Former Florida state Senator Dan Gelber and other members of his Miami-based firm, Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., will provide legal representation at the Florida Supreme Court for the political committee Voters in Charge. The group has collected 73,800 petition signatures–enough to trigger a Supreme Court review of proposed ballot language in its Voter Control of Gaming in Florida measure, which would require a statewide vote to authorize casino-style games, including blackjack, craps and roulette. The measure also would remove the legislature’s ability to approve casinos; it would not cover tribal operations, which are regulated under federal law.
The Voters In Charge committee is supported by the Orlando-based anti-gambling group No Casinos Inc. and long-time casino opponent John Sowinski. As of April 30, Voters in Charge had received all of its funding from No Casinos Inc. The group wants to put the measure on the 2018 statewide ballot.
Gelber was Democratic leader when he served in the House and lost to Republican Pam Bondi when he ran for attorney general in 2010. He also has been general counsel to Fair Districts Now, the coalition behind constitutional amendments aimed at preventing gerrymandering in political redistricting.
According to the ballot summary, the Voter Control of Gambling amendment would “ensure that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling.”
Whether the amendment would help or hinder the state’s economy is still unclear. A summary of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference’s final report, recently delivered to Bondi and Secretary of State Ken Detzner, reads, “The primary uncertainty is whether the amendment’s effects will be prospective only or also retrospective. In this context, the term ‘prospective’ means that the casino gambling activities that have been authorized prior to the effective date of the amendment will not be affected. The term ‘retrospective’ means that casino gambling activities authorized at the time the amendment is adopted will have to cease unless they have been authorized pursuant to a citizens’ initiative.”
In other words, the economists weren’t sure if the proposed amendment only would prevent expanded gambling going forward, or if it also could stop some games currently offered in the state.
