FLORIDA GAMING v. Department, 71 So. 3d 226

2004 amendment to Florida Constitution Article X, §23 allows county-wide referendums on slot machines in certain parimutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward.
2005 statute § 551.101 and § 551.102 define eligible facilities and authorize slot machines in those counties.
2005 Broward County voters approved slot machines; Legislature enacted implementing legislation for regulation and taxation of slot revenues.
2009 Legislature amended the definition of 'eligible facility' to broaden to include facilities in additional counties with prior referenda, subject to conditions.
2010 July 1 amendment became effective; June 2010, appellants filed suit challenging constitutionality as conflicting with Article X, §23; trial court denied; appeals followed.
Trial court and First District concluded the 2009 amendment is constitutional and does not conflict with Article X, §23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 2009 amendment conflict with Article X, §23?	Appellants contend amendment narrows or conflicts with constitutional referendum limits.	Legislature may regulate gambling; amendment expands permissible facilities consistent with police powers.	No conflict; amendment constitutional.

Crist v. Ervin, 56 So. 3d 745 (Fla.2010) (de novo review; constitutional interpretation)
Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Fla. Horse Council, Inc., 464 So.2d 128 (Fla.1985) (legislature's broad police powers over gambling)
Browning v. Fla. Hometown Democracy, Inc., PAC, 29 So.3d 1053 (Fla.2010) (legislative powers and constitutional limitations framework)
Caribbean Conservation Corp. v. Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n, 838 So.2d 492 (Fla.2003) (interpretation of constitutional intent to fulfill people’s purpose)
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, 770 So.2d 1210 (Fla.2000) (presumption of constitutionality; burden on challengers)