Bryan Fischer
Idaho bets on imaginary horses
By Bryan Fischer
It's bad enough that Idaho allows gambling on real live ponies. Now the governor is leading the charge to let Gem Staters vote on horses that live and move only in cyberspace.
Gov. Butch Otter has approved a temporary rule change that will allow pari-mutuel betting on virtual horse races. Virtual racing involves computer-generated horses, jockeys, tracks and fans, although the money you put at risk will be quite real.
The only thing worse than losing your money on a nag is losing your money on a nag that doesn't even exist.
Further, there is apparently no effective regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that programmers aren't able to rig the results.
The Idaho State Racing Commission, with the governor's approval, has adopted the change and it is scheduled to go into effect Nov. 17.
This rule change, however, is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. It impermissibly expands gambling in Idaho, and should have been flatly rejected right out of the box by the governor.
Idaho's Constitution states unambiguously, in Article III, Section 20, that "gambling is contrary to public policy and is strictly prohibited," a prohibition for which there are just three exceptions: a state-run lottery, pari-mutuel betting on races involving real animals, and charity raffles and bingo games.
The Constitution is also quite clear that any expansion of gambling, including pari-mutuel betting, can only be done if explicitly authorized by the legislature: it must be, says the Constitution, "conducted in conformity with enabling legislation."
Quite simply, this means that neither the governor nor the racing commission has the legal authority to expand pari-mutuel gambling; it is something that only the legislature can do.
"Enabling legislation" passed by the legislature has extended pari-mutuel betting in years past to races involving dogs and mules (yes, Virginia, betting on mule races is legal in Idaho) and to simulcasting of real horse races run on real tracks in other parts of the country.
However, the legislature has never even taken up legislation, let alone passed anything, that would authorize cartoon racing.
An analysis done by Deputy Attorney General Michael Gilmore and released on July 7 concludes "that gambling on virtual horse racing is not authorized under existing Idaho statutes and Idaho Racing Commission Rules and thus would be illegal."
Idaho lawmakers are well aware of the damaging effects of gambling. It preys on human weakness, entices the poor to bet what they can't afford to lose, and is a lousy idea to start with — the house always wins in the end. Gambling is just a tax on people who aren't very good at math.
If gambling is bad, the only thing worse is more of it.
All of which is why Idaho's Constitution puts strict safeguards around gambling expansion in Idaho. Any expansion of gambling has to go through the legislature first, and this rule change ignores that completely.
Idaho's Constitution specifically prohibits casino gambling, but manufacturers of virtual racing systems are aiming for the casino crowd. Says one maker, "[Our system] resonates strongly with those who enjoy slot machines and other casino based games."
In other words, if you can't go to the casino, this is the next best thing.
This raises questions as to why the governor would ignore the expert opinion of his own Attorney General and participate in this end run around the Constitution, the law, the legislature, and the people of Idaho.
The rule change is also strongly opposed by Rep. Jim Clark, the chairman of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee.
In an August 4 letter to the Racing Commission, Clark said, "[I]t would be extremely inappropriate for this commission to make a public policy change of the magnitude envisioned by allowing pari-mutual [sic] gambling on non-live races such as these video animations."
As Rep. Clark says in his August 4 letter, "[I]t is poor policy for the Commission even to consider adopting rules which have been stated as an opinion of the office of the Attorney General to be of questionable legality."
In fact, the Speaker of the House, Lawerence Denney, and the House Majority Leader, Mike Moyle, have already sent letters to the Racing Commission opposing the temporary rule and pledging to oppose it next year if it goes into effect and comes before the legislature for review.
Said Speaker Denney in an August 7 letter to the Racing Commission, "[I]t is my intention that if a rule promulgated by the Horse Racing Commission authorizing pari-mutuel betting on something besides those live animal races currently allowed by law comes before the legislature for review, I will recommend it be rejected."
I just caught wind of this last week, long after the proposal was on the fast track and had already been adopted by the Commission, prior even to a public hearing on the matter.
The bottom line is that gambling on real horses creates a host of problems. The last thing Idaho needs is to make things worse by betting on imaginary horses.
