Florida Casino Gaming Expansion Initiative (2022)

Florida Casino Gaming Expansion Initiative
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Gambling
Status Not on the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

The Florida Casino Gaming Expansion Initiative (Initiative #21-16) was not on the ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022.

As of 5:00 p.m. on February 1, the Division of Elections showed that county elections officials had validated 814,212 signatures submitted by the campaign. To qualify for the ballot, 891,589 signatures needed to be validated by 5 p.m. on February 1st. Florida Voters in Charge filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court on January 31, 2022, asking the court to order the state and county elections offices to continue processing signatures until every petition in the possession of elections offices is validated or rejected.

Overview

Measure design

The initiative was designed to expand casino gaming in Florida by allowing businesses with active cardroom licenses to offer casino gaming as long as they (a) are located 130 miles in a straight line away from any of the seven Seminole tribal casinos and (b) expend $250 million in capital investments (new development and construction costs on the gaming complex) within three years after submitting a notice of commencement of casino gaming.

Gambling initiatives in Florida, 2022

Florida Education Champions sponsored an initiative concerning online sports betting in Florida. To see campaign finance activity surrounding gambling-related initiatives targeting the 2022 ballot in Florida, click here.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Limited Authorization of Casino Gaming.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Authorizes businesses with active cardroom licenses as of January 1, 2022 to offer casino gaming if they meet location limitations and make minimum capital investment towards new development and construction. Authorizes such businesses to relocate within the same county prior to December 31, 2025. Defines "casino gaming." Allows taxation and regulation of casino gaming consistent with the amendment.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot measure is available here.

Support

Florida Voters in Charge sponsored the initiative.

Supporters

• Las Vegas Sands
• Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry

Arguments

• Sarah Bascom, spokesperson for Florida Voters in Charge, said, "The radius is outside of the mileage requirements that are in the compact so as not to impact the revenue-sharing agreement with the Seminole Indian Tribe."

• Gary Bitner, spokesperson for the Seminole Indian Tribe, said, "Unlike the proposed sports betting ballot initiative, neither of these initiatives would interfere with the new gaming compact, nor would they impact the $2.5 billion revenue-sharing guarantee for the state of Florida over the compact’s first five years."

• Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry said on Twitter, "Jax is now a top destination for sports entertainment & I welcome the opportunity to add gaming to what @cityofjax has to offer. I look forward to talking with gaming leaders about our potential & why we are the right choice for @LasVegasSands."

Opposition

Standing up for Florida, Inc. (affiliated with the Seminole Tribe of Florida) led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through January 31, 2022.

Support

Florida Voters in Charge sponsored the initiative. The committee reported $75.56 million in contributions. Las Vegas Sands Corp gave $73.56 million and Poarch Creek Band of Indians gave $2 million. The committee reported expenditures totaling $74.10 million.

Opposition

Standing up for Florida registered to oppose the initiative, as well as the sports betting initiative. The Seminole Tribe of Florida gave $30 million to the committee. A different committee, Voters in Control, gave the $10 million (which it received from Seminole Gaming) to the Standing up for Florida committee. Standing up for Florida reported $39.74 million in expenditures.

Campaign finance activity surrounding 2022 Florida gambling initiatives

Updated April 11, 2022 (covering campaign finance activity through 3/31/2022):

Ballotpedia identified five committees registered to support and/or oppose gambling-related initiatives (#21-13 and #21-16) targeting the 2022 ballot in Florida. The following chart shows the committees, their total contributions and expenditures, and the donors. In total, the five committees reported receiving donations of $171.93 million.

Campaign finance activity surrounding Florida 2022 gambling initiatives:
Contributions	$171,932,902.05
Expenditures	$150,955,426.34

Campaign finance activity surrounding Florida 2022 gambling initiatives
Committee	Purpose	Total contributions	Total expenditures
Florida Education Champions	Support sports betting initiative (#21-13)	$41,093,027.00	$37,109,129.25
People Against Regulatory Legislation Addressing You (PARLAY)	Undetermined	$15,000,206.02	$206.02
Florida Voters in Charge	Support casino expansion initiative (#21-16)	$75,564,100.00	$74,105,796.34
Voters in Control	Undetermined	$5,435.26	$149.85
Standing up for Florida, Inc.	Oppose sports betting initiative (#21-13) and casino expansion initiative (#21-16)	$40,005,100.00	$39,740,144.88

