NOT SO LUCKY IN KENTUCKY: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF KENTUCKY’S SLOT MACHINES

If you ask a general Yankee about Kentucky, you will answer the "race" sooner. Along with Bourbon and Fried Chicken, Kentucky is linked to the race industry and is extremely popular as a "Moscow World Horse Town". [3] Fans gather at the bookmaker's bookmaker window in Church Land, Kinland, and Red Miles, and arrange a bet on their own jumping and other jumping with various cover with the support of simulation. [4] Fans choose the horse for a variety of reasons, such as the latest racing results, loved coaches, jockeys, or their favorite paints worn by horses and jockey. [5] The economic impact that this industry has been giving to Kentoky is significant. Betting is a great attraction for horse racing fans, only retaining the image of this sport in the time when professional sports became the mainstream in the sports industry. [7] During this time, the betting on the race was regarded as a single appearance of the legal gambling in Kentucky (excluding charity games and state lottery), and regulated by the Kentucky State Section 528 and Kntukka Rake (KHRC). It is done []. < SPAN> Speaking of a general Yankee, if you ask Kentucky, you will answer the "race" quickly. Along with Bourbon and Fried Chicken, Kentucky is linked to the race industry and is extremely popular as a "Moscow World Horse Town". [3] Fans gather at the bookmaker's bookmaker window in Church Land, Kinland, and Red Miles, and arrange a bet on their own jumping and other jumping with various cover with the support of simulation. [4] The fans choose the horse for a variety of reasons, such as the latest races, loved coaches, jockeys, or their favorite paints in horses and jockeys. [5] The economic impact that this industry has been giving to Kentoky is significant. Betting is a great attraction for horse racing fans, only retaining the image of this sport in the time when professional sports became the mainstream in the sports industry. [7] During this time, the betting on the race was regarded as a single appearance of the legal gambling in Kentucky (excluding charity games and state lottery), and regulated by the Kentucky State Section 528 and Kntukka Rake (KHRC). It is done []. If you ask a general Yankee about Kentucky, you will answer the "race" sooner. Along with Bourbon and Fried Chicken, Kentucky is linked to the race industry and is extremely popular as a "Moscow World Horse Town". [3] Fans gather at the bookmaker's bookmaker window in Church Land, Kinland, and Red Miles, and arrange a bet on their own jumping and other jumping with various cover with the support of simulation. [4] Fans choose the horse for a variety of reasons, such as the latest racing results, loved coaches, jockeys, or their favorite paints worn by horses and jockey. [5] The economic impact that this industry has been giving to Kentoky is significant. Betting is a great attraction for horse racing fans, only retaining the image of this sport in the time when professional sports became the mainstream in the sports industry. [7] During this time, the betting on the race was regarded as a single appearance of the legal gambling in Kentucky (excluding charity games and state lottery), and regulated by the Kentucky State Section 528 and Kntukka Rake (KHRC). It is done [].

However, the law on gambling in Kentokki has been clearly registered, and its features have recently diminished. In fact, in 2011, a historic race machine (HHR Machine Gun) was set up in Hippo Dorome. The "Slot Machine" that can be seen in a normal casino in Las Vegas has a gambling image similar to a casino prohibited in Kentcch, such as flashing lights, actions on action, and direct bets [10]. There is. [11] Most of the Kentukki Supreme Court decided that these HH R-automatic machines were illegal and were not modified as Pari s-Mutuel Bettin g-this foundation stone granit, so horse jumping. The speed was legally described under the Kentukka method. [12] According to the response, the legislation collection ignores the aspect of the court about 1, actually gives Paris-Mutuel, which is not distinguished from the Kentakka to solve the powerful industry. Continue using the same owner-game system as slots that were rudimentary in the definition of Mutuel. [13] The Senate bill 120 (generally called slo t-related bills), which defines this image of this law, has been adopted without any constitution. In other texts, Kentokkie people did not have any remarks when introducing gambling data.

This paper is a special legislation that is only to make special benefits contrary to Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution, and conforms to the authority in the Division State, contrary to Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution. Because there is no, he concludes that it is considered unconstitutional. Part 1 clarifies the true definition of the Paris Mewel rate and clarifies that the HHR machine is not included in this category. Part II summarizes the wording of the Parisi Cheer Betting and the bills that redefine the results. The III Department considers that the legislative measures do not comply with Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution and the location of authority. In the IV section, we will consider defective tax systems and public preferential treatment for the horse racing industry. Finally, in Part V, the recovery of the constitution is important for such a gambling business, and it is essential to be taxed as a legalized gambling business.

I. What is Parisimi Chewel in the first place?

In Kentucky, all horse racing bets must be in the Parisimi Tewel method. Article 226 of the State Constitution is basically "the sweepstakes and gifts are prohibited, and there are no plans for the same purpose. This is" in the interpretation of the Kentucky Court. In Kentucky, gambling is generally banned, but there are mainly exceptions such as a state lottery, charitable gambling, and of course horse racing.