© Bryan Fischer
It's bad enough that Idaho allows gambling on real live ponies. Now the governor is leading the charge to let Gem Staters vote on horses that live and move only in cyberspace.
Gov. Butch Otter has approved a temporary rule change that will allow pari-mutuel betting on virtual horse races. Virtual racing involves computer-generated horses, jockeys, tracks and fans, although the money you put at risk will be quite real.
The only thing worse than losing your money on a nag is losing your money on a nag that doesn't even exist.
Further, there is apparently no effective regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that programmers aren't able to rig the results.
The Idaho State Racing Commission, with the governor's approval, has adopted the change and it is scheduled to go into effect Nov. 17.
This rule change, however, is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. It impermissibly expands gambling in Idaho, and should have been flatly rejected right out of the box by the governor.
Idaho's Constitution states unambiguously, in Article III, Section 20, that "gambling is contrary to public policy and is strictly prohibited," a prohibition for which there are just three exceptions: a state-run lottery, pari-mutuel betting on races involving real animals, and charity raffles and bingo games.
The Constitution is also quite clear that any expansion of gambling, including pari-mutuel betting, can only be done if explicitly authorized by the legislature: it must be, says the Constitution, "conducted in conformity with enabling legislation."
Quite simply, this means that neither the governor nor the racing commission has the legal authority to expand pari-mutuel gambling; it is something that only the legislature can do.
"Enabling legislation" passed by the legislature has extended pari-mutuel betting in years past to races involving dogs and mules (yes, Virginia, betting on mule races is legal in Idaho) and to simulcasting of real horse races run on real tracks in other parts of the country.
However, the legislature has never even taken up legislation, let alone passed anything, that would authorize cartoon racing.
An analysis done by Deputy Attorney General Michael Gilmore and released on July 7 concludes "that gambling on virtual horse racing is not authorized under existing Idaho statutes and Idaho Racing Commission Rules and thus would be illegal."
Idaho lawmakers are well aware of the damaging effects of gambling. It preys on human weakness, entices the poor to bet what they can't afford to lose, and is a lousy idea to start with — the house always wins in the end. Gambling is just a tax on people who aren't very good at math.
If gambling is bad, the only thing worse is more of it.
All of which is why Idaho's Constitution puts strict safeguards around gambling expansion in Idaho. Any expansion of gambling has to go through the legislature first, and this rule change ignores that completely.
Idaho's Constitution specifically prohibits casino gambling, but manufacturers of virtual racing systems are aiming for the casino crowd. Says one maker, "[Our system] resonates strongly with those who enjoy slot machines and other casino based games."
In other words, if you can't go to the casino, this is the next best thing.
This raises questions as to why the governor would ignore the expert opinion of his own Attorney General and participate in this end run around the Constitution, the law, the legislature, and the people of Idaho.
The rule change is also strongly opposed by Rep. Jim Clark, the chairman of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee.
In an August 4 letter to the Racing Commission, Clark said, "[I]t would be extremely inappropriate for this commission to make a public policy change of the magnitude envisioned by allowing pari-mutual [sic] gambling on non-live races such as these video animations."
As Rep. Clark says in his August 4 letter, "[I]t is poor policy for the Commission even to consider adopting rules which have been stated as an opinion of the office of the Attorney General to be of questionable legality."
In fact, the Speaker of the House, Lawerence Denney, and the House Majority Leader, Mike Moyle, have already sent letters to the Racing Commission opposing the temporary rule and pledging to oppose it next year if it goes into effect and comes before the legislature for review.
Said Speaker Denney in an August 7 letter to the Racing Commission, "[I]t is my intention that if a rule promulgated by the Horse Racing Commission authorizing pari-mutuel betting on something besides those live animal races currently allowed by law comes before the legislature for review, I will recommend it be rejected."
I just caught wind of this last week, long after the proposal was on the fast track and had already been adopted by the Commission, prior even to a public hearing on the matter.
The bottom line is that gambling on real horses creates a host of problems. The last thing Idaho needs is to make things worse by betting on imaginary horses.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