Donors to committees surrounding Florida 2022 gambling initiatives
Donor	Committee	Amount
DraftKings	Florida Education Champions	$22,871,479.00
FanDuel	Florida Education Champions	$14,486,054.77
Southwest Florida Enterprises	Florida Education Champions	$4,000,000
West Flagler Associates, LTD (Magic City Casino)	People Against Regulatory Legislation Addressing You (PARLAY)	$15,000,206.02
Las Vegas Sands Corp	Florida Voters in Charge	$73,564,000.00
Seminole Tribe of Florida	Standing up for Florida	$30,005,000.00
Seminole Gaming	Voters in Control (then given by Voters in Control to Standing up for Florida)	$10,000,000.00
Poarch Creek Band of Indians	Florida Voters in Charge	$2,000,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Florida Amendment 3 (2018)

See also: Florida Amendment 3, Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative (2018)

In 2018, Florida voters approved Amendment 3, which gave voters the "exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida." Amendment 3 made the citizen initiative process "the exclusive method of authorizing casino gambling," meaning the Florida State Legislature is not permitted to authorize casino gambling through statute or through referring a constitutional amendment to the ballot. The amendment is not applicable to compacts between the state and Native American tribes under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that authorize gaming on tribal lands.

Gambling in Florida

Prior to 1931, gambling was outlawed in Florida. The Florida State Legislature passed a law to allow wagering on horseracing and dogracing, which Gov. Doyle Carlton (D) vetoed. Legislators voted to override the governor's veto, enacting the law on June 5, 1931. In 1935, the state legalized slot machines, but then repealed the law in 1937 following voters banning slot machines through ballot measures in multiple counties.

In 1987, the state launched the Florida State Lottery after voters approved an amendment the previous year. The vote was 63.57 percent to 36.43 percent.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida began operating a bingo hall in 1979. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), allowing tribes to establish casino gambling on tribal land. The act permitted states to form compacts with tribes to regulate Class III gaming, but not to regulate Class I and Class II gaming. Class I and Class II gaming were defined to include traditional tribal gaming with minimal prizes, bingo, and card games. Class III was defined to include all other games not considered Class I or Class II, such as roulette, craps, keno, slot machines, parimutual wagering, and lotteries. In 1991, the Seminole Tribe sued Gov. Lawton Chiles (D), arguing that the state government failed to negotiate in good faith a compact to allow the tribe to establish a Class III gaming. The case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in the state's favor, in 1996. In 2010, the Seminole Tribe negotiated a Class III gaming compact with Republican Gov. Charlie Crist. The compact allowed the Seminole Tribe to operate blackjack at five facilities through 2015 and required the tribe to share revenue with the state. In 2015, Gov. Rick Scott (R) formed a new 20-year compact with the Seminole Tribe, which added craps and roulette to the agreement and gave the tribe the exclusive right to blackjack.

Seminole Tribe gaming compact (April 2021)

Florida made a compact with the Seminole Tribe in April 2021 that gave the Tribe the exclusive ability to conduct sports betting in the state. Under the compact, the tribe would conduct sports betting and would be required to give a minimum of $400 million per year to the state of Florida for the next 30 years, until 2051. Under the compact, sports betting would be available online and at pari-mutuel facilities to anyone in the state and would be "deemed at all times to be exclusively conducted by the tribe at its facilities" where the sportsbooks and servers are located.

On July 2, 2021, West Flagler Associates (Magic City Casino) and Bonita Springs Poker Room filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division alleging that the compact would illegally allow online sports betting from any location in the state and that "'deeming' the bet to have been palced on Indian lands because the servers are located there contradicts decades of well-established precedent interpreting applicable federal law. Contrary to the legal fiction created by the 2021 Compact and Implementing Law, a bet is placed both where the bettor and the casino are each located."

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 requires that any gaming activities provided for through gaming compacts between Indian tribes and state governments occur only on Indian lands, defined as "all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation." Florida's 2021 compact with the Seminole Tribe contains a severability clause, providing that, "[i]f at any time the Tribe is not legally permitted to offer Sports Betting to Patrons physically located in the State but not on Indian lands," then the rest of the compact would remain in effect, meaning sports betting would then be available only on tribal lands.

Lawsuits surrounding the 2021 gaming compact

State Court (West Flagler Associates/Magic City Casino and Bonita Springs Poker Room):

On July 2, 2021, West Flagler Associates (Magic City Casino) and Bonita Springs Poker Room filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) alleging that the compact would illegally allow online sports betting from any location in the state. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs wrote, "'Deeming' the bet to have been placed on Indian lands because the servers are located there contradicts decades of well-established precedent interpreting applicable federal law. Contrary to the legal fiction created by the 2021 Compact and Implementing Law, a bet is placed both where the bettor and the casino are each located."

