Consolidated With 2024-CA-0096 DONOVAN FREMIN, STAN GUIDROZ, WILLIAM EDWIN JUDSON, JR., LUKE LABRUZZO, JR., RAWLSTON PHILLIPS, III AND SALVADOR P. TANTILLO, III v. BOYD RACING, LLC, CHURCHILL DOWNS LOUISIANA HORSERACING COMPANY, LLC LOUISIANA DOWNS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC AND OLD EVANGELINE DOWNS, LLC
2024-CA-00995
La.Mar 21, 2025Background
- In 2021, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 437, legalizing historical horse racing without requiring advance voter approval in affected parishes.
- Historical horse racing uses machines similar to slot machines, allowing bets on anonymized, previously run horse races using pooled wagers.
- Plaintiffs (individuals and owners of gaming facilities) claimed Act 437 was unconstitutional, as the Louisiana Constitution requires voter approval before new forms of gaming can be introduced.
- Defendants (racetrack operators) argued Act 437 was a valid exercise of legislative authority, simply expanding existing pari-mutuel wagering to include a new technology.
- The district court declared Act 437 unconstitutional, finding historical horse racing is a new form of gaming requiring voter approval, and the defendants appealed directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether historical horse racing constituted a new form of gaming not authorized before October 15, 1996, thus requiring a local referendum under Article XII, §6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Challenge | Plaintiffs, as voters, have right to challenge denial of required local referendum on new gaming. | Only parishes, not voters, have standing to raise the claim. | Plaintiffs have standing as affected voters under the Constitution. |
| Nature of "Historical Horse Racing" | Not authorized before 1996 amendment, is functionally a new form of gaming, not mere pari-mutuel wagering. | Merely expands pari-mutuel wagering, an authorized form, using modern technology. | It is a new form of gaming; not authorized prior to 1996. |
| Legislative Authority vs. Constitutional Limitation | Cannot exercise plenary authority where Constitution expressly reserves power (voter approval) to people. | Legislature may define gambling, and its determinations merit deference. | Legislature must comply with Constitution; new gaming requires referendum. |
| Requirement of Voter Approval | Act 437 improperly allows new gaming without voter approval, violating Article XII, §6(C). | Act 437 does not trigger voter approval, as historical racing fits existing pari-mutuel category. | Act 437 unconstitutional absent parish approval by vote. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gandolfo v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 78 So. 2d 504 (La. 1954) (explaining scope and limits of race betting statutes)
- Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. State, 705 So. 2d 149 (La. 1997) (discussing statutory framework for horse racing and wagering in Louisiana)
- Broome v. Rials, 383 So. 3d 578 (La. 2024) (elaborating on requirements for standing in constitutional litigation)
- Polk v. Edwards, 626 So. 2d 1128 (La. 1993) (upholding broad legislative authority over gambling subject to constitutional limits)
- Casino Ass’n of Louisiana v. State ex rel. Foster, 820 So. 2d 494 (La. 2002) (reviewing historical policy and legal framework for gambling in Louisiana)