La. Supreme Court strikes down historical horse racing law

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that a 2021 law allowing for historical horse racing machines in the state without a public referendum is unconstitutional.

Justice Jeanette Theriot Knoll ruled that under a Louisiana constitutional provision requiring a majority vote in any parish before any new form of gambling was offered, the law establishing HHR in Louisiana was unconstitutional because it allowed HHR before such a vote. The ruling previously was reported by Ray Paulick of Paulick Report.

The 2021 law, called Act 437, revised the pari-mutuel wagering statute to include HHR and put it under the regulation of the Louisiana Racing Commission. It allowed tracks to operate up to five sites each with historical horse racing. HHR, which began with instant-racing machines in 2000 in Arkansas, uses data and results of previously run horse races to determine winners, and people can play the machines much like slot machines.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are individuals who live in parishes where HHR machines exist or could exist under Act 437, according to Judge Knoll's opinion. According to Paulick, many of the plaintiffs also have interests in facilities that offer kinds of gaming other than HHR, such as video poker.

Under Article XII, Section 6(C) of the Louisiana state constitution, no law authorizing a new form of gaming in a parish that did not exist there before that provision was added in 1996 can take effect until there is a public referendum in that parish and a majority votes in favor. Act 437 did not provide for a referendum but rather simply wrote HHR into the pari-mutuel wagering law.

The defendants, currently Fair Grounds and Louisiana Downs, argued that implementing HHR did not require a vote under the constitutional provision because pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing existed before the constitutional provision was passed. Delta Downs and Evangeline Downs previously had been involved, though they were dismissed from the suit under a consent judgment and agreed not to take a position going forward.

The plaintiffs argued that adding HHR in Louisiana is not a new way of offering existing pari-mutuel gaming, but rather a new form of gaming under Louisiana law. On those grounds, they argued that the constitution required a majority vote in a referendum before HHR could be added to gambling offerings in any given parish.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in March 2024, declaring that HHR was a new form of gaming, that it thus required voter approval and that Act 437 was unconstitutional. The defendants appealed to the state supreme court.

In Friday's opinion, Justice Knoll ruled that HHR was a new form of gambling. In her opinion she noted that the first patent applications for HHR did not happen until 1998, with the first machines coming out in 2000. These were both after the October 1996 date of the constitutional amendment requiring a referendum for new forms of gaming. Knoll also noted that before the constitutional amendment, the only authorized horse racing betting was on live races, either in-person or simulcast.

As such, Knoll ruled that "Act 437 authorizes a new form of gaming not authorized in Louisiana before October 15, 1996. Thus, the Louisiana constitution requires prior voter approval of historical horse racing in a local election."