On October 18, 2021, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor dismissed the lawsuit, writing, "The Pari-mutuels lack standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary because their actions are not fairly traceable to any alleged harm. In addition, the requested declaratory and injunctive relief would provide no legal or practical redress to the Pari-mutuels’ injuries."

Federal Court (West Flagler Associates/Magic City Casino and Bonita Springs Poker Room):

The casinos filed a second lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Interior Secretary Debra Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior alleging that approval of the compact violates federal laws including bank wire laws "by unlawfully permitting internet and bank wire transmission of transactions and payments relating to sports betting between the Tribe’s reservations and the rest of Florida, where sports betting is otherwise illegal" and the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause by allowing the Seminole Tribe to conduct online sports gambling in Florida although it would be illegal for anyone else to do so. The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed a motion to intervene seeking dismissal of the case. The Tribe said, "The tribe is projected to realize profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars from sports betting over the life of the 2021 compact and those profits would be lost if the challenged provisions are invalidated." Arguments were heard on November 5, 2021. On November 22, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the compact violated the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act. Friedrich wrote, "Although the Compact ‘deem[s]’ all sports betting to occur at the location of the Tribe’s ‘sports book(s)’ and supporting servers, this Court cannot accept that fiction. When a federal statute authorizes an activity only at specific locations, parties may not evade that limitation by ‘deeming’ their activity to occur where it, as a factual matter, does not." The Seminole Tribe of Florida appealed the ruling.

Federal Court (No Casinos, Armando Codina, and Norman Braman):

No Casinos, Armando Codina, and Norman Braman filed a lawsuit on September 27, 2021, in United States District Court against Interior Secretary Debra Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior alleging that the compact violates federal law by authorizing sports betting to take place off of the reservation and violates the federal Wire Act “by authorizing gambling outside of Indian lands and by allowing the use of the Internet or interstate payment transmissions where sports betting is illegal.”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

The state process

In Florida, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the state's 28 congressional districts. Signatures remain valid until February 1 of an even-numbered year. Signatures must be verified by February 1 of the general election year the initiative aims to appear on the ballot.

Proposed measures are reviewed by the state attorney general and state supreme court after proponents collect 25% of the required signatures across the state in each of one-half of the state's congressional districts (222,898 signatures for 2024 ballot measures). After these preliminary signatures have been collected, the secretary of state must submit the proposal to the Florida Attorney General and the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC). The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially invalid under the United States Constitution."

The requirements to get an initiative certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 891,589 valid signatures
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was February 1, 2022. As election officials have 30 days to check signatures, petitions should be submitted at least one month before the verification deadline.

In Florida, proponents of an initiative file signatures with local elections supervisors, who are responsible for verifying signatures. Supervisors are permitted to use random sampling if the process can estimate the number of valid signatures with 99.5% accuracy. Enough signatures are considered valid if the random sample estimates that at least 115% of the required number of signatures are valid.

Details about the initiative

• Florida Voters in Charge filed two versions of the initiative (#21-15 and #21-16). The initiatives were approved for circulation on July 15, 2021. Sarah Bascom, a spokesperson for Florida Voters in Charge, said the committee would decide which version to pursue. The committee pursued version 21-16.
• The committee said it was expecting to turn in the required signatures by December 30, 2021.
• Florida Voters in Charge faced an unofficial deadline to submit signatures on December 30. Florida county elections officials had 30 days (until February 1) to verify the signatures.
• The initiative was sent to the Florida Supreme Court for review on January 7, 2022. The timeline of the case was set to be as follows:
  • January 28, 2022: briefs from opponents due;
  • February 7, 2022: answering briefs from supporters due;
  • February 14, 2022: briefs in response to supporters due.
  • The court stated it will determine whether or not to conduct oral argument, which would be held on March 8.
• As of 5:00 p.m. on February 1, the Division of Elections showed that county elections officials had validated 814,212 signatures submitted by the campaign. To qualify for the ballot, 891,589 signatures needed to be validated by 5 p.m. on February 1st. Florida Voters in Charge filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court on January 31, 2022, asking the court to order the state and county elections offices to continue processing signatures until every petition in the possession of elections offices is validated or rejected.

