciary Committee’s review, the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee could revisit parts of the bill if the judicial panel has suggestions to improve the language.