Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Otter has until Saturday afternoon to veto the bill. If he does not, it becomes law with or without his signature.
Yes, he has received monies from people in the horse business, but two of the owners of the company that runs Les Bois Park also sponsored Russ Fulcher against Otter in the primary.
Grapevine is saying he will not veto unless certain there are enough votes to sustain veto. Think that means a couple of senators and about five in the house would have to change from their original votes. Very close call.
If he does veto and it holds up, I'm hearing those that brought the bill in the first place will go to the courts. No veto and this is over.
Do you have a prediction, bull dozer? I think nothing will be signed so Gov. Otter ' s name doesn't appear on a repeal. But, the vote is tightening up after the fact as elected officials learn more; but, I think that is more in the House, not Senate.
I don't like how a lot of this has been handled; however, I have NO TOLERANCE and ZERO RESPECT for those threatening businesses or others. I got involved based on the business principles I thought were botched. I've emailed and called members of the Legislature and emailed Gov. Otter 's office. Tonight around 22:30, I got an email asking for more emails and contact with the Gov. Office and Senate.
I still think it has been good for those who decided to take a stand to do so, regardless of which side. One thing that disappoints me with the growth in Idaho is most won't take a stand for what they believe is right. Idaho and use to, prior to the Internet and cell phones. I do understand people are busy. I have one example I hope no one forgets of how expensive and damaging not being aware really costs. Tom Luna. Between the $ spent and how schools slid under his watch, I struggle to understand a parent who had kids suffer in education, but did nothing to get Luna replaced. Again, I think that is part of what I've found positive about the Historical Horse Racing issue. Thousands of people have let their views be known to law makers.
Note to Sage: If you read this please let my words remain. Luna is no longer in office. The Gov. has to make a decision within the next 42 hrs. This isn't political as the votes were split for and against, regardless of party. I'd like to think this could serve as a reminder to any who may read that their voice counts, and contacting the Legislature Members and Gov.'s office etc. is also a right residents have. This is "civic" encouraging others to always remember the costs of being passive and quiet.
I see two possible outcomes. First, he will not sign it, but will allow the repeal of historical horse racing to become law. Most likely would then make a statement proposing how horse racing survive from other means. Or, he will veto with recommendations on how to resolve this mess. A veto, if upheld, assures further action in the courts where the machines could still easily be declared unconstitutional. After all, most everyone is in agreement they do "simulate and imitate" slot machines which is specifically prohibited by the Idaho Constitution.
However this ends, I am left wondering why the operators of the machines have been unwilling to change the presentation of those machines. My understanding is the graphics presented can be just about whatever the operator wants. Racing horses in the graphics would seem the logical presentation. And they might want to also do away with the Las Vegas feel of the facility. Gold vests, red jackets, and blaring music "imitate" a casino. How about blue jeans, cowboy hats, and country music? Wouldn't that seem more of a horse racing theme?
Personally, I am not opposed to any form of gambling. I gamble and very much enjoy doing so. And if you go back to the root cause of this whole issue, you find the real issue is the Indians being denied poker games in their casinos. Heck, let them have those games! I don't play in them, but do know you can easily find a poker game to play in just about anywhere in Idaho at any time. People are going to gamble. Might as well be legal, regulated, and producing revenue as to be hidden in back rooms.
Anyway, we will know soon how this all plays out. Otter vetoes and the saga continues. He doesn't, it's over- for now.
I see two possible outcomes. First, he will not sign it, but will allow the repeal of historical horse racing to become law. Most likely would then make a statement proposing how horse racing survive from other means. Or, he will veto with recommendations on how to resolve this mess. A veto, if upheld, assures further action in the courts where the machines could still easily be declared unconstitutional. After all, most everyone is in agreement they do "simulate and imitate" slot machines which is specifically prohibited by the Idaho Constitution.
However this ends, I am left wondering why the operators of the machines have been unwilling to change the presentation of those machines. My understanding is the graphics presented can be just about whatever the operator wants. Racing horses in the graphics would seem the logical presentation. And they might want to also do away with the Las Vegas feel of the facility. Gold vests, red jackets, and blaring music "imitate" a casino. How about blue jeans, cowboy hats, and country music? Wouldn't that seem more of a horse racing theme?
Personally, I am not opposed to any form of gambling. I gamble and very much enjoy doing so. And if you go back to the root cause of this whole issue, you find the real issue is the Indians being denied poker games in their casinos. Heck, let them have those games! I don't play in them, but do know you can easily find a poker game to play in just about anywhere in Idaho at any time. People are going to gamble. Might as well be legal, regulated, and producing revenue as to be hidden in back rooms.