Petition blocking

See also: Petition blocking

Petition blocking refers to organized efforts to prevent citizen-initiated measures or candidates from collecting sufficient signatures to meet ballot access requirements. Actions related to petition blocking can take various forms, including physical blockages, legal complaints and lawsuits, and administrative actions. Financial petition blocking occurs when opponents of a ballot measure use financial tactics, such as financial incentives for signature gatherers to forgo collection or retaining petition collection companies so that supporters cannot use them.

Politico reported on November 29, 2021, that the Seminole Tribe of Florida "is paying petition gathering firms to not work in Florida during the 2022 midterms as part of an effort to block rival proposed gaming constitutional amendments — a strategy that also includes running a separate informal signature gathering operation and hiring workers that interfere with other petition gatherers." Seminole spokesperson Gary Bitner said the tribe "assembled the best team of political consultants in the country [and is] currently engaged to oppose multiple outside interests that have initially invested a combined $60 million in PAC money to hire more than a thousand people to fight the Tribe’s success." Faten Alkhulifi, regional director at Advanced Micro Targeting, said, "I have never seen it this bad. I have seen blockers before, but not like this. It makes these canvassers fear for their safety. I’ve seen people about to sign, then they end up walking away, sometimes scared." Rasheida Smith, CEO of Dunton Consulting, the signature gathering company for the casino gaming expansion initiative, said 32 members of her signature gathering team took "buyouts from the Seminole-linked firms in the past two days alone." Smith said, "Over the last 72 hours there has really been a big uptick, they are starting to use canvassers to co-opt other canvassers. They are super aggressive. Have been following them, tracking them to their places of residence, which are hotels, standing outside. We literally had one smack a clipboard out of the canvasser's hands the other day."

Politico also reported that "As part of the effort, the Seminole Tribe of Florida has also been paying to circulate a separate petition that it claims supports the Seminole’s compact and new revenue for Florida. That effort, known as a plebiscite, is not tied to any specific measure being proposed for the 2022 ballot, but asks things like a signer’s name and address. The Seminole Tribe of Florida says the plebiscite is about 'education.' But supporters of the ballot measure argue it muddies the waters, making people think they have already signed a petition in support of one of the two ballot measures, when in reality they have signed a piece of paper not associated with any official campaign." Zachery Herrington, state director of Advanced Micro Targeting, said, "That’s the thing, when we come and ask someone to sign a petition saying it will increase funding for local schools, we hear them tell our gatherers that they have already signed. It’s totally confusing, as it’s designed to be."

Petition blocking lawsuit

Las Vegas Sands filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order the Seminole Tribe to stop the petition blocking effort. Speaking to Leon County Circuit Court Judge Angela Dempsey, attorney for Las Vegas Sands James McKee said, "Every day that goes by, what’s happening is people are being poached. People are being paid off to leave the state. For what purpose? For the sole purpose of trying to not have the requisite number of signatures obtained between now and Dec. 30. We’re only 22 days away at this point. The whole game is to try to get as close to Dec. 30 as possible, while they continue to do their obstructionist and sabotage activities." Dempsey declined to issue a temporary injunction and set a date of December 14 to hear a motion to hear evidence in the case. On December 11, Florida Voters in Charge filed a motion withdrawing their request for an emergency injunction related to the petition blocking attempts and cancelling the December 14 hearing. Committee spokeswoman Sarah Bascom said, "We will not allow any distractions, legal maneuvers or the tribe’s egregious blocking tactics to distract us from that mission. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw our request for an emergency injunction so our team members can remain focused on gathering signatures and not be held up in the courtroom. With our effort reaching this critical stage and our signature gathering progress in full swing, we will not be deterred by legal maneuvers seeking to bring our on-the-ground team members out of the field and tie them up in legal proceedings.” Florida Voters in Charge filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on January 31, 2022.

Signature validity lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether signature gatherers were paid by the signature, which was made illegal in Florida as of 2019
Court:
Plaintiff(s): Standing Up for Florida committee (funded by the Seminole Tribe and chaired by Pradeep “Rick” Asnani)	Defendant(s): Florida Voters in Charge
Plaintiff argument: Florida Voters in Charge illegally paid signature gatherers per signature; signatures gathered for the initiative should be invalidated	Defendant argument: Unknown

  Source: News Service of Florida

The Standing Up for Florida committee filed a lawsuit on January 10 seeking to block the signatures collected by Florida Voters in Charge from being validated. Standing Up for Florida alleged that Florida Voters in Charge illegally paid signature gatherers per signature. Until 2019, Florida allowed paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected. In 2019, House Bill 5 was signed into law in Florida. Among other provisions, House Bill 5 banned pay-per-signature.

