Viewpoints

Our Goal: To Uphold the Law

by Gary Palmer

At heart of the issue of electronic bingo in Alabama is the question, what is the most effective strategy for eliminating illegal gambling? In the past, Randy Brinson, the president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, has attempted to make a case for legalizing electronic bingo gambling at existing dog tracks in Alabama so that it would be easier for the state to shut down illegal gambling in other places. Rather than simply enforcing the state’s laws against electronic bingo statewide, Brinson now supports another approach, a statewide referendum to ban all bingo gambling.

Despite one federal court decision, two Alabama circuit court decisions, and a ruling from the Alabama State Supreme Court, Brinson recently wrote an article that gives the impression that he does not believe the law is clear enough to be fairly enforced. He implies that the Houston County Commission and local law enforcement have the authority to define what is legal in their county irrespective of state law or the opinions of the courts.

State law and previous court decisions make it abundantly clear that local governments do not have the authority to redefine state law.

Federal District Judge Lynwood Smith, in his ruling against charity bingo gambling operation in Triana, Alabama, cited an Alabama Supreme Court decision stating that no local amendment allowing the game of bingo to be played could be construed as repealing the state law against lotteries or other games of chance.  

Citing two opinions from the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals, Foster v. State 1997 and Barrett v. State 1996, Smith wrote, “… the narrow parameters set out in a constitutional amendment permitting bingo games to be conducted within a particular Alabama county may not be broadened by a municipal ordinance.”

In other words, local amendments and ordinances must comply fully with all the provisions of Alabama state law and with the specifics of the amendments authorizing bingo in particular Alabama counties. Consequently, local ordinances cannot legalize anything that state law prohibits, including slot machines used for bingo.

Following Judge Smith’s ruling, two Alabama circuit court judges ruled that the so-called electronic bingo machines are illegal. And on November 13, 2009, the Alabama State Supreme Court issued a ruling that clearly defines “legal bingo,” a ruling it applied on January 29^th, 2010 in striking down the electronic bingo ordinance of the town of Ashville. Brinson implies that these court rulings are forms of judicial activism.  Apparently, he has mistaken upholding the law against illegal gambling with judicial activism.

According to the law, electronic bingo machines do not fall within the definition, yet illegal operations remain open while a legion of lobbyists hired by the gambling syndicate try to strong arm the State Legislature into passing a bill that would legalize their operations.

Even if the state law is enforced, Brinson believes that the Indian casinos cannot be forced to remove their electronic bingo machines. He wrote, “Even if the Alabama Supreme Court rules that all electronic bingo machines that are in operation are illegal, the Indian casino operators in places such as Atmore and Elmore County will be the sole monopolistic operators of gambling within the state.” But not everyone agrees with that view.  Under the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act, Indian tribes are limited to having only the games that are legal under state law.

Shutting down the illegal gambling operations would limit the Indian casinos and the charity bingo operations to games deemed legal according to the definition in the State Supreme Court’s ruling. But even paper card bingo will still be very lucrative. The Mississippi Gambling Commission reported for the fiscal year 2007 charity-operated bingo games played with paper cards generated almost $116 million in revenue. So, in a state noted for its casinos, charity-operated bingo gambling played with paper cards is obviously a big money operation.

Perhaps most troubling is Brinson’s view of how Christians should respond to gambling. Brinson calls on Christians, specifically the Baptists, to reject Governor Riley’s efforts to enforce our laws against illegal gambling and instead join him and members of the Legislature who “… have courageously introduced legislation to allow for a statewide vote.” He apparently sincerely believes that the only way to shut down electronic bingo at the Indian casinos is for the voters of Alabama to ban all gambling. Here we are again in disagreement.

If Alabama is successful in enforcing the law to shut down all electronic bingo operations and the Indians are somehow exempted from complying with current law, what makes anyone think they would comply with a law that bans all bingo?

Moreover, pursuing a statewide referendum as Brinson advocates would subject the state to the full power and weight of all the gambling interests in the state who will spend millions of dollars to defeat the referendum. In the Ohio referendum in November 2009, the gambling syndicates there spent over $34 million on the referendum alone.

Brinson wrote, “The ongoing legal and political battle over electronic bingo among our elected officials and religious and political leaders is neither productive nor symbolic of the spirit and nature of Christ, whose prayer was that we all may be one.” Finally, Brinson wrote that the Christian Coalition’s “… goal is to unify Alabamians across the state, rather than be perpetually divided on these important issues.”

But this begs the question as to whether the state needs to be unified around anything other than enforcing the law.  With the latest State Supreme Court ruling, the law is now sufficiently clear to permanently shut down the illegal gambling operations that have been spreading across the state that one gambling company executive said are “… wrought with wanna-be gangsters, illegal slot machines, and very shady commercial casino operations posing as charities.”

Those of us who want to protect this state from being ruled by powerful gambling syndicates and “wanna-be gangsters” have goals as well. Our goals are to restore the rule of law to Alabama, to clean out corruption in state and local government, and to uphold the law.

February 2, 2010

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Note: This column is a copyrighted feature distributed free of charge by the Alabama Policy Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and API are properly cited. For information or comments, contact Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute, 402 Office Park Drive, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama  35223, (205) 870-9900, or email garyp@alabamapolicy.org. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this column, please email joannl@alabamapolicy.org.