Anyway, we will know soon how this all plays out. Otter vetoes and the saga continues. He doesn't, it's over- for now.
Yes, we will know by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow. You make several salient points in your post, which is one of the reasons I tried to give you a rep pt. I don't know if you received it or not as I got the message I needed to spread reps to others. Your last sentence might be the one of the most important and one you and I have agreed about since your first post. If the Gov. signs the bill creating a repeal, then this issue is headed to court.
I hope in the seven groups the Gov. has already met with, with two more to go, I hope one of those nine parties has some in the group who can tell Gov. Otter the estimated cost of going to court. Talk about a losing bill! If signed into law, the list of loses only grows with no revenue being generated from a revenue stream that was independent and supported education. If signed into law those who lose include the businesses that employ thousands throughout the state, Owners of the horses who have been able to race in Idaho with larger purses, the employees of all horse - related businesses (including farmers who sell grain, hay and straw to horse owners and any facilities that board or train horses), education in Idaho, tourism and recreation in the state and more. Citizens lose in at least three ways: Having Members of the Legislature not represent their constituents and voting their personal memory of "race tracks" or their personal beliefs; losing an income stream for education that doesn't raise taxes for every resident and the cost of all taxpayers having their tax dollars used for another lawsuit against the state instead of funding other needs such as transportation, education etc; and having the additional recreation and leisure time activities close to home, improving quality of life for many.
Secondly, you see an upheld veto as heading to court. Would that be from the reservation casinos and special interest groups? I see the repeal bill headed to court by multiple businesses. Is there anyway this bill doesn't involve future litigation?
Third, you wrote the Gov. could veto with recommendations of how to fix this mess (I paraphrased). Do you think that is realistically possible? It would probably be the best answer given the how complex this has gotten. Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting Gov. Otter could make recommendations for changes in the 2015 bill or future? Some in the Legislature proposed alternative bills that were promptly shot down by others in the two chambers.
Finally, your question about changing the appearance of the machines is a good one. I don't have time to address that currently but I will later.
Well, from my grapevine, if Otter doesn't veto the historical racing operators will not fight this in court. They will simply walk away and take their losses. As I understand it, this repeal will take the law allowing historical racing off the books and the judicial system cannot rule on something that is no longer a law. On the other hand, if he does veto and that veto is upheld, those on the repeal side can go to the judicial as they can challenge the legality of an existing law- that being the original law this legislation seeks to repeal. Now, the operators might be able to seek relief from the expenses they have incurred in setting up the operations, but who do they go after? Seems the bull's eye could only be on the horse racing commission and the testimony from the executive commissioner in 2013 on which the legislators relied to make this legal in the first place. Definitely a mess.
Honestly, I thought Otter would have stepped up with some recommendations long before this. His silence leaves me wondering how dedicated he is to the horse racing industry. First, would have been changing the appearance of the machines. Second, perhaps limiting the locations to only Les Bois Park? And third, the appointment of an oversight committee to offer some direction on all gaming in Idaho. I know the legislature failed in an attempt at establishing a much needed commission, but Butch could act with executive order, I would think. In one form or another, other issues on gambling are sure to appear in our state. Better to acknowledge people's desire to gamble than to continue with this piecemeal approach that creates total confusion.
Bottom line, I don't think Otter will veto, nor do I think he will sign. Unfortunate, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's my read.
Well, from my grapevine, if Otter doesn't veto the historical racing operators will not fight this in court. They will simply walk away and take their losses. As I understand it, this repeal will take the law allowing historical racing off the books and the judicial system cannot rule on something that is no longer a law. On the other hand, if he does veto and that veto is upheld, those on the repeal side can go to the judicial as they can challenge the legality of an existing law- that being the original law this legislation seeks to repeal. Now, the operators might be able to seek relief from the expenses they have incurred in setting up the operations, but who do they go after? Seems the bull's eye could only be on the horse racing commission and the testimony from the executive commissioner in 2013 on which the legislators relied to make this legal in the first place. Definitely a mess.
Honestly, I thought Otter would have stepped up with some recommendations long before this. His silence leaves me wondering how dedicated he is to the horse racing industry. First, would have been changing the appearance of the machines. Second, perhaps limiting the locations to only Les Bois Park? And third, the appointment of an oversight committee to offer some direction on all gaming in Idaho. I know the legislature failed in an attempt at establishing a much needed commission, but Butch could act with executive order, I would think. In one form or another, other issues on gambling are sure to appear in our state. Better to acknowledge people's desire to gamble than to continue with this piecemeal approach that creates total confusion.
