Appeals Court Weighs Slot Machines At Poarch Creek’s Gretna Horse Track

May 14, 2015

In a case that could have far-reaching implications, a lawyer argued before an appeals court Wednesday that the state erred in denying a slot-machine license to a controversial North Florida horse track that was the first in the nation to receive a pari-mutuel permit for rodeo-style barrel racing.

Right out of the gate, questions from 1st District Court of Appeal Judge Nikki Ann Clark seemed to indicate support for the position of Gretna Racing lawyer Marc Dunbar, who also owns an interest in the Gadsden County track, which is operated by Poarch Creek Indians of Atmore.

Arguments in the case centered on grammatical analyses of a 2009 law establishing eligibility for slot machines at pari-mutuels, an expansion of a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment that authorized slot machines at seven existing horse and dog tracks and jai-alai frontons in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. The 2009 change allowed a Hialeah track, which wasn’t operating at the time the amendment was approved, to also operate the lucrative one-armed bandits.

The 2009 law also expanded eligibility for slots to include facilities in “any other county … pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization after the effective date of this section in the respective county.” The law went into effect July 1, 2010.

Relying in part on an advisory opinion from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Business and Professional Regulation officials, who oversee non-tribal gambling in Florida, last year rejected Gretna Racing’s 2013 application for slot machines.

The Gretna facility was designed and built with the intention of eventually adding slot machines, which commissioners in Gadsden County — one of the poorest counties in the state — heartily endorsed. Voters there overwhelmingly approved a referendum in 2012 that would allow the Gretna track to add slots.

But the regulators and Bondi contended that Gretna needed specific permission from the Legislature — or a constitutional authorization — after the law went into effect in 2010 to be deemed a slots-eligible facility.

Dunbar said the simplest interpretation of the statute meant something else, and Clark interrupted him just moments into his opening remarks.

The statute “seems to allow a pari-mutuel facility, even not located in Broward or Miami-Dade, to (get a permit for) slot machines if there’s a referendum that passes. And then it seems that the county passed a referendum. What am I missing?” Clark asked.

“You’re missing the same thing I’m missing, which apparently is the word ‘enacted,’ which the attorney general has attempted to graft into the statute qualifying the referendum to a referendum that occurred via some statutory or constitutional entitlement that was enacted after the passage of the act,” Dunbar said. “You’ve hit the nail exactly on the head.”

But Jon Glogau, an attorney for the state, argued that the 2009 law established “a contingent approval for all the other counties, saying if you have a referendum and it passes, after we give you specific authority, to be exempt from the prohibitions.”

A decision in the case could open the door to slots at horse and dog tracks in other areas of Florida and could put an end to revenue sharing included in a $1 billion, 20-year deal with the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Seminoles would no longer have to share profits with the state if pari-mutuels outside Miami-Dade and Broward start operating slot machines.

Voters in five other counties — Brevard, Hamilton, Lee, Palm Beach and Washington — have given a thumbs-up to slots at local horse or dog tracks. Only tracks in Gadsden and Palm Beach counties, however, have applied for the slot machine licenses thus far.

Appeals-court Judge Scott Makar seemed alone Wednesday in questioning whether the Legislature had the authority to permit slots outside of the South Florida counties named in the 2004 amendment.

“I’m not convinced that there’s any authority to allow for slot machines anywhere other than Miami-Dade and Broward pursuant to referenda in those counties,” he said. “This is the first time we’ve had an opportunity to actually rule upon the issue of the constitutional authority of the Legislature to extend slot machines into any other county than those two.”

It could take the appellate court months to reach a decision.

The case is under consideration amid uncertainty about the future of a deal between the state and the Seminole Tribe. Lawmakers this spring failed to reauthorize or rewrite a deal giving the tribe exclusive rights to hold banked card games, such as blackjack, at five of its seven casinos. The deal is set to expire July 31. The possibility of slots at horse or dog tracks, or jai-alai frontons, throughout the state, could weaken the state’s bargaining position with the tribe.

“This case, if it’s a pressure cooker, maybe it turns the temperature up. If this court rules in our favor tomorrow, it materially changes the negotiating dynamics,” Dunbar said Wednesday

by Dara Kam, The News Service of Florida

Comments

One Response to “Appeals Court Weighs Slot Machines At Poarch Creek’s Gretna Horse Track”

  1. John Johnson on May 14th, 2015 9:12 am

    Why can’t Gretna do it? Is south Florida entitled to something NW FL is not? So what that it voids the Seminole tribe’s “donation” to the State. If more small counties were allowed to do it, then economic growth will follow and the State will have more money coming in from more casinos. Yeah, some folks will be against it, but it really is a new and different world we are in, today. Grandma & Grandpa will be upset, but I’m all for it.

    There are truly good people in Gretna.

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News