Jan 28, 2024; Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes (15) celebrates with Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce (87) after a touchdown against the Baltimore Ravens in the AFC Championship football game at M&T Bank Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports
- After a long hearing, a Missouri sports betting lawsuit is still very much in play
- Judge Daniel Green did not dismiss the lawsuit at the behest of the defense
- Plaintiffs argue the Winning for Missouri Education campaign came up short for valid signatures in the state’s first Congressional district
A long day of hearings has left the Missouri sports betting initiative lawsuit in flux, as Judge Daniel Green did not dismiss the lawsuit or make a final ruling.
Time is running thin, as a Sept. 10 ballot deadline is quickly approach. Missouri ballots will be locked on Tuesday, Sept. 10, and will feature the sports betting ballot question if a ruling is not delivered before that date.
The plaintiffs and defendants called a number of witnesses, including a member from the Winning for Missouri Education campaign and a handwriting expert, to discuss the validity and signature numbers for Missouri’s first Congressional district.
Who Has The Numbers?
The heart of the lawsuit contends that Secretary of State John “Jay” Aschroft incorrectly calculated the number of necessary valid signatures in several of the state’s Congressional districts.
The lawsuit, which was filed on Aug. 21 by plaintiffs Jacqueline Wood and Blake Lawrence, claims the Winning for Missouri Education campaign came up short for valid signatures in Missouri’s first and fifth Congressional districts and Ashcroft’s determination of sufficiency was incorrect.
Plaintiffs now argue that the first Congressional district is the only one in flux.
According to the Secretary of State’s Office, the campaign needed 25,632 signatures and submitted 55,864 signatures in the first Congressional district. The report noted that 25,714 signatures were valid, surpassing the necessary threshold by just 82 signatures.
Marc H. Ellinger, counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that Ashcroft also incorrectly calculated the number of necessary valid signatures, as he should have used an updated electoral map from the 2020 gubernatorial election. The actual number of valid signatures should have been over 30,120 for the district.
Counsel for the defense, Charles W. Hatfield, noted that if Ellinger is correct in his theory, every single ballot initiative approved for this year’s general election, as well as every other approved ballot initiatives for all past elections, would have been incorrect as this has been the way the signature numbers have always been calculated.
Wood was actually called to the stand during the proceedings and was asked by Hatfield to say who asked her to file the lawsuit. Theories have run rampant as to who is behind the sports betting lawsuit, ranging from anti- sports betting Missouri politicians to aggrieved sports betting companies.
She did not pull back the curtain on who is behind the lawsuit.
“One of my attorneys,” she said, before being dismissed for the day.
Both sides went back and forth for the rest of the hearing, arguing over the correct number of signatures, if certain signatures should have been approved, if ballot signers were actually deceased, or had even forged their signatures.
An electoral expert witness for the plaintiffs said he had evaluated the signatures for the first district and had serious problems with between 2,500 to 3,000 of them. The defense countered with a handwriting expert who declared that it was very difficult to determine the validity of a signature without 10 to 20 examples of a confirmed valid one.
Nearing the end of the hearing, Hatfield flat out asked Green to dismiss the lawsuit due to a lack of evidence presented by the plaintiffs. Green did not agree with the motion to dismiss and allowed the hearing the continue.
No decision was made by Green at the end of the hearing. It’s unclear if another hearing will be held or Green will now have to make his decision on the lawsuit.
What’s at Stake?
If the suit is thrown out, a constitutional amendment question will appear on the Nov. 5 general election ballot for voters to potentially approve Missouri sports betting. If Green finds the suit has a legitimate claim, the question may not be presented to state voters.
If a judgement on the lawsuit is not granted by Sept. 10, voters will see the sports betting initiative question on the official Nov. 5 election ballot no matter what, according to a Secretary of State’s Office representative.
If Green rules in favor of the plaintiffs after the Nov. 5 election, the initiative results will be invalidated whether they were approved or denied by voters. Further adding to the complications, if Green rules in favor of the plaintiffs sometime between Sept. 10 and the general election, the question will still appear on the ballot even though the results will not count.
Missouri voters seem to be trending towards approval of legalized sports betting, according to recent polling from Saint Louis University Research Institute and YouGov.
The most recent Saint Louis University (SLU)/YouGov poll of 900 likely Missouri voters found that 50% of respondents support a constitutional amendment to legalize sports betting, compared with just 30% in opposition.
Support for the amendment was significant among Democrat voters and those who live in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas.
According to poll results, 50% of respondents support the constitutional amendment to legalize sports betting, 30% oppose the amendment, and 21% are unsure of how they will vote.
A judge in Missouri has yet to make a ruling on a lawsuit regarding sports betting in the state. The lawsuit, which was filed by a group of individuals and organizations, challenges the legality of sports betting in Missouri and seeks to prevent it from being implemented.
The lawsuit argues that the state constitution prohibits sports betting, as it only allows for gambling on games of chance, such as slot machines and table games. Sports betting, on the other hand, involves skill and knowledge of the sports being bet on, making it more akin to a game of skill rather than chance.
Proponents of sports betting argue that it would bring much-needed revenue to the state, as well as create jobs and stimulate economic growth. They also point to the fact that many other states have already legalized sports betting and are reaping the benefits.
The judge overseeing the case has not yet made a ruling, but is expected to do so in the coming weeks. In the meantime, both sides are continuing to present their arguments and evidence in court.
Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, the issue of sports betting in Missouri is likely to remain a contentious one for some time. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules and what impact it will have on the future of sports betting in the state.