Unlike normal betting in casinos and sports, Paris Mewelberting prepares a bed to other betors, not for the Association ("House"), for example, like a blackjack. [18]. In other words, each race has a currency pool consisting of all beds placed in a specific race. [19] [19] The betting pool also determines the possibility of the odds and payouts of each horse, and ensures the transparency of all betters. At the end of the race, money is distributed to the person who won, and the payout to the winner is based on the final odds just before the race starts.

When Better bets on its own, what do Hipodrome owners, jockeys, and horse owners get? This is called "tak e-out", and a certain percentage of prize money (depending on the state and circuit, but usually 10-20 %) is distributed by these members and is used for tax. Since the amount of tak e-out bet does not change, the winning Better will actually pay the cost of running the race on the circuit.

A. The meaning of Artel

The Kentucky Court has a variety of information to confirm the commonly accepted meaning, because the KRS 230, which regulates horse racing parall i-elbeting, has no definition of the term "Paris Mewel Betting". I use the source. [24] For example, the 1978 Perspectory Horse Racing Law, which aims to standardize betting practices outside the course, is implemented by those who have been approved or have been approved by the State Law. [25] In the betting pool, a bed for the race final is performed with support, and the member is defined as a system that does not for the operator but to someone else. [25]

The term pari-mutuel comes from the French, where "pari" means "bet" and "mutual" means "mutual" or "reciprocal." In Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club, the Kentucky Court of Appeals defined pari-mutuel as follows:

[The machine operator does not place bets at all. He merely operates a game played on a particular machine in which all who purchase a pool of a particular race bet among themselves. The operator receives 5% of his salary as a commission. But when selling regular horse racing pools, the seller has no control over "the machines or devices used for betting. Nor do they bet on the horse races."[27].

Moreover, the KHRC's legal definition is entirely consistent with these historical definitions, except for the following: "Bets are made not against an association, but against one another, and the amounts wagered are placed in one or more specially designated betting pools, and the net pool is returned to the winning lender."[28].

The Kentucky courts, the KHRC, and the federal government agreed on a single definition. So, it is safe to say that until 2021, "parimutuel" had a virtually universal meaning.

B. HHR Machines Are Not Pari-Mutuel Bets

Despite the well-understood meaning of parimutuel, Kentucky racetracks began to push the boundaries (or simply throw them away) in 2011 by introducing HHR machines. Triple Action Dragon, Booster, and Tiger Road are just a few of the hundreds of game themes available in HHR slots. The machine itself looks like a slot machine. You put in money. You press a button. The spinning wheel, lights, and sounds excite all patrons.[31] The racetracks and KHRC justified the introduction of the machines on the grounds that the machine's results were based on races previously held. The Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed, ruling 7-0 in Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, finding that HHR machines do not constitute a parimutuel system.

In his decision, Judge Van Meter explained that pari-mutuel betting requires two basic elements: "players bet against each other, not against an association," and "the amounts bet are placed in one or more specific betting pools."[34]

For example, all betting tickets are deemed to be different in all kinds of opportunities for thousands of panels to bed at the same time, which is certainly necessary for Paris Mewel Betting. As the court explained, this key is considered to be a reciprocity. Mutuality is translated from the French Mutuel sentence and means mutual guidance. In betting, this is an application for Better to own a friend's bet bond or bet on them. "[38] Explaining this mutual benefit," Avitator VanMeter said: "No benefactor, without giving one historical jumping simultaneous access to one historical jump, the benefactor bets between himself. It cannot be performed by the Parisi Chewel Pool, the coefficient and payment are placed. "[39]

The second principle is that, in addition to mutual benefits, you must participate in the provided act once or a certain number of pools for betting. In the family Trust, KHRC stated that Hipodrome had created an "original start pool", and the principle of pool purposes was implemented. The Supreme Court did not agree again and said:

"Betting pools should only be made by Atsushi, and as one court based on established testimony, the cartridge has the potential to get an unpleasant pool, so it is actually. In order to fill the start pool, the pool is not actually formed by the customer. This is because we are demanding such a thing. "

Other texts are considered an enemy at another end of the speed to prepare the cartridge when it comes to an HHR machine gun, and it is impossible to actually prepare the life of the Parisimi Tuelbet. Autonomous, essential, as if the payment of funds lost by the benefactor is organized, the possibility of a joint pool between a lover if only the connection clarifies the "pool". In fact, it is actually HH R-machine gun [43].

