BATON ROUGE — The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a 2021 law legalizing historical horse racing without voter approval is unconstitutional.
The decision, issued in response to challenges from residents in five parishes, affirms a lower court ruling that found Act 437 violated the state constitution, according to a March 21 opinion.
Act 437 expanded the definition of pari-mutuel wagering to include historical horse racing, a system where gamblers place bets on previously run races using terminals resembling slot machines.
Proponents argued that historical horse racing is merely a technological advancement of traditional pari-mutuel wagering, already legal in Louisiana.
However, the court disagreed, finding that historical horse racing constitutes a new form of gaming that necessitates voter approval.
The controversy stemmed from a constitutional amendment passed in 1996 requiring local referendums before introducing new forms of gaming.
While the defendants contended that Act 437 was a lawful extension of existing gaming laws, the Supreme Court determined that it effectively introduced a distinct form of gambling.
"Historical horse racing was not expressly authorized before the passage of Act 437," the court stated. "Without dispute, it did not exist when the 1996 amendment to Article XII became effective. By allowing historical horse racing without voter approval, the legislature denied voters their constitutional right."
The plaintiffs, comprising voters and residents from the affected parishes, argued that the act unlawfully circumvented the constitutional mandate for public approval.
The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the trial court’s finding that the law stripped voters of their rights.
Throughout the legal battle, the defendants maintained that historical horse racing simply modernized the concept of pari-mutuel wagering.
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing Company, Boyd Racing LLC, and other proponents pointed to the economic benefits and technological advancements in gaming.
They argued that the law supported the state’s horse racing industry while promoting revenue generation.
The court, however, drew a sharp distinction between traditional horse race betting and historical horse racing.
While pari-mutuel wagering relies on live races with visible participants, historical horse racing uses pre-recorded events with randomized algorithms, often resembling slot machine gaming.
The court highlighted that this form of betting had not been contemplated when voters approved the 1996 amendment.
“Historical horse racing does not involve betting on live horse races. It is a gaming system designed to use slot machine-like terminals for gameplay,” the court explained. “The off-track wagering law never authorized this form of gaming, which did not even exist at the time of its enactment.”
The decision reinforces the importance of voter participation in determining the state’s gaming landscape.
"Based on our de novo review of the evidence, Act 437 authorizes a new form of gaming not authorized in Louisiana before October 15, 1996," the opinion states. "Thus, the Louisiana Constitution requires prior voter approval of historical horse racing in a local election...On the specific constitutional challenge presented and on the record before us, we interpret Article XII to require approval by local option vote in an affected parish before historical horse racing is licensed or permitted to be conducted in that parish. Act 437 is unconstitutional."
The defendants may pursue further legislative action or propose referendums in the future.
Boyd Racing and Churchill Downs did not respond to requests for comments.
Supreme Court of Louisiana case number: 2024-CA-00995