UPDATE: Arkansas Supreme Court hears lottery challenge

By Associated Press

Defining a state-run lottery may be as easy as defining hard-core pornography, a member of Arkansas' highest court suggested Monday as justices considered whether to kick a proposed lottery off the November ballot.

Justices weighed the claims of the Arkansas Family Council, which says the lottery proposal should better define the games and could allow for the introduction of casinos in the state. The conservative group's lawyer told judges that the proposed lottery amendment supported by Lt. Gov. Bill Halter is unclear and misleading to voters.

Justice Donald Corbin asked whether a U.S. Supreme Court justice's 1964 definition of hard-core pornography - "I know it when I see it" - could apply to the state lottery.

"Why can't the people of Arkansas in this scenario say I can't really define it, but I know what a state lottery is?" Corbin asked an attorney for the Arkansas Family Council.

Martha Adcock, a lawyer representing the family council, disagreed.

"I think it's because you have a long history and the people have consistently rejected casino gaming," Adcock said.

Adcock earlier told justices that the measure is flawed because it doesn't describe its impact.

"I don't think anybody knows what a state lottery is," Adcock said.

Jess Askew, a lawyer representing Halter's Hope for Arkansas campaign, said that it would be "politically impossible" for lawmakers to use the amendment to open casinos.

"I believe that the political will of the people of Arkansas would never permit the members of the General Assembly to open up casinos in the state of Arkansas and give a penny or a nickel out of every dollar to college scholarships," Askew said. "The people of this state would run them off."

The council has asked the court to either remove the amendment from the Nov. 4 ballot or not count any votes for the amendment. The Supreme Court will rule on the lawsuit in the coming days.

Halter has proposed establishing a state-run game and dedicating its proceeds to college scholarships. Halter estimates the lottery will bring in $100 million annually, though critics have said the revenues would be significantly lower.

Arkansas voters have rejected lotteries twice before, but earlier proposals tied them in with casinos. Arkansas is one of only eight states without a lottery.

Not participating in Monday's hearing was the court's newest Justice Elana Wills, who was appointed last month to serve the remaining years of retiring Justice Tom Glaze's term. A former deputy attorney general who headed the legal opinions section, Wills reviewed the attorney general's opinion certifying the language of the lottery proposal.

The Family Council argued that the measure is unclear because it doesn't say whether it would repeal or just amend the state constitution's ban on lotteries.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew McCoy said the measure clearly doesn't repeal the ban on lotteries. Instead, he argued that the proposal would create a narrow exemption for state-run lotteries to raise money for college scholarships.

"Clearly, private, for-profit enterprises like those you see in Vegas or in Tunica would be inconsistent with the parameters set out by this ballot title," McCoy said.

Many of the details on what types of games the state could operate are left up to the Legislature if voters approve the measure next month. Justice Jim Gunter questioned whether the measure was giving up too much authority to lawmakers on the expansion of gambling.

"As I hear it, the title should be to delegate all authority on gambling to the General Assembly. Is that what you're saying?" Gunter said.

Corbin indicated he was skeptical of the council's argument that the measure was misleading to voters.

"When I read through it I don't have any difficulty understanding what they're doing and what they're meaning," the justice told the family council's lawyer. "It's only when I listen to your argument that I start getting a little wavery and (ask), 'Did I really read this? Did I read that properly?"'

Justices did not indicate when they would issue a ruling on the lawsuit. Both Halter and the Family Council said they hoped the court would rule before the start of early voting next week.