High court wants arguments on Louisiana casino-contribution ban
By The Associated Press
01.22.03
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not decided whether to take up Louisiana’s ban on campaign contributions from the casino industry, justices have ordered the state to file of arguments in the case.
The law is being challenged by the Casino Association of Louisiana. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered the Louisiana Board of Ethics to file opposition arguments.
Ethics board attorney Gray Sexton called it an unusual step, one he had not seen in three decades of practicing law.
“I believe it sends a signal that the Supreme Court is interested in this case and may be inclined to grant the writ application,” Sexton said.
The granting or denial of a writ application is the process the nation’s high court uses to decide which cases it will hear.
The Louisiana Supreme Court last year upheld the constitutionality of the state law banning riverboat and land-based casino interests from making contributions to political campaigns.
The court relied on prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings in similar cases to conclude no violation of constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech or association existed as the state tried to guard against corruption or the appearance of it.
Casino Association of Louisiana executive director Wade Duty said the court may be interested in hearing his group’s appeal because of another Louisiana Supreme Court ruling, reached on a 4-3 vote, striking down a ban on contributions from video-poker licensees.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected requests to take up that case in May 2000.
In that case, the Louisiana Supreme Court found the law barring truck-stop owners and other major video-poker figures from making campaign contributions was too restrictive to pass constitutional muster.
Dissenters on the state’s high court said Louisiana had a constitutional, legitimate interest in restricting contributions by gambling interests.
Louisiana State University law professor Raymond Lamonica said it is not mandatory to file objections to U.S. Supreme Court petitions except in capital cases and when the court requires them.
“Obviously, they are considering the writ, and they want to make sure before they rule that they understand the position of the parties,” Lamonica said.
The ethics board contends the U.S. Supreme Court has no grounds to step in.
Sexton said the conflict is between protecting First Amendment rights and the government interest of controlling certain types of campaign contributions. Such bans “are not unusual, not unreasonable and not unconstitutional,” Sexton said.