The Florida Supreme Court’s term ended June 30, leaving unresolved a gambling issue that could have major impact throughout the state. The question is, can horseracing track install slot machines if local voters approve them; or, are slots only allowed if they’re approved by the legislature or a constitutional amendment. Currently, slots only are only permitted at casinos operated by the Seminole tribe and in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.
If the court sides with the owners of Gretna Racing in rural Gadsden County, which brought the lawsuit against the state, tracks in other parts of Florida most likely also would add casinos. Brevard, Hamilton, Lee, Palm Beach and Washington counties already voted to allow slots at their financially struggling horse and dog tracks and jai-alai frontons. However, a statewide gaming expansion also would end the Seminole Tribe’s annually payments of $120 million to the state under the gaming compact.
The court will resume issuing its regular weekly opinions on August 25. Meanwhile, the court announced it will hear arguments on November 2 regarding a proposed ballot initiative that could make expanded gambling more difficult in Florida. The proposal, Voter Control of Gambling in Florida, backed by the group No Casinos Inc., would require future statewide votes to authorize casino-style games including blackjack, craps and roulette. The proposal essentially would remove the legislature’s ability to approve casinos in the state, but would not affect tribal casinos, which are federally regulated.
Voters in Charge collected more than 10 percent of the 683,000 voter signatures required to place the measure on the 2018 ballot. That automatically led to the high court’s review of the ballot proposal.
If the justices approve the ballot language, amendment supporters then must collect 683,000 valid voter signatures by February 1, 2018, in order to put the measure on the general election ballot in November. If the proposal reaches the ballot, it will require the approval of at least 60 percent of the voters.
Gambling interests, including the Jacksonville Kennel Club, Melbourne Greyhound Park and West Flagler Associates, oppose the amendment, claiming it would have “significant ramifications” for existing dog tracks, casinos, arcades and other gaming activity. They also say the ballot title and summary are misleading.
Former state Senator Dan Gelber, Voters in Charge, stated in a court brief, “The ballot summary follows the amendment’s principle language nearly verbatim, so it fairly informs voters of the amendment’s chief purpose.”
