The Florida Supreme Court recently announced it will determine if slot machines may be allowed at Gretna Racing in Gadsden County without the permission of the legislature. The case could have a far-reaching impact on gambling across the state.
In May a court ruled that slot machines were allowed at the track because Gadsden County voters approved them. Then in October, a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that slot machines could not be installed at the track without the authorization of the legislature, siding with state Attorney General Pam Bondi and Governor Rick Scott’s administration which sought a rehearing of the case.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will impact gambling operations in Gadsden as well as in Brevard, Hamilton, Lee, Palm Beach and Washington counties where voters also have approved referendums to allow slots at local parimutuels. State regulators have denied applications for slots in four counties. The Palm Beach Kennel Club has an appeal pending and tracks in Lee and Brevard counties also are expected to appeal.
In addition, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of slots at Gretna would have an effect on the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s gaming compact which gave it exclusive rights to operate slots outside of parimutuels in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. The tribe pays the state about $120 million annually under the 20-year agreement.
Gretna Racing attorneys now have until December 21 to file initial briefs. The state must file its response within 20 days, and then Gretna will have another 20 days to respond. The Supreme Court will schedule oral arguments separately.
Attorney Phil Padovano, who retired from the 1st District Court of Appeal earlier this year, said, “I would have been surprised if the Supreme Court had denied it. But the decision to accept review basically just says that they think there’s a serious enough question there to be investigated and to be decided in the Supreme Court.”
Owned by the Poarch Creek Indians and some investors, the Gretna racetrack was granted the nation’s first parimutuel license for rodeo-style barrel racing. Later a court determined the regulators were wrong to award the license. The case focuses on language included in a 2009 law that took effect in 2010 and expanded on a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment authorizing slot machines at seven existing horse and dog racetracks and jai-alai frontons in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.
Last year state regulators denied the Gretna racetrack a slots license, stating the Department of Business and Professional Regulation was “not authorized to issue a slot machine license to a parimutuel facility in a county which holds a countywide referendum to approve such machines, absent a statutory or constitutional provision enacted after July 1, 2010, authorizing such a referendum.” Gretna attorneys argued the statute does not include the word “enacted,” and other counties do not need prior authorization from the legislature to get the requisite voter approval for slots.
Attorney Marc Dunbar, one of the Gretna racetrack owners, said, “We are obviously pleased and are looking forward to discussing the rules of English grammar and stare decisis with the Supreme Court soon.”
Lobbyist Wilbur Brewton, whose clients include Calder Race Course, noted, “It’s going to be really interesting if the Supremes rule that you could have referendums throughout the state. But if they do, then that’s where we’ll go.”