Bottom line, I don't think Otter will veto, nor do I think he will sign. Unfortunate, and I hope I'm wrong, but that's my read.
All of your suggestions are good ideas, from my perspective. Have you seen what I'm pasting below? Otter won't tell until Monday. If the news was right that the Legislature was gone today and won't be back in session until Monday afternoon, that is little time before the Legislature supposedly ends the next day. Otter says he wants to talk to some in the Legislature first, before he announces for all to hear. The Legislature won't start until Monday afternoon and they are currently scheduled to end on Tuesday. I admit, his timing late Friday afternoon or evening has gotten my attention, especially saying he wants to talk to some in the Legislature first.
It seems like he isn't going to give them time to discuss this now if he were to Veto SB1011, or do you interpret this news differently? If so, what is your take?
I need to add this new info into what I was going to write earlier and got interrupted. My additional thoughts my not be relevant now. I like your idea about Otter and Executive orders. It also sounds like you have fresher info than I do when it comes to the Historical Horse Racing businesses suing. But I admit, there hasn't been the fight in the Idaho Falls business owners like there was previously. They basically had the paperwork ready to be signed and filed with the Court's clerk. I know Gov. Otter's silence and lack of action confused and puzzled them.
This bill has had one of the strangest journeys of any bill I've ever followed. Maybe this will be one Monday some will look forward to I'm sorry I can't give you another Rep point for your solid ideas, bull dozer.
Thanks
MSR
Last edited by Mtn. States Resident; 04-03-2015 at 10:50 PM..
I think Otter may be caught on the horns of a personal dilemma. He's a well-known horseman himself, and its a big part of his personal image as well as his political image. he might not race horses, but he sure knows them that do, and he may be reluctant to do, what to them, would be a backstabbing.
Just speculating here, but for a fact, he really sported his cowboy image during his years in Washington and during his earlier 2 terms as Guv. He only went back to business suits again relatively recently in his long career as a politician.
I see two possible reasons for Otter waiting until Monday to announce his decision. And this is purely my personal take without any real insight.
First, he feels he has the votes to uphold a veto and will veto. He also wants to warn the legislators that will be the beginning of a long, expensive judicial process for the state of Idaho. That is currently the case in Kentucky.
Second, he will allow this to pass without his signature. He will then ask the legislators to implement some form of financial relief for those that have invested millions in historical racing. This to avoid potential lawsuits. He may even propose some emergency funding for the racing industry so it can keep going in some form in Idaho.
I have often wondered why Idaho's constitutional anti-gambling amendment is so odd.
Slot machines weren't the only form of gambling that became dis-allowed; punch boards, a simple cardboard board filled with small holes, with each holding a slip of tightly rolled paper with a set of numbers printed on it, a very low-tech equivalent of today's lotto cards that an individual business owner could purchase and make a little gambling money from, are also illegal.
The only difference between punch boards and the lotto is the state involvement in issuing one but not the other. And all the multiple state lotteries depend on electronics to make the system work.
Legal prostitution as a county option lasted longer than legal machine gambling by 20 years in Idaho. Brothels made a lot of counties a lot of money with no particular outrage; Wallace was once full of them, and the respectable married women in town were the first to urge their official creation and licensing. Brothels existed in every major city in the state at one time or another until their final prohibition, which happened in the late 60's.
When I was around 6, I can remember seeing slot machines in every popular restaurant in Idaho Falls. The drugstore with my favorite soda fountain always had a punch board resting up on the top shelf, next to the big can of malt. And any downtown flop house with the word 'rooms' in the title rented both a room for the night and a lady of the evening to go with it for part of the evening, if something more than a night's rest was desired.
I have often wondered why Idaho's constitutional anti-gambling amendment is so odd.
Slot machines weren't the only form of gambling that became dis-allowed; punch boards, a simple cardboard board filled with small holes, with each holding a slip of tightly rolled paper with a set of numbers printed on it, a very low-tech equivalent of today's lotto cards that an individual business owner could purchase and make a little gambling money from, are also illegal.
The only difference between punch boards and the lotto is the state involvement in issuing one but not the other. And all the multiple state lotteries depend on electronics to make the system work.
Legal prostitution as a county option lasted longer than legal machine gambling by 20 years in Idaho. Brothels made a lot of counties a lot of money with no particular outrage; Wallace was once full of them, and the respectable married women in town were the first to urge their official creation and licensing. Brothels existed in every major city in the state at one time or another until their final prohibition, which happened in the late 60's.
