Opinion No. (2011)
Background
- LB 256, as amended (AM1195), would allow a racetrack licensee to contract with another licensee to conduct all but one live race meeting and to forego live racing in certain counties, with intrastate and interstate simulcasting licenses possible.
- The amendment targets a Lancaster County facility by permitting a 15-year exemption to conduct no live races to obtain financing for a new facility.
- The question presented: whether such authorization complies with Neb. Const. art. III, § 24, which limits parimutuel wagering to licensees within a licensed racetrack enclosure.
- Stenberg line of cases holds parimutuel wagering must occur within a licensed racetrack enclosure; telewagering/offsite wagering violates art. III, § 24.
- The analysis concludes that LB 256 likely cannot be countenanced under art. III, § 24, as no live-racing facility may exist at the licensee location to constitute a valid enclosure.
- The opinion emphasizes the uncertain scope of “racetrack enclosure” and casts doubt on the 15-year live-racing exemption as unconstitutional
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LB 256, as amended, permit contracting for all live races while violating art. III, § 24? | LB 256 enables simulcasting without live races; constitution restricts wagering to licensed enclosures. | Legislature may define licensing and regulation within constitutional bounds. | Uncertain; court would likely view as unconstitutional under art. III, § 24. |
| Does a licensed racetrack enclosure require actual live racing at the facility? | Ambiguity in enclosure definition; may rely on the surrounding enclosed area. | Constitution requires wagering within an enclosed racetrack; enclosure must host racing. | LB 256 risks unconstitutional result; enclosure must truly be a racing venue. |
| Is the 15-year exemption for a Lancaster County facility compatible with constitutional limits? | Exemption addresses financing; facilitates constructing a compliant facility. | Exemption is a legislative accommodation; constitutional if reasonable. | Not justified by debate; likely unconstitutional or unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stenberg v. Douglas Racing Corp., 246 Neb. 901 (1994) (parimutuel wagering must be conducted within a licensed racetrack enclosure)
- State ex rel. Stenberg v. Omaha Exposition and Racing, Inc., 263 Neb. 991 (2002) (telephonic wagering outside enclosure violates art. III, § 24)
- MAPCO AmmoniaPipeline, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equal., 238 Neb. 565 (1991) (legislative definitions must be reasonable, not arbitrary)