 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Justices hear debate over slot machines issue
© St. Petersburg Times, TALLAHASSEE -- A move to allow slot machines at horse and dog tracks across Florida is now in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court. Floridians for a Level Playing Field, a group led by parimutuel track owners suffering from declining revenues, is supporting a constitutional amendment that would allow voters in counties with parimutuel facilities to add slot machines. Opponents, under the leadership of Orlando Mayor Glenda Hood, have reactivated No Casinos Inc., a group founded by then-Gov. Reubin Askew in 1978 to fight casinos. The group has successfully opposed attempts to legalize casino gambling in 1978, 1986 and 1994. "Florida voters have consistently and overwhelmingly rejected casino-style gambling in Florida," Hood said after listening to lawyers who argued for and against the amendment during appearances Monday before the Supreme Court. "It's a social and an economic policy that is wrong for Florida," Hood said. Taking a cue from backers of a state lottery who helped sell voters with the promise of dollars for education in 1986, supporters of the new amendment are proposing that any taxes raised by the venture go to enhance senior citizen services, classroom construction, teacher salaries and other education programs. Attorney General Bob Butterworth opposes the petition. He has also questioned ballot language that advises voters that the issue is not subject to a 1996 constitutional amendment requiring any vote for new state taxes to win approval by a two-thirds majority. As lawyers argued Monday, several justices questioned whether voters should be warned that approval of the amendment would likely mean an expansion of all sorts of gambling on American Indian reservations in the state. Federal law allows Indians to expand their own gambling operations whenever a state has approved an expansion of legalized gambling. Such an expansion would be untaxed and unregulated by state authorities and could seriously cut into any tax revenue the state might expect to receive from gambling. "If the average person looked at the title and summary (of the ballot initiative), would they have any idea it would have impact on Indian gambling?" asked Justice Leander Shaw. "No," said Parker D. Thomson, a Miami attorney speaking in favor of the amendment. It would be inappropriate to require slot machine supporters to explain its impact on Indian gaming, he added. Opponents say the Indian gambling impact should be included since it could cause widespread proliferation of gambling in areas where no referendum is required. The ballot summary indicates that slot machines would be allowed "only" in counties with parimutuel facilities. "The issue is truthfulness," said No Casinos lawyer Tim McLendon. "Does it tell the truth of what this initiative will do? This will allow gambling on Indian reservations, not just slots." In reviewing the proposed amendment, the court must decide whether the ballot language clearly explains the measure and whether the amendment pertains to a single subject. The court will decide whether the initiative complies with state law and can go before voters in November 2002. Meanwhile supporters will have to collect more than 488,000 signatures from voters who support putting the issue on the ballot. Supporters collected more than 53,000 signatures to get the issue before the court for a legal review. Supporters have already raised more than $871,000 to finance the campaign while No Casinos reports raising about $32,000. Hood said opponents aren't concerned about the huge differences in money raised. "This has always been a David and Goliath thing," Hood said. "They've always had more money."
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times state desk
From the state wire
|