II. Final bill

In response to the Supreme Court's conclusion that HHR Machine Gun is not considered to be a Paris Mutuel fee, the Kentoky Council immediately passed the Senate bill No. 120 and followed KRS Chapter 230, "Paris Mutuel (Pari). -Mutuel) The first step was changed, answered to KHRC, and protected the unique game-business of the betting office. Chapter 230 The "new" definition presented in KRS says correctly:

"Pari-mutuel" means a method of betting, previously or subsequently approved by the Racing Commission, in which one or more sponsors place bets on a horse or races, whether live, simulated, or historical. Bets are placed in one or more pools, and bets on different races or series of races are likely to be combined. It also covers all transferable amounts approved by the Racing Commission and permitted by law, and all amounts available to be provided by the association, less any significant deductions. The pools are likely to be paid in stages over time, as approved by the Racing Commission.[45]

It is immediately clear that the General Assembly completely ignores the actual definition of pari-mutuel. The definition, which consists of several paragraphs, makes no mention of the fact that "customers place bets with each other, not with the association," or that, in fact, "bets are placed only by customers." Just a few months before the bill was passed, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled on two important requirements for pari-mutuel betting. [46] According to Martin Cotlan of the Family Foundation, "The Legislature simply wrote a new definition of pari-mutuel. The Legislature wrote a new definition that has not been adopted anywhere outside of Kentucky.... Instead, the Kentucky Racing Commission racetracks and their supporters have attached their influence to the law and adapted it to their own needs. The legislators have simply adapted the law to please rather extravagant and influential special interests."[47]

Not only did the Legislature ignore the Supreme Court's question of what a pari-mutuel bet actually is, but the contents of the new definition itself are not comparable to what a pari-mutuel bet is actually supposed to be.[48] If you distinguish the first sentence, the law reads: "A method approved by the KHRC in which one or more patrons wager on horse races."[49] The key sentence here is "one or more." [The opposite of what pari-mutuel actually means (stranger-to-stranger betting, friend-to-friend binding, reciprocity, etc.) allowing one person to place bets against a group sounds a lot like betting on a slot machine.[50]

In the second half of the definition, an attempt is made to distinguish the theory of the "betting pool" necessary for the bets to be de pari-mutuel. Recall that this is in fact a pool, developed by the patrons for separate, distinct events. The legislature has completely lost its pace, and this is its application. In return, to encourage the patrons to set up coefficients and pools, the bill conveys that "customers have every opportunity to set up coefficients and payouts", in fact allocating the association the right to set them autonomously. Apart from this, the pools in which "overtime pay" is paid are revealed by pools developed for separate actions. In short, this distinguishes the right of the association to direct the bets as it likes, with zero transparency for the patrons. Not paying attention to the use of the word "pool" by the lawyers, this is a rudimentary pretense. As in a simple casino, the "house" keeps for itself the funds lost by the patent, and pays them out over the period at its discretion.[54] The background to this bill is the fact that it effectively allows racetracks to turn to casinos without expressing any doubts about the competition or the results. ] Kentucky-believer and founder of Kentucky Sports Radio Matt Jones knows the absurdity of the bill. Lotteries and slot machines are legalized in Kentucky - the two hardest non-setting gambling to win, which cause regression and addiction. At the same time, gambling that you can really win, such as sports gambling and poker, is still illegal. Logic and intelligence are not our strongest aspects" [56]. Low income, and causes more addiction than any other gambling configuration [57].

Iii. Kentucky Constitution Article 226 and the division of powers

A. HRR-machines do not comply with Article 226.

The expanded gaming structure proposed in Kentucky must pass the test of conformity with Article 226 of the state constitution, which states that "Lotteries and freebies are prohibited and need not be conducted, and in fact no programs with a similar purpose need be conducted." At the time the Kentucky Constitution was adopted, its framers understood the term "lottery" as a system in which players bet on the fact that certain numbers will be selected as a result of a random drawing.[59] The landmark case of Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club[60] provided the scope of this provision and a definition of the term "lottery":

Lottery is a form of gambling, described as a system of distribution of prizes or valuables by lottery or chance among persons who have paid, or are willing to pay, substantial compensation for the opportunity of participating in the distribution...[61]

The court stated that the definition consists of four elements: "reward, chance, price, and method of payment"[62], but pari-mutuel betting in horse racing clearly relates to these four substances, and the court nevertheless recognized an exception for this form of gambling.[63] The tribunal concluded that "the clear authority of the authorities does not support the transaction. In fact, the outcome of the race depends on simple chance within the meaning of this term in the definition of lottery."[65] The court concluded that "Gambling, betting, and lotteries have been successively recognized as separate baggage in law and practice, requiring different professions and all possible sanctions. These distinctions are well developed, clearly defined, and actively enforced in the majority of cases."[66] To understand why the court recognized pari-mutuel betting, it is necessary to consider these definitions.

As already mentioned, the term "lottery" requires compensation, accidental, prize, and payment means. [67] The Kentucky court has widely interpreted the terms as a random distribution of prizes mainly for rewards. When judging whether a device or system is a lottery, the element of coincidence is the most controversial. The Kentucky court has determined that the plan is considered a lottery and is prohibited if it is a "dominant element" that determines the result. With this dominant factor approach, Kentucky has banned various gambling systems, including pinball machines, theater tickets, and mult i-commercial laws, and numerical games. All of them are lotteries because coincidence is a dominant factor that determines the result.

