Monday, March 7, 2005 | 9:22 a.m.
The lawsuit: Gambling opponents and good-government advocates claim that the procedures used to approve slot-machine legislation in July violate the state constitution. Supreme Court justices will hear arguments on it Wednesday in Pittsburgh.
At stake: The law authorizes 61,000 slot machines at up to 14 racetracks and other licensed facilities. Gov. Ed Rendell has promised that taxing the slots revenue would produce $1 billion to cut property taxes by an average of about $330 per homeowner.
The odds of success: Overturning legislation on procedural groundshistorically is an uphill battle.
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Before a single nickel is wagered, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court could uproot Pennsylvania's fledgling slot-machine law -- and with it $1 billion a year in tax cuts for homeowners.
On Wednesday justices of the state's highest court will hear arguments from gambling foes and good-government advocates who claim the procedural gymnastics used to shove the 145-page slots bill through the General Assembly last summer violate the state constitution.
If justices strike down the 8-month-old law, lawmakers would begin drafting legislation within days, many say. Gambling lobbyists would once again flock to the Capitol corridors. The fights that slowed the first legislation would flare up. And there would be more horse-trading for votes.
Supporters of the law, which allows for as many as 61,000 slot machines at seven racetracks, two resorts and five still-to-be-selected facilities, hope that replacing it would be a mere formality. Opponents hope enough lawmakers will have changed their minds to scuttle the plan.
"This would be a hole in the side of the ship, a gaping hole," said state Sen. Gibson Armstrong, a Lancaster County Republican who is one of 18 plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
State Sen. Robert M. Tomlinson, R-Bucks, a chief proponent of the legislation, said "the people that supported it believe in it and I think they'll believe in it and support it again."
Hanging in the balance are the slots-financed property-tax cuts that Gov. Ed Rendell promised during his 2002 election campaign and the investments already made by gambling companies and entrepreneurs expecting to profit from slots.
Of the plaintiffs' eight complaints, justices have asked lawyers to focus their arguments on two constitutional provisions that say a bill cannot be amended to change its original purpose and that legislation must address a single subject.
However, overturning legislation on procedural grounds historically is an uphill battle. Constitutional scholars and legislative lawyers say any violation must be egregious for the court to act.
"Unless it's really bad, it stands," said Stephen C. MacNett, counsel to the Senate Republicans.
The slots legislation emerged after more than two decades of unsuccessful efforts to cut property taxes and expand legalized gambling. Negotiators spent 18 months tweaking the deal and lining up the votes to pass it. Even now that the bill is law, progress in building the slots industry comes slowly.
The state Gaming Control Board is at least nine months away from issuing the first slots license, and the first slots parlor is not expected to open until sometime in 2006.
Most of the key negotiators on the bill, including the governor's office, say they have not made contingency plans for another bill because they are confident that the justices will uphold the law.
One who is worried is state Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, D-Philadelphia, who has alerted fellow Democrats, gambling companies and racetrack owners to prepare for another go-round.
If justices decide the bill's passage was unconstitutional, Fumo said he hopes they give lawmakers time to pass new legislation before the law is wiped off the books and the gaming board must stop working.
"It wouldn't be something that we didn't prepare for," Fumo said. "We're ready to roll."
Businesses and entrepreneurs say they are moving forward with their plans, although they are watching the legal battle closely and trying to protect themselves.
For instance, in January, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority of Connecticut shelled out $280 million for the Pocono Downs racetrack, which is virtually guaranteed a slots license.
The Mohegan's contract with the former owner, Penn National Gaming Corp., contains a clause that would void the sale if the slots law is struck down, although the tribe would not necessarily invoke it immediately, said Bobby Soper, Pocono Downs chief executive.
"We don't want to act hastily and prematurely without understanding all the facts and understanding how the Legislature and the state government would react," Soper said.
Horse breeders have expanded their herds to take advantage of the fatter racetrack purses that slots promise for Pennsylvania-bred horses, but some are holding off on buying more land.
Then there's the $1 billion in slots revenue that Rendell has promised in property-tax cuts.
Although the money -- an average tax cut of about $330 per household -- is not expected to begin flowing before 2007, the state's 501 school districts face a May 30 deadline for deciding whether to participate.
If the law is struck down, it would create more uncertainty for school districts that already complain that there are too many unknowns. Among other things, districts that agree to accept the gambling money would be subject to tough new restrictions on future property-tax increases.
The Pennsylvania School Boards Association is already weighing whether to sue the state over the early deadline. A Supreme Court strike at the slots law "would certainly heighten our interest" in a lawsuit, said association spokesman Scott Shewell.
archive
