http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...s_provisi.html

This isn't exactly a poker story, but I have been following it very closely because it concerns online gaming - or rather it used to - and the federal government.

In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which put a federal ban on sportsbetting everywhere except a few states where it was already licensed/practiced.

New Jersey state Senator Ray Lesniak has dedicated himself to the passage of a bill which would legalize sportsbetting in the state. The reform has already met with statewide approval via referendum, and now awaits final approval by the state legislature before being signed by Governor Chris Christie. Both are expected to happen.

(The bill in its original form would have allowed online sportsbetting as well, but Lesniak has just done away with that provision in order to maximize the bill's chances when it reaches Christie, who was not a fan to begin with, but said he would get with the reform if the people voted in favor of it.)

Now comes the part which interests me the most. Even once the bill gets signed into "law" by Christie, New Jersey still can't enable sportsbetting, because PASPA will still be standing in the way, and federal law prevails. So the state of New Jersey will have to sue the federal government and litigate the constitutionality of PASPA. NJ already tried this last year, without Christie's backing, and a federal judge said that no such lawsuit would be considered without the governor's support, so the case was thrown out of court. The situation is different this time around, with Christie expected to back the bill - and subsequent lawsuit.

What kind of chances do you give this? Supposing the lawsuit were successful this time around... Would PASPA's applicability be reversed only for New Jersey, or would it mean a nationwide repeal? Also, what kind of precedent would this establish for challenging other federal laws, like the UIGEA? I am hoping for the opinion of someone with a greater legal/political understanding of these issues, who famously beats his keyboard like a tambourine.

This would be a good thread for the Poker Legislation forum.

I think it's also a fine thread for this forum. Look forward to replying more tomorrow.

The AC casinos have previously come out against legalization to allow sports betting, fearing that race tracks and other facilities in north Jersey would become competition. But as the competition from casinos in neighboring states continues to erode their market share, maybe they see having Vegas-style sportsbooks as a way to differentiate themselves from those casinos and win back market share. I imagine the AC casinos have now decided this is a positive for them because I don't see Christie backing something that would be seen as harmful to AC at this point.

I'm not sure if this is accurate.

When PASPA was passed, states had a 1 year window to pass sports betting legislation in order to be grandfathered in. NJ had a referendum on it, and the AC casinos lobbied hard to get it in.

OTOH, AC casinos are very much against the tracks offering poker or any other form of gaming. They have already lost the Philly crowd to Parx, and their southern customers can now play in DE - they can't afford to deal with the competition in the north. (Sad - poker @ the Meadowlands would be super convenient for me.)

The legal issues here are sort of mind-boggling, but my initial reaction without researching the issue at all is that the federal government likely has a pretty strong defense and it's going to come down to more politics than actual litigation.

The rest of this is just my quick opinion without looking into the issue at all:

It seems to be clearly an interstate commerce clause issue, and given the broad authority Congress has to regulate interstate commerce, it's pretty easy to see how one can make the minimum connection necessary of sports betting to interstate commerce. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

However, atm I can't think of another issue where Congress has proscribed an activity on behalf of the states while grandfathering several of them in at the same time. Can anyone think of anything? I feel like there's probably some pretty obvious examples, but none come to mind right now. Does that change any of the legal arguments? I have no clue lol.

There's also obviously the issue of the Tenth Amendment, but the Court is fairly clear that Congress' Commerce Clause power is widespread. Dormant Commerce clause wouldn't apply to the existing states offering gambling because Congress already spoke on the issue, ticking off one of the exceptions there.

Edit - I'm sure there's a variety of other legal theories/approaches NJ will take, and I'm curious to see what they are. Perhaps something in the original statute or other laws Congress has passed where they see an out. The above is just a general approach to one or two of the very basic constitutional issues.

And I am sure that it is accurate. See this article from about 18 months ago.

Here's a quote from the president of the association of AC's 11 casinos excerpted from the article:

And a google search today shows that now the AC casinos support the legislation. So I was correct on their prior stance, and it also turns out that my conjecture that the casinos must now be in favor of it also turned out to be correct.

Fascinating story. The voters approved a referendum 2-1 in support of this bill. When the voters speak all of a sudden the NJ Republican Governor and the NJ Democrat-controlled legislature decide to work together.

Interesting lesson here.

I think it comes down to who gets to take the sport bets.

• If it is basically restricted to casinos and racetracks - casinos say YES.
• If they can taken online by non casino/race tracks - casinos say NO.

It is really that simple. Now that the online component of the bill has been dropped, the casinos will be all for it. As they were in 1992 when there was no online to worry about.

Now, if they get the other bill through where the casinos get to operate their casino games + poker online, you might see them change their tune on online sports betting, especially after they establish their market. Then online sports betting will be an addition rather than a subtraction to their business.

Yes, but as Karack as already pointed out, their "lawsuit" against the Federal government is going to be a hard case to win outright.

How would sports betting be considered "interstate commerce"? Is it because people are betting on what happens in another state? There is no money or product crossing state lines. It just seems to me like the federal government overstepping its powers.

NFL & NCAA pushed for PASPA (and of course, were a big part of the force behind UIGEA). They want their products protected from the possibility of a betting scandal.

Just another example of big bucks controlling the puppets in government.

I don't see how NJ can win. They're going to need to come up with some type of novel / unique argument, because I don't see them winning on commerce clause grounds, especially with gambling being involved, given the current composition of the Court.

The DOJ agreed, IIRC.

Also, if the feds have the power to say that states can't have certain bets, then do they have the power to proclaim what bets a state must have? If not, why not?

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D9RNM0680.htm

A poll was taken by Fairleigh Dickinson University (an NJ-based institution) about how Americans nationwide feel about legalizing sportsbetting. The results are split: 42% are in favor of it, another 42% oppose it. (I presume 16% are undecided or abstained, and 2% butterscotch ripple.)

This may seem disheartening at first (one could infer that half the nation is opposed to liberalized gambling in general), but the results should be viewed as somewhat encouraging when compared to the same poll's results from March of 2010: back then, 53% of those polled were in opposition, and 39% in favor.

As the article explains, age was a determining factor. "Voters under 45 favor the idea, while older voters generally oppose it." The poll's director also remarked how support is trending upward.

What I would take from this is that, although the remnants of previous generations' conservatism may be lingering, the future generation(s) will establish more progressivism. A good sign.