ICYMI: Miami Herald editorial hopes voters have final authority to approve gambling in Florida – No Casinos

ICYMI: Miami Herald editorial hopes voters have final authority to approve gambling in Florida

Statement from No Casinos President John Sowinski on Supreme Court allowing No Casinos amicus brief to be heard
March 11, 2016
Guest column: N.J.’s casino saga should be a warning for Florida
April 15, 2016

ICYMI: Miami Herald editorial hopes voters have final authority to approve gambling in Florida

Screenshot 2015-02-27 10.58.17

Editorial: State’s gambling future up to courts

March 28, 2016

Since the Florida Legislature in its just concluded session failed to produce legislation addressing the future of gambling, lawmakers lost control of this years-long conundrum to the courts. And that could be a good thing.

But the collapse of negotiations addressing a compact with the Seminole Tribe and the interests of the state’s powerful pari-mutuel industry could haunt Florida.

This session, lawmakers could not come to grips with approving the 20-year compact with the tribe, negotiated by Gov. Rick Scott, and at the same time could not throw the declining pari-mutuel a lifeline in the form of slot machines and other concessions. The two issues were tightly intertwined.

The courts will now decide the big gaming questions in two lawsuits.

Gambling opponents favor this nonpolitical approach, confident the state Supreme Court will rule in one case that the Constitution prohibits legislators from expanding any game of chance without voter approval.

We favor handcuffing lawmakers in this manner, too.

Another possible outcome could unleash a historic expansion of slot machines statewide, the worst consequence of the legislative breakdown on finding solutions acceptable to all.

Should the state Supreme Court rule that Palm Beach and Gadsden counties could apply for permits to operate slot machines because local voters already approved them, the pari-mutuels will fight for the same right.

Furthermore, the court could also decide that the Legislature lacks the power to authorize slot machines outside Miami-Dade and Broward counties, which both won referendums in 2005, without statewide voter approval.

That would terminate lawmaker influence and only allow the Legislature to determine which locations could operate new games.

Currently, the Seminole Tribe enjoys a monopoly on gaming outside South Florida under a 2010 compact, paying the state $250 million annually in revenue-sharing for that right.

The tribe’s federal court lawsuit contends the state violated the exclusivity clause by allowing player-banked card games at Miami-Dade and Broward slots casinos.

Should the tribe prevail in its federal lawsuit, those payments would cease while the Seminoles could continue current operations. And all the work toward a new 20-year agreement would be dead.

That new compact gave the tribe additional games, but the pari-mutuels fought for concessions. Lawmakers could not reach an agreement before the session ended.

The wild card in all this centers on millennials’ disinterest in gambling and the overall future of slot machines.

The popularity of slots is withering, even in Las Vegas. Casinos are transitioning to other entertainment options that appeal to younger people.

This upcoming generation of 21- to 34-year-olds, who outnumber the baby boom population, grew up on the Internet and enjoys online games of skill, team competition games and fantasy sports.

The Seminole Tribe’s business model is shifting toward more restaurants, nightclubs and other entertainment, all preferred by millennials.

Since the Legislature relinquished control of the issue — in fact, depoliticizing it — we hope the courts decide that voters, not politicians, determine outcomes.


To read the editorial on the Miami Herald’s website click here


Leave a Reply