Historically, the term "gambling" refers to individuals who participate in gambling games, such as cards and dice. The term "has a very limited meaning, is applied to the results of games performed on cards, dice, machinery, wheels, and other devices. Lottery, lottery, etc., including lottery, lottery, etc. It is wider for all accidental games. "[77] In short, the lottery and the gambling are prohibited in Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution because it is a coincidence. [78]

The term "betting" includes gambling in all forms in Kentucky, whether legal or illegal. "Bet" "What is the time to bet on a certain amount of uncertain future events, play for money and other bets, and deposit money and property for accidental events. [80] McDevitt vs. THOMAS court seems to distinguish the lottery and horse betting. [67] Requires paid, accidental, prize, and payment means. The Kentucky court has widely interpreted the terms as a random distribution of prizes mainly for rewards. When judging whether a device or system is a lottery, the element of coincidence is the most controversial. The Kentucky court has determined that the plan is considered a lottery and is prohibited if it is a "dominant element" that determines the result. With this dominant factor approach, Kentucky has banned various gambling systems, including pinball machines, theater tickets, and mult i-commercial laws, and numerical games. All of them are lotteries because coincidence is a dominant factor that determines the result.

Historically, the term "gambling" refers to individuals who participate in gambling games, such as cards and dice. The term "has a very limited meaning, is applied to the results of games performed on cards, dice, machinery, wheels, and other devices. Lottery, lottery, etc., including lottery, lottery, etc. It is wider for all accidental games. "[77] In short, the lottery and the gambling are prohibited in Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution because it is a coincidence. [78]

The term "betting" includes gambling in all forms in Kentucky, whether legal or illegal. "Bet" "What is the time to bet on a certain amount of uncertain future events, play for money and other bets, and deposit money and property for accidental events. [80] McDevitt vs. THOMAS seems to distinguish the lottery and horse bet: It requires a coincidence, prizes, and payment means. The Kentucky court has widely interpreted the terms as a random distribution of prizes mainly for rewards. When judging whether a device or system is a lottery, the element of coincidence is the most controversial. The Kentucky court has determined that the plan is considered a lottery and is prohibited if it is a "dominant element" that determines the result. With this dominant factor approach, Kentucky has banned various gambling systems, including pinball machines, theater tickets, and mult i-commercial laws, and numerical games. All of them are lotteries because coincidence is a dominant factor that determines the result.

Historically, the term "gambling" refers to individuals who participate in gambling games, such as cards and dice. The term "has a very limited meaning, is applied to the results of games performed on cards, dice, machinery, wheels, and other devices. Lottery, lottery, etc., including lottery, lottery, etc. It is wider for all accidental games. "[77] In short, the lottery and the gambling are prohibited in Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution because it is a coincidence. [78]

The term "betting" includes gambling in all forms in Kentucky, whether legal or illegal. "Bet" "What is the time to bet on a certain amount of uncertain future events, play for money and other bets, and deposit money and property for accidental events. "Including quality" [80] McDevitt vs. THOMAS court seems to distinguish the lottery bet.

[The words "bet" and "betting" have a much more comprehensive and all-encompassing meaning than the word "gambling". Its scope is unlimited, and it has no meaning whether what is considered a bet is something condemned or prohibited by law or not. The object of a bet may be, and is often considered to be, an absolutely innocent pastime or a legally permitted act, such as, for example, testing the speed of an animal or a human being, or the outcome of an election. It may also be based on ordinary worldviews and the exercise of judgment, for example, the height of a mountain, the width of a river, the distance to an object, or the authority of a particular object.[81]

A few years later, in the Kentucky Jockey Club case, the court recognized betting on horses as legal, emphasizing the idea that betting is based on concepts and judgments. The Kentucky Jockey Club subsequently expanded this theory, as the court began to consider these issues in the light of the prevailing factors.[83] 84] In this scheme, "the character of the game is determined not by whether it is a content of chance or a content of professionalism, but by what is considered to be the main factor determining the outcome of the game."[84][85] This balance was applied in Commonwealth v. Allen, where the court ruled that "randomness permeated the entire scheme" and made it a lottery.[86]

Applying the Kentucky Jockey Club injunction and the facts to the present issue of HHR machines, it is clear that these machines cannot be considered lawful wagering under Article 226.[87]

HHR machines do not operate on a pari-mutuel basis because there is no reciprocity and the backers do not create a betting pool.[90]

The words "bet" and "wagering" have a much more inclusive and comprehensive meaning than the word "gambling." Its scope is unlimited, and it has no meaning whether what counts as a bet is or is not condemned or prohibited by law. The subject of betting can be, and is often considered to be, an absolutely innocent pastime or legally permitted activity, such as, for example, testing the speed of animals or humans or the outcome of an election. It may also be based on ordinary worldviews and the exercise of judgment, for example, the height of a mountain, the width of a river, the distance to an object, or the authority of a particular object.[81]

