Casino news from http://www.journalstar.com/
With one question, a Nebraska Supreme Court justice erased any doubt a key decision on a plan to put up to three casinos in the state will be made soon.
“What’s the last date we can decide this?” Judge William Connolly asked during a court hearing Friday.
Attorneys for the state and those representing interests that want casinos in Nebraska argued whether the so-called three-casino plan should be allowed on the November ballot.
Sept. 17 was the answer Connolly got from Secretary of State John Gale’s office. That’s two days after Gale is to certify all issues and candidates for placement on the ballot; three days before before the first ballots are mailed off to military personnel.
The court’s suggestion a decision will be made soon decreases the chances that Gale would have to decide on his own whether to allow the plan on the ballot.
It also decreases chances a messy scenario plays out: that the issue be allowed on the ballot and passed by voters only to be nixed later by the high court.
Last month, Lancaster District Judge Karen Flowers overruled a decision by Gale that a plan to build possibly one casino in each congressional district was too similar to a plan on the ballot in 2004. The state constitution prohibits the same measure either in form or “essential substance” from going before voters more than once every three years.
Attorney General Jon Bruning appealed Flowers’ decision, which the high court is now considering.
“The fundamental nature of what was proposed in 2004 and what has been proposed now is the same,” Assistant Attorney General Dale Comer said during the hearing Friday.
Flowers said in her ruling last month the 2004 initiative “differs significantly in purpose, object and effect from the three-casino initiative.”
Unlike the current plan, the 2004 initiative, which was voted down, would have cleared the way for games of chance outside casinos, Flowers said in her ruling.
While she ruled that presenting the three-casino plan to voters is permissible, she said that the proposal on how casino revenues should be spent is too similar to a 2004 plan to be allowed on the ballot. It calls for revenues to be split among the state’s schools, the racing commission, gaming control board and a fund that helps treat compulsive gamblers.
Connolly said Flowers’ decisions on the two matters seemed inconsistent.
Attorney Alan Peterson, who argued for allowing the main three-casino plan on the ballot, agreed and said the high court should reverse Flowers’ decision on funding.
“We feel strongly the judge just got off on the wrong track on that,” Peterson said.
|
|
World Casino Directory 
Gambling Forums 
