Strickland’s slots plan reviewed by high court

Blog: 2nd lawsuit to be filed against slots plan

Frozen yogurt shop offers frenzy of flavors, toppings
5:58 p.m.
Wright-Patterson relatively unscathed in Obama defense budget
4:55 p.m.
Dayton Mall shoe store moving
4:32 p.m.
Cracker Barrel manager accused of embezzling $2K
3:38 p.m.
Is your “unlimited” data being throttled?
2:32 p.m.
> More headlines

By Laura A. Bischoff, Staff Writer Updated 10:55 PM Wednesday, September 2, 2009

COLUMBUS — Uncertainty is hanging over Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to raise $933 million for K-12 education through slot machines as track owners complain about the proposed rules and a conservative group wages a legal fight to put the entire plan up to a vote of the people.

This week, horse track owners asked Ohio Lottery officials to change the rules so that each track gets at least 2,500 slot machines, the cost of regulating the VLTs is born by the state, and the application and payment time line allows for potential disruption caused by litigation or a referendum.

The tracks are supposed to make their first payments on the $65 million per track licensing fee on Sept. 15.

On Wednesday, Sept. 2, the seven-member Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in the LetOhioVote.org versus Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner lawsuit. LetOhioVote wants to put the slots plan up for a referendum vote in November 2010 but lawmakers installed a provision in the law that says the VLT plan is not subject to referendum because it appropriates money.

Generally, under the Ohio Constitution, appropriations bills are not subject to referenda because groups could use referendums to wreak financial chaos on the daily operations of state government.

Michael Carvin, attorney for LetOhioVote, said just because the state calls it an appropriation doesn’t make it so and controversial public policy changes, such as expanding gambling, should be subject to referendum.

The state could charge license fees for dog fighting, call it an appropriation, and create a loophole that takes away the people’s right to vote on such a controversial policy, Carvin argued.

State Solicitor General Benjamin Mizer told the court that the VLT law is clearly an appropriation because the money it raises is earmarked for K-12 funding.

Justice Judith Lanzinger questioned why the state would approve slot machines when voters said no to them in November 2006.

“Here it appears to be somewhat of an end run around the people,” she said.

Mizer responded that slot machines run by private entities are different than slot machines run by the state lottery, which voters have already approved.

LetOhioVote spokesman Carlo LoParo said he expects a court decision by mid-September.

Contact this reporter at (614)224-1624 or lbischoff@DaytonDailyNews.com.

Share this article