A few years later, in the Kentucky Jockey Club case, the Court found betting on horses lawful, emphasizing the idea that betting is based on concepts and judgments. Kentucky Jockey Club then expanded this theory as the Court began to consider these issues in light of prevailing factors.[83] 84] In this scheme, "the character of a game is determined not by whether it is a content of chance or a content of professionalism, but by what is considered to be the primary factor determining the outcome of the game."[84][85] This balance was applied in Commonwealth v. Allen, where the Court ruled that "randomness permeated the entire plan" in effect, making it a lottery.[86]

Applying the Kentucky Jockey Club injunction and its facts to the present issue of HHR machines, it is clear that these machines cannot be considered lawful betting under В§ 226.[87] [HHR machines do not operate on a pari-mutuel basis, since there is no reciprocity and the backers do not create a betting pool.[90] The words "bet" and "gamble" have a much more comprehensive and all-encompassing meaning than the word "gambling". Its scope is unlimited, and it does not matter whether what counts as a bet is condemned or prohibited by law. The subject of a bet may be, and is often considered to be, an absolutely innocent pastime or a legally permitted activity, such as testing the speed of an animal or a human being, or the outcome of an election. It may also be based on ordinary worldviews and the exercise of judgment, such as the height of a mountain, the width of a river, the distance to an object, or the authority of a particular object.[81]

A few years later, in the Kentucky Jockey Club case, the courts legally recognized betting on horses, emphasizing the idea that betting is based on concepts and judgments. The Kentucky Jockey Club subsequently expanded this theory, as the courts began to consider these issues in light of prevailing factors.[83] 84] In this system, "the character of the game is not determined by whether it is a matter of chance or professionalism, but by what is believed to be the primary factor in determining the outcome of the game."[84][85] This balance was applied in Commonwealth v. Allen, where the court ruled that, in effect, "randomness permeated the entire plan" and made it a lottery.[86] Applying the Kentucky Jockey Club injunction and the facts to the present issue of HHR machines, it is clear that these machines cannot be considered lawful wagering under Section 226.[87] [HHR machines do not operate on a pari-mutuel basis because there is no reciprocity and no betting pool created by the backers.[90]

According to Kentucky Jockey Club, the nature of the betting of the HHR machine is not illegal because it is not a Paris Mewel, but also a lottery that is illegal in Article 226. Slot machines are considered a lottery because they are operated based on coincidence, not judgment, concept, and technology. [92] To bet on the HHR machine, the patient approaches the machine, enters the money, and presses the button to determine the win or loss within a few seconds. There is no judgment or skill here, and the user's skills are the same as playing with a casino slot machine.

KHRC and horse racing officials say that the machine is more prominent than a normal casino slot machine because it produces results based on past races. However, although this device has a prominent ability, the impact on the player remains a coincidence. The HHR machine generates the amount by randomly selecting three possible races from the past lace database. Whether the machine uses a random number generator or a past race, the latter still remains random, so it doesn't make any sense for players. There is no way to demonstrate professionalism or judgment. In actual races and simulators, gamblers have the opportunity to learn the statistics of each horse, see horses in real time, and determine the aptitude of jockeys and trainers. However, in HHR games, such a moment is meaningless and not popular with Better. [As a dramatic development, HHR systems are called "gambling" at racetracks in Kentucky, such as Red Miles. Jordan Scott Flynn Hollander of UNLV Gaming Law Journal discusses the problem of instant betting machines applied to New Jersey::

The random race, which determines the game results of these devices, is based on the race completed in the past, not a live race, and is not based on the rea l-time simulation of horse racing data ... However, direct betting devices are based on past races, so they are likely to be, and simply different from live and simulation Pariminu Eel Betting. These are slot machines with different types of random number generators. " According to the Kentucky Jockey Club, the nature of the gap provided by the HHR machine is not an illegal because it is not a Paralymi Tewel but also a lottery that is considered illegal in Article 226. гЂ‚ Slot machines are considered a lottery because they are operated based on coincidence, not judgment, concept, and technology. [92] To bet on the HHR machine, the patient approaches the machine, enters the money, and presses the button to determine the win or loss within a few seconds. There is no judgment or skill here, and the user's skills are the same as playing with a casino slot machine.

KHRC and horse racing officials say that the machine is more prominent than a normal casino slot machine because it produces results based on past races. However, although this device has a prominent ability, the impact on the player remains a coincidence. The HHR machine generates the amount by randomly selecting three possible races from the past lace database. Whether the machine uses a random number generator or a past race, the latter still remains random, so it doesn't make any sense for players. There is no way to demonstrate professionalism or judgment. In actual races and simulators, gamblers have the opportunity to learn the statistics of each horse, see horses in real time, and determine the aptitude of jockeys and trainers. However, in HHR games, such a moment is meaningless and not popular with Better. [As a dramatic development, HHR systems are called "gambling" at racetracks in Kentucky, such as Red Miles. Jordan Scott Flynn Hollander of UNLV Gaming Law Journal discusses the problem of instant betting machines applied to New Jersey::

