[mtneer1212]

This was an article in ustrotting.com that brings up a rather pessimistic legal view of the chances of legalized sports betting in NJ. A lot of good arguments here.........

Sports Betting via Civil Disobedience? Governor, You Must Be Kidding!
Monday, June 4, 2012 - by Chris Wittstruck

Chris Wittstruck

The history of our nation is checkered with instances where disobedience of law was employed to achieve a much-needed result.

Consider that the United States itself was formed via a dramatic, violent insurrection that was completely unlawful. While defeat would have meant annihilation of the colonists, the alternative course, doing nothing, would have kept them subserviently under the thumb of Mother England without rights or recourse. The War of Independence was both necessary and a dangerous last resort.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus, she was in complete violation of a local ordinance. Yet, her act of civil disobedience was in furtherance of the cause of human dignity. Without Parks’ step, there would have been no Montgomery Bus Boycott, and arguably no timely impetus for change in segregation laws throughout the south.

Last month, a sitting New York state judge openly admitted to illegally smoking marihuana to alleviate the side-effects of his pancreatic cancer treatments. While his disobedience is for personal benefit, it assuredly could have been kept quite private. His public pronouncement is calculated to further the goal of securing a medical marijuana law to benefit the broad populace.

While some might liken draft card burning in the 1960s with the above items, it’s hard to in any way characterize in the same vein that decade’s publicized tossing of girdles and brassieres into a trashcan on the Atlantic City boardwalk. Opposing points of view notwithstanding, the draft was a serious issue. It would be acutely demeaning to equate instances of “defiance” in pursuit of undergarment parity with the harsh sacrifices made by those who challenged authority in order to achieve freedom from tyranny, racial integration and the like.

Now, however, from the same state that brought us the oft-misnomered ‘bra burning’ protest comes a plan for civil disobedience of an even sillier sort. Last month, standing on the same boardwalk as the woman’s liberation movement 40-plus years earlier, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced that he would openly defy the federal law that bans wagering on professional and collegiate sports. The Christie administration intends to implement regulations that will facilitate the state’s casino gambling industry and racetracks to operate sports wagering pools before year’s end, setting up a desired confrontation with the Obama Justice Department.

This column detailed the sports betting issue late last year when a referendum was about to be put to New Jersey voters. (Click Here):
http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolu...5555&zoneid=29

In short, the The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) was passed to ensure integrity in sports contests by banning sanctioned betting on their outcomes. Then-New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, a basketball Hall of Fame legend, knew the evils sports wagering presented. Instead of heeding the cries of those that thought legal wagering would foster oversight and deter organized crime influence and profits, Bradley pushed for a total ban and stricter enforcement of anti-bookmaking laws.

While four states with existing sports wagering laws were exempted, New Jersey was specifically excluded from the exemption, with the caveat that Atlantic City could qualify for exemption from the law if it authorized sports wagering within one-year of PASPA’s passage. Because of the influence of Bradley and others, they never did, and the federal ban renders sports wagering in the Garden State completely illegal.

Based upon the ban, Governor Christie refused to join a lawsuit brought by New Jersey legislators and gaming advocates seeking to overturn it. His decision proved fatal to the case, as the federal judge assigned found the state to be a necessary party to the action and dismissed it in 2011.

That was before a nonbinding November referendum gave voter approval to sports betting in the state by a near 2-1 margin. Emboldened by its popularity, Christie signed a sports gaming bill into law in January. Now, as a more-than-hinted possible G.O.P. candidate for vice president, the Governor isn’t bringing a second lawsuit; rather, he’s threatening the Obama Administration to dare curtail his illegal action in the face of what he considers an unconstitutional federal law.

The claim of unconstitutionality is dubious at best. In the face of the Federal Justice Department’s recent determination that the prohibitions of the 1961 Federal Wire Act apply to sports betting, the matter can hardly be considered one of states’ rights. Taking wagers on the outcome of a game at Yankee Stadium would necessarily involve interstate commerce, something exclusively regulated by Congress, despite the fact that all of the bettors would be physically present in New Jersey when they wager.

Tellingly, New Jersey’s enabling legislation specifically prohibits wagering on “…any collegiate sport or athletic event that takes place in New Jersey or a sport or athletic event in which any New Jersey college team participates regardless of where the event takes place” (New Jersey Statute 5:12A-1). While the prohibition necessitates that all non-professional wagering events offered would take place outside the state’s borders, it also is indicative that the state at least tacitly recognizes the significant integrity issues Senator Bradley and others warned of two decades ago that led to the federal ban in the first place.