When I was around 6, I can remember seeing slot machines in every popular restaurant in Idaho Falls. The drugstore with my favorite soda fountain always had a punch board resting up on the top shelf, next to the big can of malt. And any downtown flop house with the word 'rooms' in the title rented both a room for the night and a lady of the evening to go with it for part of the evening, if something more than a night's rest was desired.
Mike,
I have to just write good point and pass on anything further about your comments. It was before my time. However, your last line makes me snicker and laugh. I want to write a response that isn't the most appropriate but is what enters my brain first when thinking about your response. Then Sage would have to remove it etc.
I see two possible reasons for Otter waiting until Monday to announce his decision. And this is purely my personal take without any real insight.
First, he feels he has the votes to uphold a veto and will veto. He also wants to warn the legislators that will be the beginning of a long, expensive judicial process for the state of Idaho. That is currently the case in Kentucky.
Second, he will allow this to pass without his signature. He will then ask the legislators to implement some form of financial relief for those that have invested millions in historical racing. This to avoid potential lawsuits. He may even propose some emergency funding for the racing industry so it can keep going in some form in Idaho.
Speculation, but that's how I see it.
bull dozer, All of this is perhaps logical exclusion or speculation. Nonetheless, I don't see the harm in trying to think of different solutions. I think there are only two or three ideas that have a high degree of accuracy. The first is the Gov. never anticipated this much input from voters. Secondly, he clearly has been delaying this announcement until someone or one or more of the groups with whom he met brought him a pathway out of this complex situation, that all could more easily live with. Many know he is involved with horses, I think the one article said he had been inducted to a Hall of Fame about something he did with horses. Is his wife or are any of his kids involved with horses or the racing business through their work? Something made this much more real for him instead of just another bill. Maybe he likes horse racing, IDK.
Your thought about possibly wanting to alert the Legislature he had Vetoed the bill and had enough backing in the Senate the Veto would remain so prepare for a lawsuit confuses me some. Otter decided to do X earlier than scheduled on Friday night, 24 hrs. earlier than he had to by Sat. night. While I do realize phones reach most places, I think it would have been harder for him to get an accurate count on Good Friday with senators scattered. I am totally confused when it comes to telling the Legislature to prepare for an expensive lawsuit. What role would they play, except to be deposed and/or testify about what they were shown etc?
I do understand you were just "shooting from the hip" and I've had more time to think about your ideas. I'm not trying to be critical just saying what doesn't fit for me. Of your two ideas, either what you wrote as your second idea, or a variation of it, make more sense to me than the first.
How about if he told the Legislature he's not going to sign it, which gives the businesses more time to operate before it becomes law on July 1 and recover more money, generate more state revenue as well as potentially schedule some horse races. Then as the reason he needs to talk to them, is he is going to do something via Executive Order, such as put all gaming/racing in Idaho under a newly staffed Gaming Commission when he has new people in place, and that is effective July 1. Then he tells the Legislature the Gaming Commissioner reports directly to the Gov. And the Gaming Commission will write new guidelines and work with existing business to be in compliance with the state constitution by 1/1/2016. If the Legislature wants to propose new bills it will be about things the Gaming Commission does or doesn't do between July and Jan, 2016 for a 2016 vote.
I was trying to think if there were other businesses or jobs that could be closed by the Legislature. I'm not sure of the answer. But I am sure if I were Otter, I would not want to testify about the absence of action by a Racing Commission, if the state was sued by the business owners. Luna is bad enough for him, but this on top of Luna in Court, I hope Otter has enough Idaho pride he wouldn't want to be the Gov. that had a revenue stream stop, will cost the state a lot and ultimately decrease businesses as well as cost jobs.
I don't know that Otter can rely on the Legislature to uphold a veto or vote some type of relief package. To me, it makes more sense he is passive with the bill not signing and informs the Legislature he has made an Executive decision and the Executive Order is Y. Do you understand what I'm trying to explain? If the AG explained how he could do something via Executive Order, which you mentioned earlier, then I see how he could have reached his answer a day early but want to tell the Legislature there is blame enough to go around here and a court could point out what the Racing Commission didn't do as well as others at the state level.
I do think there is shared responsibility about how the terminals got in place; consequently, I think all the parties need to make change. It's laughable in one way to think of District or Federal Court and some complaining about a machine's appearance when the Racing Commission and Legislature didn't visit all three locations and didn't discuss the issue. I don't think the State of ID or Otter are home free if the owners sue.
I'll be interested in what you think, bull dozer, as well as any others.
MSR
Last edited by Mtn. States Resident; 04-04-2015 at 10:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry I can't give you another Rep point for your solid ideas, bull dozer.
but is what enters my brain first when thinking about your response. Then Sage would have to remove it etc. 