The random race, which determines the game results of these devices, is based on the race completed in the past, not a live race, and is not based on the rea l-time simulation of horse racing data ... However, direct betting devices are based on past races, so they are likely to be, and simply different from live and simulation Pariminu Eel Betting. These are slot machines with different types of random number generators. " According to Kentucky Jockey Club, the nature of the betting of the HHR machine is not illegal because it is not a Paris Mewel, but also a lottery that is illegal in Article 226. Slot machines are considered a lottery because they are operated based on coincidence, not judgment, concept, and technology. [92] To bet on the HHR machine, the patient approaches the machine, enters the money, and presses the button to determine the win or loss within a few seconds. There is no judgment or skill here, and the user's skills are the same as playing with a casino slot machine.

KHRC and horse racing officials say that the machine is more prominent than a normal casino slot machine because it produces results based on past races. However, although this device has a prominent ability, the impact on the player remains a coincidence. The HHR machine generates the amount by randomly selecting three possible races from the past lace database. Whether the machine uses a random number generator or a past race, the latter still remains random, so it doesn't make any sense for players. There is no way to demonstrate professionalism or judgment. In actual races and simulators, gamblers have the opportunity to learn the statistics of each horse, see horses in real time, and determine the aptitude of jockeys and trainers. However, in HHR games, such a moment is meaningless and not popular with Better. [As a dramatic development, HHR systems are called "gambling" at racetracks in Kentucky, such as Red Miles. Jordan Scott Flynn Hollander of UNLV Gaming Law Journal discusses the problem of instant betting machines applied to New Jersey::

The random race, which determines the game results of these devices, is based on the race completed in the past, not a live race, and is not based on the rea l-time simulation of horse racing data ... However, direct betting devices are based on past races, so they are likely to be, and simply different from live and simulation Pariminu Eel Betting. These are slot machines with different types of random number generators. "

The essence of the matter is that the device on which the HR machine operates is a pari-mutuel[102]. The same exclusive nature is the pari-mutuel opportunity that led the Kentucky Jockey Club to be found to be an illegal lottery in conjunction with Article 226 of the Kentucky Constitution. The General Assembly did not decide that the HHR machine gun clearly recognized this state of the Kentucky Constitution, and decided to follow this constitutional restriction on gambling, amending the text definition of pari-mutuel to connect the HHR machine gun[104].

B. Not Complying with Regulations on Distribution of Powers

Article 27 of the Kentucky Constitution states that "The powers of the federal government in Kentucky shall be required to be subdivided into three or any other departments, one of which shall be assigned to a separate governing body. No executive department of the Kentucky separation of powers has the ability not to take advantage of the opportunities offered to the other departments.

In the case of the HHR machine gun, the legislative executive of Kentucky completely ignored the judicial option. As already explained in Part II, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided that the HHR automatic machine was not considered to be a pari-mutuel rate, giving the General Assembly an absolutely fresh definition of the term "pari-mutuel" for a certain number of months. In the fresh definition, not only can be bets be made against the establishment, but also against races previously held, rather than against each other (as the pari-mutuel system requires). This state was predetermined for the HHR machine gun. Not paying attention to the fact that in its "previously made jumps", the HHR-machine guns were essentially used as random number generators, linking this position, canceling the reciprocity, and also creating a pool by philanthropists is all that the equestrian club actually needed to keep the HHR-machine guns in operation. However, the job of the legislature is to enter into law, and the Kent General Assembly actually decided in its ability to enter into its declaration and definition [112].

Each power sector is responsible for their respective duties, and there is a limit to the ship to the legislature. These restrictions are set to protect the people and the court can interpret the law in accordance with the constitution. As an example of the Legal Rose Council in 1989, there will be no other rose incident [115] in Kentucky.

In this case, the Kentokki Supreme Court interpreted Article 183 of the State Constitution ("The State Congress must secure effective legislation to secure an effective system of ordinary schools throughout the state)). Showed me. ] The court has determined that the state parliament did not meet the constitutional requirements because it did not provide an effective school system for the entire state. The representatives of the General Assembly argued that under the constitution should have exceptional discretionary rights to determine whether the school system is sufficient. However, the Supreme Court passed its position. Stevens Supreme Court said to the legislature that the legislative opinion was given a certain weight and respect, but the final obligation to guarantee compliance with the constitution was in the justice. "119] According to Judge Stevens, the court is entrusted to guarantee the legislation of the constitution and the protection of the rights of the people. Device stated by Judge Stevens as follows. : Avoid the judgment of the case for reasons such as "legislative discretion" and "legislative functions" will be contrary to our own composition requirements.