Motion concerning plaintiffs' violation of state law in petition gathering process

On December 17, 2021, the defendants in the lawsuit (Marc Jacoby; Kara Owens; Cornerstone Solutions Florida LLC; Let the Voters Decide, LLC; and Standing Up for Florida, Inc.) filed a motion requesting that Leon County Circuit Court Judge Angela Dempsey turn over information alleging that the plaintiffs, Florida Voters in Charge (sponsored by Las Vegas Sands), violated certain state laws in the signature gathering process, such as that circulators' hours were documented to match the number of petitions they had gathered such that they were being paid by the signature, which was made illegal under state law in 2019.

William Shepherd, a lawyer for the defendants, said, "Plaintiffs are brazenly violating Florida election law. This raises serious integrity questions. As it pertains to the instant case, while the plaintiffs have accused defendants of hiring plaintiffs’ employees, the underlying employee contracts at issue are based on an illegal scheme, so the contracts themselves are illegal and therefore … unenforceable." The motion stated, "Upon closer analysis, including review of one of the plaintiffs’ own websites, it appears these redactions were done to hide the illegal compensation scheme for how the plaintiffs pay their circulators." Jim McKee, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the allegations "are meritless, and are nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from their aggressive attempts to prevent Florida voters from having the opportunity to vote to end the Seminole Tribe’s monopoly over Florida casino gaming."

Secretary of State letter suspecting fraudulent petitions

On December 3, 2021, Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee's assistant general counsel Colleen O'Brien wrote a letter to the Attorney General stating that they had received information from six county elections offices involving suspected fraudulent petitions. The suspected fraudulent petitions had mismatching signatures, were of deceased individuals, or were signatures of elections supervisors who did not sign the petitions. Jim McKee, the attorney for Florida Voters in Charge, said, "The idea that our committee would purposely submit fraudulent petitions is ridiculous. This would not help our effort in any way."

Signature deadline lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether all signatures should be counted that were in county elections offices by the signature deadline
Court:
Plaintiff(s): Florida Voters in Charge	Defendant(s): Elections officials
Plaintiff argument: County elections officials did not fulfill "their duty to promptly verify signatures as they were submitted, and instead permitted a backlog of signatures to amass"; signatures were rejected for signature mismatch and the campaign was not given notice or ability to cure them; laws governing Florida's initiative process are unconstitutional	Defendant argument: Unknown

  Source: Florida Trend

On January 31, 2022, Florida Voters in Charge filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court asking the court to order the state and county elections offices to continue processing signatures until every petition in the possession of elections offices is validated or rejected and allow the campaign to cure mismatched signatures. In the lawsuit, the committee alleged that:

• county elections officials did not fulfill "their duty to promptly verify signatures as they were submitted, and instead permitted a backlog of signatures to amass";
• signatures were rejected for signature mismatch and the campaign was not given notice or ability to cure them; and
• laws governing Florida's initiative process are unconstitutional because the state constitution "permits regulation of the initiative petition process only to the extent it is strictly necessary to ensure ballot integrity" and that state laws, rules, and "ad hoc practices have led to exclusion of thousands of voters from the official count are not strictly necessary – or even logically related – to ballot integrity."

Supreme Court ballot language review request

Florida Voters in Charge requested that the Florida Supreme Court issue its advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially valid under the United States Constitution," which it is required to give under state law once an initiative reaches 25% of the required signatures across the state in each of one-half of the state's congressional districts. The Florida Supreme Court argued that since the initiative did not qualify for the ballot, the issue is moot and the advisory opinion is not required. Florida Voters in Charge argued, "The signature count for 2022 is in dispute and subject to pending litigation. If FVIC prevails in that litigation, the official signature count may show that the petition has qualified for the 2022 ballot. Accordingly, the case is not moot." Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a brief with the court arguing that the ballot language should still be reviewed, arguing that "the Attorney General does not believe that the fact that the petition failed to qualify for placement on the 2022 ballot diverts the court of that jurisdiction [to review ballot language]." Senate President Wilton Simpson filed a brief with the court on behalf of the Florida State Senate arguing that the language should not be reviewed, saying "the argument that signatures expire for ballot placement, but maintain their validity for review is not a natural reading of the relevant portions of the constitution and statutes governing the initiative process."

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Gambling on the ballot

Florida

• Florida ballot measures
• Florida ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Florida Division of Elections Initiative Database
• Initiative 21-16 full text