Nebraska gambling promoters try to save initiative

Kevin O'Hanlon

Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2002 | 9:24 a.m.

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Organizers of an effort to legalize video slot machines in Nebraska have launched a two-pronged legal attack to get the issue on the Nov. 5 ballot.

Lancaster County District Judge Paul Merritt Jr. ruled Monday that the petition initiative cannot appear on the ballot because it violates a 1998 constitutional amendment limiting initiatives to one subject.

Attorneys for the initiative's backers, the Committee for Local Control, have asked Merritt to put his ruling on hold so they can proceed with an appeal.

They requested a so-called "supersedeas bond," which would require them to post a bond set by the judge while the issue is appealed.

"If the bond is granted ... the secretary of state would be able to place the issue on the ballot while the appeal works its way through the system," attorney John Boehm said.

Merritt is expected to rule on the request Thursday.

Meanwhile, the group has appealed Merritt's decision to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which has not said whether it would hear the case.

If that request is granted, the case likely would be removed to the state Supreme Court.

The state's ballot must be certified Friday and counties must print their absentee ballots by Sept. 30, Secretary of State John Gale said.

If a judge orders the initiative to appear on ballots after the absentee ballots are printed, Gales said, it would be "a significant defect" in the election since the question would not be on all ballots statewide.

The initiative's backers had submitted 178,000 petition signatures, far more than the 109,000 needed, to get it on the ballot.

In his ruling, Merritt said components of the initiative -- which include prohibiting the Legislature from authorizing any form of competing gambling and requiring that at least 7 percent of the net proceeds be used for charitable grants -- violated the state's one-subject rule for initiatives.

The requirements have "no natural or necessary connection with each other and/or with the general subject of gambling," Merritt wrote.

Proponents argued that the initiative was one cohesive package that would authorize expanded gaming, specify its regulation and distribution of the money raised.

Steve Grasz, an attorney for Gambling with the Good Life, a group that opposes the petition and helped bring the lawsuit, said Merritt made the correct ruling.

"It contains myriad provisions," he said. "For one thing, it states on the petition that up to 43 percent of the net proceeds can go to tuition credits."

The initiative would change the state's constitution to allow video slot machines in bars, restaurants, race tracks and keno parlors, and in designated video slot parlors located within 20 miles of any community in a neighboring state that already has video gambling.