The Rose incident is a groundbreaking case that indicates the indication of the separation of three rights. Immediately after the ruling, the Federal Congress reformed the educational system and acted at a fierce speed to secure public school funds in the federal. The legislature listens to the opinions of the judicial authorities, and Kentokki "has implemented the longest and most comprehensive education reform in Japan." < SPAN> Each power sector is responsible for their duties, and there is a limit to the respect from the ship to the legislature. These restrictions are set to protect the people and the court can interpret the law in accordance with the constitution. As an example of the Lawn Rose Council in 1989, there will be no other rose incident [115] in Kentucky.

In this case, the Kentokki Supreme Court interpreted Article 183 of the State Constitution ("The State Congress must secure effective legislation to secure an effective system of ordinary schools throughout the state)). Showed me. ] The court has determined that the state parliament did not meet the constitutional requirements because it did not provide an effective school system for the entire state. The representatives of the General Assembly argued that under the constitution should have exceptional discretionary rights to determine whether the school system is sufficient. However, the Supreme Court passed its position. Stevens Supreme Court said to the legislature that the legislative opinion was given a certain weight and respect, but the final obligation to guarantee compliance with the constitution was in the justice. "119] According to Judge Stevens, the court is entrusted to guarantee the legislation of the constitution and the protection of the rights of the people. Device stated by Judge Stevens as follows. : Avoid the judgment of the case for reasons such as "legislative discretion" and "legislative functions" will be contrary to our own composition requirements.

The Rose incident is a groundbreaking case that indicates the indication of the separation of three rights. Immediately after the ruling, the Federal Congress reformed the educational system and acted at a fierce speed to secure public schools in the federal. The legislative government listens to the opinions of the judicial authorities, and Kentokki "has implemented the longest and most comprehensive educational reform in Japan." Each power sector is responsible for their respective duties, and there is a limit to the ship to the legislature. These restrictions are set to protect the people and the court can interpret the law in accordance with the constitution. As an example of the Legal Rose Council in 1989, there will be no other rose incident [115] in Kentucky.

In this case, the Kentokki Supreme Court interpreted Article 183 of the State Constitution ("The State Congress must secure effective legislation to secure an effective system of ordinary schools throughout the state)). Showed me. ] The court has determined that the state parliament did not meet the constitutional requirements because it did not provide an effective school system for the entire state. The representatives of the General Assembly argued that under the constitution should have exceptional discretionary rights to determine whether the school system is sufficient. However, the Supreme Court passed its position. Stevens Supreme Court said to the legislature that the legislative opinion was given a certain weight and respect, but the final obligation to guarantee compliance with the constitution was in the justice. "119] According to Judge Stevens, the court is entrusted to guarantee the legislation of the constitution and the protection of the rights of the people. Device stated by Judge Stevens as follows. : Avoid the judgment of the case for reasons such as "legislative discretion" and "legislative functions" will be contrary to our own composition requirements.

The Rose incident is a groundbreaking case that indicates the indication of the separation of three rights. Immediately after the ruling, the Federal Congress reformed the educational system and acted at a fierce speed to secure public school funds in the federal. The legislature listens to the opinions of the judicial authorities, and Kentokki "has implemented the longest and most comprehensive education reform in Japan."

Why is this relevant to HHR Carr's lesson in Kentucky? The conclusion about Rose's profession is related to the definition of the text "effective" in the first place. The legislative body before Rose believed that it had the right to interpret the meaning of this text in the municipal secondary education system. Because of the incentives of interest groups such as reelection and appeal, the politicians' definition of the meaning of the text "effective" was not consistent with the purpose of Article 183 and, in fact, most importantly, the interests of the people. Only in such cases does the judicial administration step in. When the legislative administration is not consistent with the values, goals, and interests of the Constitution and the people, the role of the judiciary is to engage with these interests and ensure their compliance.[129]

Regarding the role of the judiciary in Rose, Chief Justice Stevens makes the following strong statement:

The judicial administration has the unconditional authority and duty to use, consult, decide, interpret, adjudicate, and part of the Kentucky Constitution, unless there is a contradiction. This is considered an exceptional function of the judiciary. This obligation must be met even if these influences act to contain the activities of other authorities or if the Court's considerations of the Constitution are in conflict with the views of other authorities and the public. [130]

In HHR, the Supreme Court unanimously decided the concept of "parimutuel" in relation to Section 226 of the Constitution. Section 226's mission is to prevent the distribution of casual games of chance in Kentucky. As in Rose, the Court derived the meaning of the law to protect the Constitution's mission and the interests of the public. In return, the Legislature was obliged to regulate, allowing the Court to speak the meaning of the law. [The General Assembly found that it actually had an opportunity to define and speak the law, and introduced a new definition, a definition that was contrary to the intent of Section 226. [136] A definition that allowed more addictive and regressive forms of gambling to be given in the Commonwealth.

