The Idaho Supreme Court last week heard arguments from both sides in a case over whether a law banning instant horse racing should become law.
Two years ago such a law was passed and then vetoed by Governor Butch Otter. However the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, which brought the suit, and which seeks the ban, argues that Otter did not follow the correct timetable for transmitting his veto to the legislature, and that the law became the law.
The legislature had previously approved of the historical racing machines for use in racetracks. However, the tribe, and subsequently many lawmakers, felt that the machines looked and functioned too much like slot machines, which the gaming tribes have a monopoly on.
So the legislature voted to ban the machines. Otter vetoed the bill.
They are currently operating at three racetracks in the state.
According to the tribe’s attorney, the constitution is clear that if the veto is transmitted to the legislature after a five-day period it is invalid.
Because of the confusion the secretary of state declined to certify the bill as law, which opened the way for the tribe’s lawsuit.
According to the tribe’s attorney, “The Secretary of State has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to certify laws that have been enacted and to place them on the books.”
However the state’s attorney argues, “He doesn’t have the unilateral power to declare what is a law and what isn’t a law. The Secretary of State takes his direction from someone else.”
During the course of the questioning of the litigants by the justices, Justice Daniel Eismann and Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane got into an argument of sorts, during which both men raised their voices and interrupted each other.
Kane asserted that in spite of the fact that the veto was actually transmitted after the five-day deadline that the Senate’s journal said that it was sent within the deadline.
. “The journal has to be respected as the product of the Senate. And if the Senate says this is what we did in our proceedings, that has to be accepted,” said Kane.
The Justice wasn’t buying that. He repeatedly tried to get Kane to say whether the veto was actually transmitted according to statute.
Eismann accused Kane of evading answering his question.
Kane replied, “It’s not that I’m not answering the question, I don’t know the answer to that question. This court doesn’t know the answer to that question.” He noted that the secretary of state was sued, not the Senate.
According to the tribe, if the deadline for submitting a veto is not followed, then the limit has no meaning.
An attorney for one of the racetracks told the justices that the tribe does not have standing to bring the case because it cannot show that it will be injured if the ban is not enacted.
Idaho law forbids almost all forms of gambling, except the lottery, tribal gaming and parimutuel betting at racetracks.
The court will issue an opinion in the next few months.