Moreover, unlike serious matters involving race, color, creed, gender or handicap, the issue of whether a New Jersey resident can ‘bet Seattle and take the points’ is hardly the type of equal protection argument the U.S. courts regularly sink their teeth into. The best argument, that sports betting is an item constitutionally reserved to the whims of the states in exercise of their respective police powers, was significantly weakened by a 2009 Third Circuit United States Court of Appeals decision that struck down Delaware sports betting legislation by enforcing and strictly construing the federal statute. Unfortunately for Governor Christie, the Third Circuit covers New Jersey.

It might be for all of the foregoing reasons that the Governor has chosen to use self-help rather than resort to the courts to overcome the federal ban on sports betting. When the Obama administration moves against his actions in court, it seems likely that Governor Christie will attack the Democrats as frustrating the popular will of the people of New Jersey. In any event, the Justice Department challenge wouldn’t be decided for years… well after the 2012 presidential election. There is little downside for the Governor. Of course, racing can’t win.

As with many recent moves made by Trenton, the sports betting scheme is really meant to assist the Atlantic City casino industry. The sports betting law provides for betting pools to be conducted by racetracks, but just like New Jersey’s promulgation of exchange wagering, there is no definite provision for reasonable contributions to purses and breeders funds. The notion that racing will benefit from increased traffic at the racetracks is a farcical trickle down economics scheme that, if embraced, will spell the end of horse racing quicker than equine deaths, drugging scandals and other sensationalized issues.

This industry is driven by purses and breeders awards derived from both pari-mutuel takeout and alternative gaming revenues defined in law via formulas. If alternative gaming revenue isn’t shared with the horsemen and breeders, the activity will become harsh competition for racing, especially if it’s being conducted just steps away from racetrack teller windows. For a governor that loves horse racing so much that he threatened to close his state’s public racetracks, the lack of support for the producers of the game is hardly surprising. Not to worry; sports betting in New Jersey won’t see the light of day any time soon.

A publicity stunt crafted to intimidate the present federal administration, raise a political stature and likely garner donations from the casino companies wouldn’t be so unpalatable if it didn’t come at the expense of our industry. Governor Christie wouldn’t tolerate folks patronizing prostitutes because they favor legalizing prostitution in New Jersey, yet the scenario is indistinguishable. The example he is setting lends itself to such lawlessness. As a former United States Attorney, he knows better.

Maybe if he truly championed horse racing, the Governor could credit himself with the rejuvenation of a storied and once-vibrant state industry. It would, however, take much more work than a sound bite at the beachfront for the benefit of casino magnates.

With his self-manufactured sports betting fracas, Chris Christie shouldn’t just give up his seat; he should get off the bus, stop grandstanding and get to work on the real issues facing his state’s equine racing industry.

Chris E. Wittstruck is an attorney, a director of the Standardbred Owners Association of New York and a charter member of the Albany Law School Racing and Gaming Law Network.

[sharpcat]

Chris E. Wittstruck is an attorney, a director of the Standardbred Owners Association of New York and a charter member of the Albany Law School Racing and Gaming Law Network.

Moving this last sentence to the top of the page would have saved me a lot of time reading this article.

As director of the standardbred Owners Association the author has an obvious bias because he knows that what NJ is headed for is to do away with pari-mutual horse wagering and to introduce an exchange market.

[tommygun]

what a long winded write up, fuk reading that.

[BriGuy]

He may be an attorney, which is why it is surprising that he doesn't recognize the near-universal agreement that PASPA is unconstitutional. Yes, Congress can legislate interstate commerce and, ok, if you want to call a bet placed in NJ on a game being placed in NY "interstate commerce" then who am I to argue? But what Congress cannot do is take an issue and say it's a "state's rights" issue for states A, B and C but a federal issues for states D through Z. Yes the federal government has the right to illegalize sports betting across the nation but they cannot pick and choose some states where it is ok and others where it isn't.

The Delaware case - perhaps unwisely - did not challenge that particular aspect of PASPA. They simply did little but challenge the interpretation of the law, then meekly backed down once things didn't go their way. Atlantic City has a long and storied history of doing things their own way, laws be damned. I wouldn't bet against that great town in this case.

[mtneer1212]

Moving this last sentence to the top of the page would have saved me a lot of time reading this article.

As director of the standardbred Owners Association the author has an obvious bias because he knows that what NJ is headed for is to do away with pari-mutual horse wagering and to introduce an exchange market.

The NJ tracks WANT sports betting, and Christie has promised it would be installed at casinos AND racetracks. So I disagree with your premise.