It's impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision the Florida Supreme Court will make after it hears arguments this week on whether Gretna Racing in rural Gadsden County can offer slot machines.
The issue is this: Will slot machines require the express permission of the Legislature, even if local voters give slots the go-ahead in referendums?
A ruling in favor of slots at Gretna would make a mockery of the angst over letting in one or two destination resort casinos in South Florida. Why? Because it likely would open the floodgates for pari-mutuel-turned-gaming emporiums throughout the state -- and in the process, forever change the complexion of Florida and the lifestyle of the people who live here.
The law the supremes will look at consists of three clauses, including one that deals with counties like Gadsden outside of Broward and Miami-Dade. State regulators denied the Gretna track a slot license, arguing the Department of Business and Professional Regulation was "not authorized to issue a slot machine license to a pari-mutuel facility in a county which … holds a countywide referendum to approve such machines, absent a statutory or constitutional provision enacted after July 1, 2010, authorizing such a referendum."
See my April 4, 2016 column and timeline here.
The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering knew as early as 2011 there was something unclean about Gretna's request for "pari-mutuel barrel racing" to be licensed as the functional equivalent of Quarter Horse racing.
Gadsden commissioners, sold a bill of goods that slots would somehow create jobs, eagerly approved a referendum before Gretna Racing had even held its first pari-mutuel barrel race. The city manager was even part of the Gretna Racing infrastructure. Days later, Hamilton County took a similar vote -- also based on "pari-mutuel barrel racing" held at nearby Hamilton Jai Alai and Poker.
Gretna immediately applied for its slot license.
In rapid succession, counties across Florida began to exercise their options, afraid of getting shut out should the ability to have slot machines actually come into play. Little did they know that two of the part owners of the Poarch Creek Indians' Gadsden facility, attorneys David Romanik and Marc Dunbar, were traversing the state, telling permit holders they needed to "activate" their permits using the fake racing scheme, so as not to get shut out if legislation was filed that would shut down "dormant" permit holders in favor of destination casinos.
Even as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to halt the madness with a Jan. 13, 2012 non-binding opinion that said counties could not allow slot machines without legislative authorization, Gadsden County thumbed its nose at her and held the Jan. 31, 2012 slot vote anyway.
Attorneys and lobbyists don't want to go on the record predicting what the high court will do this week. But as many as half a dozen have told me privately they see a court dominated by liberal justices more apt to rule in favor of the will of local people.
In other words, the supremes would be saying, if slots are what a county wants, slots it should have.
That would give statewide voters no say in the matter; and it would give the Legislature, under pressure from casino interests to "decouple" live racing from other pari-mutuel interests, an "out" from enormous contention and accusations their PACs accepted "influence" donations (which, frankly, they did). Preserving horse racing in Florida had not a single champion in the 2016 Legislature.
As one attorney told me, "Lawmakers are going to be able to say, 'Don't blame us, we didn't expand gambling in Florida, the court did.'"
If Gretna wins, another 5 counties with pari-mutuels and positive community votes are waiting in the wings to decouple and add slots.
It doesn't end there. The court also could give other pari-mutuels a time limit, say 60 days, to decide whether to turn their licenses into slot gold, too. "I guarantee you," one source told me, "you're going to have another 15-30 pari-mutuels and cities working fast to get their piece of the action" if the court rules for Gretna.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case at 9 a.m. Tuesday.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. @NancyLBSmith
