Feb 26, 2005 3 min read

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) – Authors of the state’s slot-machine gambling law slipped it past an uninformed Legislature, opponents wrote in Supreme Court briefs filed Friday, while the legislation’s defenders contended it was constitutional and subject to plenty of debate. State Supreme Court justices will hear arguments March 9 in the lawsuit, which could have significant bearing on whether the newly legalized slot machines can deliver property tax relief in Pennsylvania in the next few years.

Five lawmakers, religious groups, good-government advocates, and gambling opponents sued in December. Gov. Ed Rendell, Attorney General Tom Corbett, the newly created Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board and legislative leaders are defending the seven-month-old law. All filed written arguments on the case before Friday’s deadline.

The Supreme Court tends to give legislators wide berth to pass laws as they see fit, several lawyers who specialize in constitutional law said, which would mean the law’s challengers face an uphill battle.

The law’s proponents contended the lawsuit was motivated by a distaste for gambling, not by a genuine argument that the law is unconstitutional, and asked the court to dismiss it. The sections of the Constitution the lawsuit cites either don’t apply or adequate steps were taken to ensure the legislation meets constitutional muster, they said.

The suit seeks “to question the policy choices and wisdom of the Legislature in electing to expand the scope of gaming regulation in the commonwealth,” lawyers for House Democratic and Republican leaders wrote in their brief.

Opponents of the law, signed by Rendell in July, argued that its passage violated provisions in the state Constitution meant to ensure lawmakers can review legislation adequately before voting. The 130-year-old provisions were designed to stop a few lawmakers from sneaking through legislation narrowly tailored to special interests.

In this case, a handful of senior lawmakers negotiated the legislation privately for months. Within 36 hours, they amended 145 pages of language into an unrelated bill, and hastily shepherded it through the Legislature, ignoring constitutional rules, the plaintiffs’ brief said.

“The members of the General Assembly voting on this act could not and did not have an opportunity to consider and understand the scope and nature of the legislation they were adopting,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, James J. West, wrote in his 68-page brief.

The legislation also unconstitutionally covered more than one subject, plaintiffs contended. They said the Supreme Court acted in a similar case two years ago when justices struck down a 2002 law that gave Republicans control of the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority’s board.

The plaintiffs also say the legislation is unconstitutional because revenue-raising legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, and because it gives the gambling commission the power to override local zoning and land-use laws.