State says casino petition comparison faulty

LINCOLN -- A judge ignored the plain meaning of the Nebraska Constitution when she ruled that a casino gambling petition could appear on the November ballot, attorneys for the state said Tuesday.

Attorney General Jon Bruning's office filed a legal brief with the Nebraska Supreme Court arguing that Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers erred in her Aug. 17 ruling.

At issue is whether the petition backed by Boyd Gaming of Las Vegas violates the Nebraska Constitution's ban on resubmitting proposals within three years.

According to the brief, Flowers incorrectly focused on differences between gambling proposals defeated by voters in 2004 and this year's petition.

Instead, the brief said, she should have concluded that the "essential substance" of both was to legalize casino gambling in Nebraska.

Flowers said the earlier proposals would have authorized two casinos and thousands of gambling devices outside of casinos, while this year's measures would authorize only three casinos.

"If this were all that was required to avoid the effect of the resubmission clause, it could easily be circumvented by placing the essence of defeated measures into 'new' measures containing other provisions," the state said.

Bruning has appealed Flowers' decision to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Both sides will present arguments at a hearing set for Sept. 8.