News-Record.com

The North Carolina Piedmont Triad's top go-to source for News
A service of the News & Record, Greensboro, North Carolina

Home

Capital Beat

« Well... | Main | Hanna is coming to town »

Lottery case before Supreme Court next week

The Decision 2008 blog and related election work has been keeping me hopping lately, but the wheels of government continue to turn here in Raleigh.

Some of those wheels can be found at the North Carolina Supreme Court, which has the lawsuit seeking to end the lottery on its docket for Monday.

The case was brought by the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law, a conservative legal think tank based in Raleigh, on behalf of several plaintiffs, including Rep. Paul Stam, the Republican minority leader in the House.

Click here for the institute's document library on the case, which includes filings from both sides.

The lawsuit doesn't allege that North Carolina can't have a lottery. Rather, it makes the case that the lottery is tax and a pledge of the full faith and credit of the taxpayers, and therefore needed to be passed as a "revenue bill," essentially requiring votes on two separate days in each chamber of the legislature.

For those who care to get in the way-back machine and head back to the 2005, the North Carolina legislature was a bit more rough and tumble than it is today. Rep. Jim Black, a Democrat now doing time in the federal pokey following conviction on corruption charges, was Speaker of the House. It passed the House on a 61-59 vote and was confirmed on a voice vote, rather than being voted on two separate days.

Months later, the Senate approved the bill after being deadlocked over the measure. Here's what I wrote at the time:

RALEIGH - North Carolina is about to join the lottery club thanks to a hastily called legislative session and a rare tie-breaking vote cast by the lieutenant governor.

Supporters of the game sounded more relieved than elated that Tar Heels would relinquish their status as the only state on the East Coast without a government-run game.

"I'm glad we passed it," said Sen. Katie Dorsett, a Democrat from Greensboro. "I wanted it to end. If people all around us are having the lottery , we might as well bring that money to our state."

[snip]

The House approved the lottery legislation in April, after which the issue cast a shadow over the Senate. As other business chugged through the chamber, speculation about lottery prospects and how it might come to pass has consumed staff members, lobbyists and senators themselves.

A coalition of five Democrats and all 21 Republican senators had blocked the bill.

Last week, that coalition held and Senate leaders sent their colleagues home and promised no more votes for the year.

But Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, a Dare County Democrat, reversed that decision late Friday, recalling all 50 senators to meet this week.

Two lottery opponents - both Republicans - could not make the session Tuesday. Sen. Harry Brown of Jacksonville is on his honeymoon; Sen. John Garwood from Wilkes County was too ill to attend.

Neither took advantage of a Senate rule that would allow their votes to be counted in their absence. Although some lottery opponents complained leaders didn't give proper notice of the session or ample opportunity for Brown and Garwood to record their wishes, Basnight and Berger said that was not the case.

The two opponents' absences left the measure deadlocked at 24-24.

Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, a Democrat, cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the lottery . It was the first time since 1996 that a North Carolina lieutenant governor had played such a role in the Senate.

Lottery opponents still grumble about the way the Senate vote went down. So far, the courts haven’t sided with lottery opponents, but the Supreme Court oral arguments should be fascinating anyway.

Courts generally seem reluctant to tell other branches of government how to carry out their business, mindful of the separation of powers. But the Supreme Court took the case, so you have to figure there is some chance they'd rule against the lottery. Such a ruling would put official Raleigh in a tizzy, if for no other reason that outlawing the thing would throw the budget completely out of whack - not to mention all those lottery players who would be holding lottery tickets of dubious value.

Comments (1)

To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.

Gerry said:

Mark, you say " But the Supreme Court took the case, so you have to figure there is some chance they'd rule against the lottery. "

However, since the Court of Appeals decision was 2-1, the plaintiffs had a right to have their case heard on appeal by the Supreme Court

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_7A/GS_7A-30.html

Explore This Blog

My latest updates from Twitter

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search

Search

Channels
Font Size
Tools
Question, Comment or Suggestion? Please contact us.

News & Record and NRinteractive

200 E. Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401 (336) 373-7000 (800) 553-6880
1813 N. Main Street, High Point, NC 27262 (336) 883-4422
203 E. Harris Place, Eden, NC 27288 (336) 627-1781
4213 S. Church Street, Burlington, NC 27215 (336) 449-7064

Copyright (C) 2008 News & Record and Landmark Communications, Inc.