Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes dives into the end zone for an 8-yard touchdown against the Bills Micah Hyde. The Chiefs won 42-36 in overtime.
- Counsel for Winning for Missouri Education claims a lawsuit filed against the sports betting initiative came too late
- Claims plaintiffs waited an unreasonable amount of time raising their signature counting issues
- Defendants want three counts in the lawsuit barred from the proceedings by the “doctrine of laches”
The Winning for Missouri Education, the campaign that led the signature collecting process for the state’s upcoming sports betting ballot referendum, believes several counts in a lawsuit against the initiative should be barred due to the case being filed too late.
Counsel for the campaign are claiming that three counts in the lawsuit should be barred by the “doctrine of laches,” a legal defense to prevent a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit purposefully late to the detriment of a defendant.
The amended claim notes the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office published initiative signature thresholds for the 2024 general election more than a year ago and plaintiffs waited an “unreasonable time” to raise their concerns.
How Long is Too Long to File Lawsuit?
The plaintiffs, who are listed as Jacqueline Wood and Blake Lawrence, who own two consultancy groups in the state, filed their lawsuit on Aug. 21 just eight days after Secretary of State John “Jay” Ashcroft announced the initiative petition received a sufficient amount of valid signatures to be placed on the November 2024 general election ballot
The lawsuit claims the Winning for Missouri Education campaign actually came up short for valid signatures in Missouri’s First and Fifth Congressional Districts and Ashcroft’s determination of sufficiency was incorrect. The plaintiffs argue the initiative question to legalize sports betting in the state should be removed from the ballot.
The first hearing for the lawsuit is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 5.
Counsel for Winning for Missouri Education submitted an amended answer to the lawsuit, asking that counts one, two, and four be barred from the proceedings due to the “doctrine of laches.”
The lawsuit was filed after the campaign submitted its signature package, after Ashcroft validated the initiative for the Nov. 5 ballot, and more than a year after the signature threshold was published by the Secretary of State’s Office, counsel noted. The “doctrine of laches” allows a court to deny a claim if it believes an otherwise valid lawsuit was filed unreasonably late to the impairment of the opposing party.
Counsel requests the following counts in the lawsuit be barred:
- Ashcroft did not correctly calculate the number of signatures because he failed “to take the total number of people who voted for governor in 2020, multiply that number by eight percent, and then divide that number equally among Missouri’s eight Congressional Districts.” If Ashcroft had correctly calculated the number of necessary signatures, the initiative would have fallen short in the state’s first and fifth Congressional District.
- Ashcroft’s method of calculating the number of necessary signatures was incorrect because it failed to use the vote in the current boundaries of the First Congressional District as established in
Section 128.461, RSMo, and that as a result, the petition did not have enough valid signatures in the First Congressional District. - Wood claims her rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were deprived in that “the method employed impermissibly and knowingly decreased the weight of a third Congressional District voter’s signature when compared to the weight of a First Congressional District voters signature.
The plaintiffs knew of the signature thresholds and waited an excessive amount of time before filing its lawsuit, the defendants noted.
“Plaintiffs waited an unreasonable time raising their counting issues considering signature gathering was completed months ago and the Secretary’s thresholds were published more than a year ago. Winning for Missouri Education relied on the Secretary of State’s published numbers when gathering signatures,” they wrote.
Time is Ticking on Lawsuit
The first hearing will be held next week, but time is ticking on the lawsuit and how it relates to the upcoming general election on Tuesday, Nov. 5.
According to JoDonn Chaney, director of communications for the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office, 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. Missouri law requires the ballot be “set in stone” by Sept. 10.
However, if the presiding judge 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 complicating matters, if the judge 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.
Rob covers all regulatory developments in online gambling. He specializes in US sports betting news along with casino regulation news as one of the most trusted sources in the country.
A lawsuit has been filed in Missouri regarding the state’s sports betting campaign after the deadline for submitting signatures has passed. The lawsuit claims that the campaign did not meet the necessary requirements to be placed on the ballot for voters to decide on.
The campaign, known as “Missouri Wins,” was aiming to legalize sports betting in the state through a ballot initiative. However, the deadline for submitting signatures to qualify for the November ballot has already passed. Despite this, the campaign still submitted their signatures in hopes of being included on the ballot.
The lawsuit, filed by a group called “Missourians Against Illegal Gambling,” alleges that the campaign did not follow the proper procedures for collecting signatures and did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The group claims that many of the signatures were collected improperly and should not be counted towards the required total.
The lawsuit also argues that the campaign misled voters by claiming that legalizing sports betting would bring in millions of dollars in revenue for the state. The group argues that this claim is misleading and does not accurately reflect the potential impact of legalizing sports betting in Missouri.
The outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain, but it highlights the challenges and controversies surrounding efforts to legalize sports betting in Missouri. As other states across the country have successfully legalized sports betting in recent years, Missouri continues to face obstacles and opposition from various groups.
It is unclear what impact this lawsuit will have on the future of sports betting in Missouri, but it serves as a reminder of the complexities and legal challenges involved in such campaigns. As the debate over sports betting continues to unfold in Missouri, it is clear that there are still many hurdles to overcome before any changes can be made to the state’s gambling laws.
