http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/amick_against_odds_politicans.html
Published: Monday, February 27, 2012, 7:00 AM
Once again, New Jersey politicians are trying to correct a past mistake after the odds have shifted against them. I don’t mean the Democrats’ effort to authorize same-sex marriage, although that fits the description nicely. The goal of this belated campaign is to allow the state’s casinos and racetracks to take bets on sports contests.
In 1992, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which forbade states to adopt sports betting but grandfathered Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana, the four that already had that form of wagering. In addition, New Jersey was given a special deal, a year in which to legalize betting on sports, because it had had casino gambling for more than a decade. But New Jersey didn’t take advantage of the dispensation.
The Legislature was swayed by the opposition of the pro sports leagues and the lobbying of U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), PASPA’s sponsor and a former basketball star for Princeton and the New York Knicks, who warned that legal betting would destroy the integrity of sports and send the wrong message to children. Sanctioning it would “turn athletes into roulette chips,” Bradley said. Sen. Richard Codey (D-West Orange), who also strongly opposed the idea, suggested that sports betting would lure college players into “shaving points before they shaved their beards.”
The issue died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and was forgotten until it was exhumed two years ago by Sen. Ray Lesniak (D-Elizabeth). Lesniak contends that sports betting would help the casinos and tracks, which have been battered by competition from neighboring states, and, in the process, would generate badly needed revenue for the treasury. Citing estimates that this form of gambling would bring in $1.3 billion in gross revenues and $120 million in taxes, the senator set off on a two-route pursuit — through legislation and litigation — of a train that had left the station nearly two decades earlier.
Lesniak and two pro-gambling trade associations filed a federal lawsuit to overturn PASPA, arguing that it violates the Constitution by giving an unfair advantage to selected states at the expense of the others. Last spring, U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown dismissed the suit. Because New Jersey had no sports-betting law, he ruled, there was no injury to remedy, and, in any event, the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to claim one. The judge noted, however, that the governor and attorney general — who weren’t party to the suit — could have pursued the argument, on behalf of the state, that PASPA violates New Jersey’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.
Meanwhile, the Legislature authorized a referendum on a state constitutional amendment that would permit sports betting at Atlantic City casinos and the state’s racetracks, when and if the federal law was overturned. The only contests off-limits to betting would be college games played in the state or those involving New Jersey colleges played anywhere. The votes were 36-3 in the Senate and 54-17 in the Assembly, and last November the people approved the question by a margin of nearly two to one. Follow-up legislation was quickly enacted and signed into law by Gov. Christie.
Christie and his new attorney general, Jeffrey Chiesa, haven’t said whether they’ll now file a lawsuit similar to the one dismissed by Judge Brown. But the strong public support demonstrated in the November referendum prompted Christie to say: “One of my jobs as governor is to listen to the people. They’ve spoken. I’ll work as hard as I can to make it a reality.”
The National Football League and National Basketball Association still oppose any change in PASPA on grounds that extending legal betting would hurt the integrity of their sports. But, with $2.6 billion a year bet on sports in Nevada and many times that amount wagered illegally nationwide, the position isn’t easy to sustain. It’s also hypocritical, critics say, because analysts on TV and radio discuss point spreads and compete to pick winners with no noticeable objection from the leagues.
Some legal experts are convinced the state eventually would prevail in court, although it would take time and appeals. One, Professor I. Nelson Rose of Whittier Law School, observed on his website Gamblingandthelaw.com that gambling traditionally has been an issue for states to decide on their own. “I cannot think of any other act of Congress that prevented a state from changing its public policy on gambling,” Rose wrote. “It is difficult to know where in the U.S. Constitution Congress got this power to begin with.”
In Washington, two New Jersey congressmen, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch) and Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-Ventnor), have introduced separate bills to amend PASPA. Pallone’s bill would add New Jersey to the list of states exempted from the ban on sports betting, while LoBiondo’s would allow any and all states the chance to play. They think their bills have a good chance of passage, although at least one big obstacle, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), stands in their way. Reid has always been protective of his state’s gambling interests, and probably has the clout needed to block any measure that would allow other states to threaten Nevada’s domination of casino sports betting.
An optimistic Sen. Lesniak has predicted that by the next Super Bowl, New Jerseyans will be able to legally bet on the winner of the game. That seems awfully soon. You probably could get better odds that the Eagles and Jets will be competing in it.