Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Smith rescheduled the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe disaster reading to September 2. After understanding what to expect from both the plaintiffs and the accused, Smith set another reading for September 6. He informed all parties involved that he expects to make a decision that evening and mentioned that an appeal would follow.
Two lawsuits were lodged on August 26, 2021, right before the closure of the Maricopa County Superior Court, aiming to stop the expansion of gambling in Arizona. This action was taken after the state granted ten certificates to tribes and eight to professional sports teams.
After being refused a sports betting technician license, TP Racing initiated the first lawsuit. The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, who missed out on one of the 10 certificates awarded to nations, lodged their second appeal just 33 moments subsequently.
An incident reading for each case was conducted on September 3. The scheduled launch of the state’s sports betting next week could be delayed if the decision favors any of the plaintiffs.
The issue with TP Racing is the first case of sports betting in AZ.
The lawsuit initiated by TP Racing, the owner of Turf Paradise horse-racing track in Phoenix, alleges that their sports wagering operator license was denied for reasons they describe as “arbitrary and capricious”, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support this decision and called it an “abuse of discretion”.
The TP Racing allegations primarily revolve around the Arizona Department of Gaming’s classification of a professional sports franchise. The group claims that the National Thoroughbred Racing Association is in possession of a private professional horseracing company.
Arizona lawmakers’ dangerous writing
The language used in the Arizona Statute andrsquo stipulates:
“The owner of a professional sports team or franchise in Arizona, promoter of a national stock car auto racing tour held in this state, the owner/operator/promoter…”
Application for a sports betting license from TP Racing & rsquo was denied
TP Racing & rsquo lodged a complaint stating that they had applied for a sports betting license. On August 10, the ADG asked for additional details. TP Racing complied by providing the requested information in the next three instances.
However, on August 16, the ADG dismissed the program. The following morning, the office released a text stating that TP Racing failed to meet the necessary criteria for trophy acquisition or to be recognized as a professional sport.
On August 20, TP Racing appealed the ruling which is still pending.
What is the goal of TP Racing?
The status of TP Racing under Arizona law will be fairly determined in a declarative and injunctive relief case.
Furthermore, the organization has requested a court to stop legal sports betting until the appeal of TP Racing is heard.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe is the defendant in the second sports betting case in Arizona. This is related to a tribal grievance.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (YPIT) has filed a complaint stating that the recent passage of HB 2772, a bill that expands gaming in Arizona, is the cause of their current dispute. The tribe claims that this law infringes on the exclusive gaming rights previously granted to tribes across the state.
Contravention of the claim made in the Voter Protection Act
The YPIT & rsquo’s initial claim is that HB 2772 infringes an Arizona law, which prevents legislators from diverging from voter referendums unless the legislation is intended to advance the objectives of the referendum.
Secondly, the kinship argues that the gaming expansion law violates Proposition 202, which granted state tribes exclusive rights to conduct gambling events on their ancestral lands.
Contravention of the Special Laws Prohibition Against the Constitution state
According to the tribe’s second claim, the state constitution prohibits the special treatment given to Arizona’s professional teams.
The tribe’s focus on Arizona case law shows how courts have recognized the potential issues under state law when legislation favors a particularly small group.
The states of the Unlawful Emergency Measure and Equal Protection
The fourth assertion of the YPIT is that HB 2772 should not be deemed as an urgent measure. Furthermore, the tribe contends that this law infringes upon the equal protection clause of Arizona, which stipulates:
“No law can be enacted that gives privileges or immunities, under the same circumstances, to any resident, group of citizens, or corporation that aren’t equally granted to all citizens or corporations, excluding provincial ones.”
Similar to West Flagler Associates’ argument on sports betting in Florida, the plaintiffs contend that the analysis should be subject to strict scrutiny – the highest level of review required for the government to justify an action.
The YPIT argues that the tribe was not included in the conversations about altering the state’s gaming agreements. They claim that the tribe’s exclusivity, which was guaranteed in the initially agreed compact, would be cancelled due to the supposed isolation of the tribe.
The YPIT wants what, exactly?
The Yavapai-Prescott has called for an order and asserts that HB 2772 is unconstitutional. In order to stop the implementation of sports betting, the tribe will initially seek a temporary restraining order.
What is the correct way to understand these assertions?
Considering their tight schedule, some individuals appeared skeptical about these promises at first, particularly after the ADG announced the distribution of sports gambling licenses. If these are approved, who plans to initiate a legal action?
However, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that both of these claims encompass serious allegations.
The lawsuit from Yavapai-Prescott significantly questions the validity of the small amendment procedure from 2003, which was implemented earlier this year. The community might also have the opportunity to challenge the legality of the compact in federal prosecution. However, this is a matter to be discussed at a different time.
However, the drafting of the act has raised some valid questions, as pointed out by the TP Racing complaint. Although Turf Paradise may not always be considered a professional sports venue or brand, TP Racing effectively argues that it has been recognized as such by Arizona in the past.
Turf Paradise first opened its doors on January 1st, 1956. According to TP Racing, the Arizona Department of Gaming (ADG) refers to it as “one of Arizona’s first sports franchises” on their website.
Associated Articles
