Video Lottery slots before the Supreme Court…
I recommend reading both the Blade and the Dispatch. If you really want more detail you can actually watch the arguments.
One of the basic points against LetOhioVote is appropriations are not subject to referendum…If you watch the video, as I did this morning it did not appear that the Justices were very supportive of the arguments made by LetOhioVote.org attorney Michael A. Carvin. The general impression from the questions/answers appeared to be that the anything that the State decided was not gambling, wasn’t gambling and that this could have been done under the current law without needing more legislation. The question is the legislation appropriation or not an appropriation is the basic question since it was repeated several times by the Justices that appropriations are not subject to referendum. The opposition argument that this was not a tax but a licensing scheme that is supposed to be left up to Ohio voters.
There has been some attention in the media on the affidavit of state Sen. Bill Seitz Associated Press and Blade as two examples, where Seitz states he was told by Tom Brinkman of LetOhioVote that Brinkman was told by the group’s attorney, David Langdon, that Penn National would be paying for the lawsuit and any referendum. Penn National has denied this, it was reported in the Blade today:
The court did not immediately issue a ruling.
But it did decide yesterday to reject the state’s attempt to enter into evidence a last-minute affidavit accusing Raceway Park owner Penn National Gaming of financing the effort to rid itself of competition for proposed casinos that would be the subject of the separate Issue 3 on the Nov. 3, 2009, ballot. Penn has denied the allegation.
I’m assuming that’s the Seitz affidavit. It should also be noted that the Ohio Roundtable,which is also opposed to the video slots terminals at racetracks is going to file suit against the State today as well.
Daniel Jack Williamson:
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I’m not too happy with the tone set by oral arguments. The people of Ohio could have their rights seriously eroded if the case is decided against LetOhioVote.org. The slots proposal, I believe, is not the prerogative of the lottery commission to authorize under the Ohio Constitution, alone, unsupported by accompanying legislation, which is why the Governor sought to have the authorization written into legislation, which is exactly what the legislature did when they wrote HB1. Furthermore, the appropriations in HB1, which are the expenditures of the state, are in effect for the current biennium, which lasts for 2 years only. The slots proposal is a revenue mechanism, not an expenditure, and part of the evidence of this is that enacting the slots proposal would be a permanent change of the law, not a 2-year change of the law. The state argued that though this proposal raises revenue, it expends that revenue in the same breath, thus making it an appropriation, thereby making it exempt from referendum.
This is the part that’s worrisome. If the court decides in the state’s favor, the precedent then gives the legislature a blueprint for seizing money from the people of Ohio in any way, shape, or form it chooses and the people of Ohio would not have the power of referendum to block it. The legislature would only have to expend the money at the same time that they raise the revenue to make it immune from referendum. This would be an unprecedented expansion of the powers of state government, and would seriously make the opening words of our nation’s Constitution, “We the People,” ring hollow.
In his rebuttal, attorney Carvin, made clear the damage that could be done if the court rules against LetOhioVote.org. Beginning at the 51-minute, 30-second mark of the video clip, Carvin said:
“. . . the legislature makes two decisions: How do we get money in here? And, what do we spend it on? What we spend it on is an entirely different decision, involving entirely different public policy issues than how we raise money, which is why we always have debates from health care, on, about how we’re going to get this money and how we’re going to regulate. If you collapse the two, then I suggest there’s hardly anything that they couldn’t immunize from referendum.”