Gretna Racing, LLC v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation
178 So. 3d 15
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Florida historically prohibited lotteries and slot machines; limited permissive periods in the 1930s were repealed and slot machines were largely illegal until a 2004 constitutional amendment allowed countywide referenda in Miami‑Dade and Broward only.
- The Legislature enacted Chapter 551 (2005) to implement the 2004 amendment, authorizing slot machines for pari‑mutuel facilities in Miami‑Dade and Broward conditioned on county referenda.
- In 2009 the Legislature amended the definition of “eligible facility” in section 551.102(4) to add two clauses: one expanding eligible Miami‑Dade facilities and a third clause referencing facilities in “any other county in which a majority of voters have approved slot machines … in a countywide referendum held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization after the effective date of this section.”
- Gretna Racing (Gadsden County) relied on a countywide non‑binding “voter sentiment” vote under §125.01(1)(y) (January 31, 2012) and applied for a slot machine license; the Department denied the application and the denial was upheld by the administrative hearing officer and affirmed by the court.
- The court’s central questions: (1) whether the 2009 amendment authorized county referenda outside Miami‑Dade and Broward without additional statutory or constitutional action after the section’s effective date; and (2) whether Gadsden’s vote qualified as a binding “referendum” under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009 third clause of §551.102(4) authorizes counties beyond Miami‑Dade/Broward to hold slot‑machine referenda without additional statutory/constitutional authorization after the section’s effective date | The clause permits county referenda under existing local authority; the phrase “after the effective date” modifies when the referendum is held, not when authorization must be enacted | The phrase modifies “statutory or constitutional authorization,” so additional authorization enacted after the effective date is required; the statute does not itself authorize statewide referenda | Court adopted Department’s reading: Legislature did not intend immediate statewide expansion via local referendum; additional statutory or constitutional authorization after the effective date is required |
| Whether Gadsden County’s §125.01(1)(y) “voter sentiment” election constitutes a lawful, binding “referendum” under §551.104(2) / §551.102(4) | The county’s statutory vote sufficed as the required referendum and therefore Gretna is an eligible facility | §125.01(1)(y) authorizes a non‑binding straw sentiment ballot, not a binding referendum; a binding referendum must be provided “as provided by law” (legislative authorization) | Court held the Gadsden election was non‑binding sentiment poll, not a statutory referendum meeting §551.102/551.104 requirements; therefore no license entitlement |
| Whether the Department must defer to its administrative interpretation / AG opinion that additional authorization is required | Gretna argued the Department’s contrary earlier licensing for Hialeah and other actions support a different reading | Department relied on Attorney General Op. 2012‑01 and canons favoring strict construction of exceptions to gambling prohibitions; agency interpretation entitled to great weight | Court found the Department’s interpretation reasonable and persuasive and consistent with statutory construction principles; upheld denial |
| Whether court must resolve broader constitutional question whether Legislature can expand slot machines beyond Article X, §23 counties | Gretna urged legislative power to expand by statute coupled with referenda | Department and court noted unresolved Florida Supreme Court precedent (Greater Loretta vs later advisory opinion) and declined to decide the constitutional authority question here | Court certified the constitutional question of legislative authority for supreme court review but resolved case on statutory/administrative grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. City of Miami, 163 So. 486 (Fla. 1935) (early decision addressing whether certain gambling machines constituted lotteries)
- Greater Loretta Imp. Ass'n v. State ex rel. Boone, 284 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1970) (held slot machines are a form of lottery exempt only if grandfathered—construed to limit legislative authority)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Authorizes Miami‑Dade & Broward Cnty. Voters To Approve Slot Machines in Parimutuel Facilities, 880 So.2d 522 (Fla. 2004) (Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion approving limited slots amendment)
- Fla. Gaming Ctrs., Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation, 71 So.3d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (upheld amendments permitting expansion of eligible facilities within Miami‑Dade)
- Fla. House of Reps. v. Crist, 999 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2008) (recognized slot machines illegal outside Miami‑Dade and Broward under Florida law)
- Holzendorf v. Bell, 606 So.2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (referendum power exercised only "as provided by law," i.e., by statute)