Court asked to toss anti-gambling lawsuit

Mark Scolforo

Tuesday, Jan. 4, 2005 | 8:44 a.m.

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Leaders in the state Senate and the attorney general's office want the state Supreme Court to throw out a lawsuit that accuses the Legislature of having used unconstitutional methods in approving slot-machine gambling in July.

In separate but similar preliminary objections filed last week, the three defendants say a coalition led by Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund Inc. failed to establish that the law's passage violated rules concerning how bills must be captioned, amended or debated.

The PAGE Fund lawsuit filed last month draws heavily from a 2003 Supreme Court decision that forced lawmakers to revisit changes to the operating structure of the Pennsylvania Convention Center on the grounds that the bill addressed too wide a range of subjects.

Scranton attorney James F. Tierney IV, the lawyer for state Senate Democratic leader Robert J. Mellow, said Monday the shortcomings of the convention center law were not repeated in the gambling legislation.

"We think it's completely different because I think it's clear that all the issues that were in the amendment of the bill were all germane to the slots. There was nothing deceptive about it," said Tierney, whose eight-page set of preliminary objections was filed last Tuesday.

The analogy to the convention center law will be "the big battle" in the case, PAGE Fund lawyer Jim West said.

"This was really a stealth law," West said. "If you read the pleadings, what we're saying is the Legislators and the people who are their constituents didn't have the opportunity to read this law and understand it and consider it."

The suit names not only the Republican and Democratic Senate leaders and the state but also the Gaming Control Board, Gov. Ed Rendell and each party's leader in the state House.

The plaintiffs will have to persuade the high court to intervene in legislative workings, something it has been reluctant to do -- the convention center case notwithstanding.

"We have, if you'll look over the years, zealously defended the General Assembly's right to pass legislation in the mode that it believes is appropriate, constitutionally appropriate. And have been quite successful," said Linda J. Shorey, who represents Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer, R-Blair.

The gambling law legalized up to 61,000 slot machines at 14 locations to raise as much as $1 billion annually to cut property taxes. It also says constitutional challenges to the law must go directly to the state Supreme Court -- an unusual provision that makes it difficult for lawyers involved in the case to predict how the case will proceed.

"When you get to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, there's a lot of different possibilities," said Larry Hoyle, lawyer for the Gaming Control Board. Hoyle said he had not yet determined how best to respond, but defended the legislative procedure that created the board.

"To the extent that I've looked at it, we don't think the complaint's well-founded," Hoyle said.

Hoyle was hired by board chairman Tad Decker to defend the gambling commission against the PAGE Fund Inc. lawsuit and two others filed by Pittsburgh developer Charles Betters. Hoyle said Monday that terms of his firm's compensation have not been finalized.