KEVIN O' HANLON / The Associated Press | Posted: Thursday, September 7, 2006 7:00 pm
The state Supreme Court heard arguments Friday to keep a measure to legalize casino gambling in Nebraska off the November ballot.
Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers ruled earlier that the casino petition does not violate the state constitution’s limit on submitting similar ballot proposals more than once in three years.
Nebraskans voted down two casino plans in November 2004 — one touted by Las Vegas casino interests and the other by the Legislature.
Even though the details of the new proposal differ from past ones, Secretary of State John Gale said the 2004 measure was essentially the same as the 2004 measures and said it could not be on the ballot.
The Committee for Better Schools and More Jobs in Nebraska Inc., sponsored this year’s package of three petitions that would allow one casino in each of the state’s three congressional districts.
It would earmark funds for K-12 education, horse racing and treatment of compulsive gamblers, plus create a board to regulate and license casinos in the state.
Committee leader Greg Lemon, who filed the lawsuit challenging Gale’s ruling, said this year’s proposal differs markedly from the 2004 proposals.
Lemon’s lawyer, Alan Pederson, noted that one of the 2004 proposals would have allowed two casinos in Omaha with 4,900 video poker and slot machines at other locations if approved locally.
A plan proposed by the Legislature would have allowed two casinos to locate in Nebraska, with details such as where and how the revenues would be distributed to be worked out later.
The casino measure is being pushed by Boyd Gaming Inc., which owns several casinos around the nation.
Key in the case will be how the high court interprets the constitutional language: “The same measure, either in form or in essential substance, shall not be submitted to the people by initiative petition, either affirmatively or negatively, more often than once in three years.”
Attorney General Jon Bruning’s office said Flowers misinterpreted and misapplied the resubmission clause, looking past the essential substance of the similar measures and focusing on specific clauses that differ.
“This difference in number and location of casinos … does nothing to alter the fact that the fundamental essence or purpose of the measure is the same — to permit casino gambling in Nebraska,” Bruning’s office argued in briefs submitted in the case.
Assistant Attorney General Dale Comer argued that that language was meant to prevent “evil and mischief” by people who simply tweak an initiative to make it sound different.
He said the constitution does not require “you to compare every single detail or every single piece” of two initiatives to see whether they are similar in nature.
The high court is expected to rule by Sept. 17.