Several legal issues are being debated in various courtrooms regarding gambling in Florida. Recently a group called Floridians for Clarity in Gaming Control asked the state Supreme Court to allow at a future hearing the group’s argument against a constitutional amendment that would “ensure that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling,” according to the ballot summary.
The request was filed by attorney and lobbyist Marc Dunbar, whose brief stated the group consists of “registered voters in Seminole County, Florida, arcade operators, members of Native American tribes, casino and lottery vendors and parimutuel permit holders” who all are concerned about the proposed Voter Control of Gambling amendment, which would appear on the 2018 statewide ballot and require 60 percent approval.
Dunbar’s name may sound familiar, since he presented opening arguments on June 6 before the high court in regard to Gretna Racing LLC vs. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
Miami attorney Dan Gelber also filed a request with the court—however, it’s in support of Voters in Charge, the group that’s promoting the amendment.
Proposed amendments to the Constitution must be OK’d by the Supreme Court to ensure they cover only one subject and that their ballot title and summary aren’t misleading.
Meanwhile, earlier this month the Seminole Tribe and Governor Rick Scott, and the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed motions for summary judgment in federal court. The Seminoles have asked a judge to declare they still can offer banked card games, including blackjack, at their casinos for 15 more years. The exclusive arrangement was included in the original 20-year compact between the tribe and former Governor Charlie Crist in 2010. The tribe also asked the court to order the state to return to the negotiating table and alleges the state did not negotiate in good faith. The state has asked the judge to rule against the tribe’s allegation.
