Lottery lawsuit to go another round
This news release just in from the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law:
Raleigh, N.C. The North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law (NCICL) filed a brief today with the State Supreme Court in an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the passage of the Lottery Act.In its brief, NCICL argues that the Lottery Act is a revenue bill. The State Constitution requires that revenue bills satisfy certain procedural safeguards in order to be valid. The General Assembly did not follow those safeguards when it passed the Lottery Act in 2005. The State is expected to file its brief in June.
In a split decision released last March, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Ann Marie Calabria wrote a powerful dissenting opinion in which she concluded that the Lottery Act is a revenue bill which was not passed in accordance with constitutional mandates specific to revenue bills. Explaining why she would have ruled in favor of NCICL’s lawsuit, Judge Calabria wrote: “Constitutionally-mandated procedures are a concern of the highest order, and they may not be estopped by a hurry to sell lottery tickets.”
“While the intent of the legislature may have been noble,” said Jeanette Doran, Senior Staff Attorney at NCICL, “good intentions do not trump the constitution. The General Assembly does not get a free pass to ignore inconvenient constitutional mandates just because legislators might mean well.”
NCICL filed the lawsuit on behalf of six plaintiffs: Charles Heatherly; Thomas Spampinato; W. Edward Goodall, Jr.; Paul Stam; Wake County Taxpayers Association; and the North Carolina Family Policy Council. The North Carolina Justice Center represented additional parties who joined the lawsuit including North Carolina Fair Share, the North Carolina Common Sense Foundation and an individual, Willis Williams.
For those who don't remember, there are a couple things are at issue here: is the lottery equivalent to a tax and did the House and Senate follow the Constitution when passing the lottery bill? I'd add in this: Will any court willingly wade into the fray and tell the legislative branch of government how to go about it's business? The answer, so far, has been no.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Is the Lottery Act a revenue bill? I can't speak to the legal issues, but supporters of the lottery certainly characterize it as a revenue bill, at least indirectly.
The logic is circular. We're told that a lottery ticket is a product and lottery gamblers are consumers. Okay, fair enough. But then why have we granted the state a monopoly? State lotteries pay a much smaller percentage of revenues to winners than do private-sector gaming businesses like casinos. The state monopoly on lottery tickets is bad for consumers, who'd be better served if private businesses could join the fun.
Wait a minute, say lottery supporters: The lottery is different because its proceeds help fund public education. Okay, fair enough. I support public education. So if the lottery funds public programs, it's a tax, right? But if it's a tax, it's a problematic one, as it falls primarily on poorer citizens.
Wait another minute, say lottery supporters: No one forces people to buy lottery tickets; they do it of their own volition. And once again, we're back at our logical starting point, with a lottery ticket being a product in which the state has legislated a monopoly for itself... but also sort of a tax. And around and around we go.
Product or tax? It's very hard to get lottery supporters to stick to one characterization or the other. But at least part of the time, they characterize it as a tax, and that implies (at least to this non-attorney) that the Lottery Act is at least partly a revenue bill.
Posted on May 19, 2008 6:13 PM
Andy, that's a brilliant analysis. I don't recall that argument being raised in just that way in the case so far. Maybe the Supreme Court will borrow your reasoning.
By the way, I predict that the Supreme Court will overturn the Court of Appeals and rule that the lottery bill was a revenue bill and therefore was enacted improperly.
Posted on May 20, 2008 12:09 PM
Thanks, Doug. Actually, something like this did appear once before in the N&R:
https://web.uncg.edu/bae/documents/cber/article1CjCxi1VRQ.pdf
Posted on May 20, 2008 5:11 PM
Hmmm, let's try an html tag for that link: Brod's 2000 N&R column on the lottery.
Posted on May 20, 2008 5:16 PM
Thanks for the link, Andy. I missed that back in 2000 and enjoyed reading it this morning.
Maybe we should start re-running your old columns ...
Posted on May 21, 2008 9:26 AM