[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Justices say 'nay' when general law gets specific

By HOWARD TROXLER

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 20, 2001


The term "shaggy dog story" refers to a long, drawn-out and somewhat pointless tale, usually for the purpose of delivering a really bad punch line. This is a shaggy-horse story. It was 11 years in the making, and the original point is now moot. Still, it is a useful reminder of the way things work.

The term "shaggy dog story" refers to a long, drawn-out and somewhat pointless tale, usually for the purpose of delivering a really bad punch line. This is a shaggy-horse story. It was 11 years in the making, and the original point is now moot. Still, it is a useful reminder of the way things work.

Eleven years ago, in the spring of 1990, our state Legislature did a big, sneaky favor for Ocala Breeders' Sales Co. Inc., which is an important institution of the horse country north of here, and well-known in the universe of horse racing.

The special favor done by the Legislature was to allow Ocala Breeders to launch off-track wagering. Patrons would be able to bet on races from horse tracks around the state and nation. Ocala Breeders became the only place in Florida, other than parimutuel sites such as dog and horse tracks and jai-alai frontons, where this was legal.

But the Legislature did not just pass a law saying, "We are doing a special favor for Ocala Breeders." That is not how things are done. Instead, the Legislature passed a "general law" saying that anybody in Florida could get the license if they met certain conditions:

. . . (A)ny quarter horse permit holder that has conducted at least 15 days of thoroughbred horse sales at a permanent sales facility for at least three consecutive years, and conducted at least one day of nonwagering thoroughbred racing with a purse structure of at least $250,000 per year for two consecutive years . . . shall be issued a license . . .

Do you get it? The law was written so that it would benefit only Ocala Breeders. The law went on to set out the rules for when there was more than one applicant. The net effect was that Ocala Breeders would always win.

This is an occasional trick of the Legislature. A "general law" is a law that applies to all Floridians equally. But it is really meant to cover a specific circumstance. My favorite example is a law that says a beer manufacturer can also be a beer vendor when its site promotes "the tourist industry of the state." The law goes on to say, "Such property may be divided by no more than one public street or highway." This is a puzzle until you realize it was written to cover Busch Gardens and Adventure Island in Tampa.

Yet there's a big difference between a general law that happens to cover one place for now, and a law that is deliberately rigged to benefit one company always. Somebody else could open a tourist attraction like Busch Gardens. But nobody could ever dislodge Ocala Breeders from its favored place in state law.

In 1995, a nearby parimutuel facility, Ocala Jai-Alai, sued Ocala Breeders, saying the favor written into state law was unconstitutional. A local judge agreed. So did the district appeals court. The case made its way to the Florida Supreme Court.

During the six years of the legal fight, the Legislature rewrote the law, and Ocala Breeders got a license under the new law. Ocala Jai-Alai filed a second lawsuit. Then something extraordinary happened -- Ocala Breeders bought out Ocala Jai-Alai. They were no longer competitors. Given all of these changes, the defense lawyers in the original case asked the courts to drop it.

But you know what happened? The courts refused. Just this past Thursday, more than 11 years after the favor was written into state law, and six years after the first lawsuit was filed, the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously. The original law was unconstitutional.

The net practical effect is zero. Ocala Breeders keeps its license under an unchallenged new law, and on top of that it owns Ocala Jai-Alai, its former opponent.

Yet we should be glad that the Supreme Court stuck it out. The Legislature violated the Constitution. It has done it since, and it undoubtedly will do it again. This ruling was important because sooner or later, a judge will use it as a precedent. He will be asked whether a new favor done by the Legislature is constitutional, and he will be able to answer with confidence, "Neigh."

Sorry about that.

- You can reach Howard Troxler at (727) 893-8505 or at troxler@sptimes.com.

© Copyright, St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.