Florida Gaming Centers, Inc. v. Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation
Docket: Nos. 1D10-6780, 1D11-0130
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 6, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., Florida Gaming, West Flagler Associates, Ltd., and Calder Race Course Inc. appeal final judgments favoring the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and South Florida Racing Association, LLC. They argue that the 2009 amendment to section 551.102(4) of the Florida Statutes, which broadened the entities permitted to conduct slot machine gaming, is unconstitutional as it allegedly conflicts with Article X, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. This constitutional provision allows for slot machine gaming in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties only if approved by a county-wide referendum. The trial court upheld the amendment's constitutionality, leading to the appeal.
Article X, section 23 was approved by Florida voters on November 2, 2004, allowing local governing bodies to hold referendums on slot machine authorization at licensed pari-mutuel facilities that had conducted live racing or games in the two years preceding the amendment. If the referendum passes, slot machines are authorized; if it fails, the question cannot be presented again for at least two years. The Legislature was mandated to adopt implementing legislation by the next regular session following voter approval.
In 2005, Broward County voters approved slot machines, and the Legislature enacted chapter 551, defining “eligible facility” per the constitutional amendment. Miami-Dade County voters similarly approved slot machines in 2008. The 2009 amendment expanded the definition of "eligible facility" to include additional licensed pari-mutuel facilities that had met specific conditions, such as conducting live racing for two consecutive years prior to applying for a slot machine license and obtaining majority voter approval in subsequent referendums.
The amendment became effective on July 1, 2010. In June 2010, Appellants, holders of pari-mutuel wagering permits in Miami-Dade County, filed a lawsuit against Appellees for a declaratory judgment claiming the amendment was unconstitutional as it conflicted with Article X, section 23, which they argued limited slot machine gaming in Florida. The trial court consolidated the cases, allowed the Florida Pinball and Amusement Association to intervene, and subsequently denied Appellants' motion for summary judgment while granting a cross-motion by South Florida Racing, concluding the amendment was constitutional. The court found that Article X, section 23 did not limit the Legislature’s authority to regulate gambling. Statutory constitutionality is reviewed de novo, with all statutes presumed constitutional, placing the burden of proof on challengers. The court interpreted Article X, section 23 to fulfill the public intent and rejected Appellants’ claims regarding limitations on slot machine gaming. The Legislature retains broad regulatory powers over gambling, and Article X, section 23 only restricts the prohibition of slot machines in certain facilities in specified counties. The court found no evidence suggesting that voters intended to permanently restrict the Legislature's authority to expand slot machine gaming beyond these facilities or to grant a monopoly to certain entities. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion that the amendment is constitutional and does not conflict with Article X, section 23 was affirmed.