IV. Legislative Favoritism for the Horse Racing Industry

The Legislature then passed a bill on slots, opening the door for the expansion of gambling in Kentucky. Already, gas stations, convenience stores, and bars in the state have all kinds of slot machines, known as "gray machines." According to the operators of these machines, they work the same way as HHR machines, but unlike HHR machines, they have the potential for judgment and professionalism. [In this game, instead of simply pressing a button, the player touches a screen with icons and wins by lining up three of the same icons in sequence.[140]

This is where the Legislature really comes into its own. Lawmakers have already started to speak out against "gray" machines simply because they do not support the horse racing industry like HHR machines do.[141] Moreover, the Legislature has already introduced a bill to ban "gray" machines.[142] Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer proved his deal against "gray" machines by the fact that they do not serve a "higher purpose." What exactly is the "higher purpose" that Senator Thayer is talking about? HHR's work is to benefit the horse industry, and only a small percentage of it actually goes to Kentucky's coffers. But the grayish machine guns evoke small business interests and the bailout of fraternal militias. Linda Blackford of the Kentucky Herald-Leader wrote, "Damon Thayer and his supporters have demonstrated how easy it is to make previously illegal slot machines legal. The horse people say that if they shower lawmakers with interest and donations, they will make the slot machines legal, too.

The small percentage of HHR that goes into Kentucky's general fund is the result of a horrible tax system. The HHR tax system is the most serious evidence of the Legislature's submission to the whims of the equestrian industry. Currently, Kentucky's state tax on HHR machine guns is only 1. 5% of the total fee. With such a paltry tax, the actual percentage that goes into Kentucky's general fund is only 8% of the general fee. This is significantly lower than the taxes on slot machines in other states. Pennsylvania taxes slot machines at 55%, West Virginia at 53%, Ohio at 33%, Indiana at 40%, and Illinois at 50%.[150]

Conclusion

Setting aside the question of the constitutionality of the HHR machine gun, the first step Kentucky should take is to tax HHR machine guns. From 2016 to 2021, Kentucky's HHR-board will increase by 463%, with total bets by 2021 reaching $3. 6 billion.[151] This is twice what Kentuckians make on lotteries and races combined. Yet, in 2020, the state has only $15 million in general fund revenues compared to $274 million in tax revenues from the lottery. Democratic Representative Tina Bojanowski said:

Kentucky has slot machines because of the HHR slot machines. But because we have the lowest tax rate, we don't get the tax revenues we should. We pay the social costs associated with gambling, but we don't get nearly all the benefits."[154].

Kentucky could receive $100 million a year for state investments in health care, education, and other areas if it simply raised its tax rates to match other states. The Kent Legislative Assembly should apply it to Kent now and provide a fair share.

At the same time, this law was passed by the Legislative Assembly and is in direct contradiction to Article 226 of the Constitution. If this law remains in force, there will be no restrictions on the Legislative Assembly to expand gambling in the state. Since March 2022, lawmakers have presented a bill on the legalization of sports betting regulated by the KHRC. If this bill is passed, it will violate Article 226 without giving the people the right to vote, like the bill on slots.

To solve this problem, Kentoky is required to accept the constitutional amendment and establish a comprehensive gambling as follows. The restoration of the constitution is being considered as one way to establish these forms, whether it is a slot machine in HHR format, a sports gambling, or a casino in general. As a result, the issue of gambling expansion is left to the voting and is left to the people of the people, not legislation. Lexington's supporter Stan Cave, a Family Foundation, is a supporter of this idea in connection with the expansion of gambling in Kentucky, "The simple language of the Kentucky Constitution, the simple language of the Constitution of the State State, and the local prosecutor. The consideration of the Kentucky Supreme Court, which clearly shows the timing of the concept and 2, requires that the constitution is needed to restore the sporting fee for caricature examinations. " 159] The restoration of the constitution is also a method of Kentucky legalized in 1988. [Despite the fact that the lottery was not clearly approved in Article 226, this limited exception was recognized by the ethnic referendum, and the constitution of the Kentucky state has been revised. It is well known that the state parliament has no ability to legalize gambling in all forms. < SPAN> In order to solve this problem, Kentoky is required to accept the constitutional amendment and establish a comprehensive gambling as follows. The restoration of the constitution is being considered as one way to establish these forms, whether it is a slot machine in HHR format, a sports gambling, or a casino in general. As a result, the issue of gambling expansion is left to the voting and is left to the people of the people, not legislation. Lexington's supporter Stan Cave, a Family Foundation, is a supporter of this idea in connection with the expansion of gambling in Kentucky, "The simple language of the Kentucky Constitution, the simple language of the Constitution of the State State, and the local prosecutor. The consideration of the Kentucky Supreme Court, which clearly shows the timing of the concept and 2, requires that the constitution is needed to restore the sporting fee for caricature examinations. " 159] The restoration of the constitution is also a method of Kentucky legalized in 1988. [Despite the fact that the lottery was not clearly approved in Article 226, this limited exception was recognized by the ethnic referendum, and the constitution of the Kentucky state has been revised. It is well known that the state parliament has no ability to legalize gambling in all forms. To solve this problem, Kentoky is required to accept the constitutional amendment and establish a comprehensive gambling as follows. The restoration of the constitution is being considered as one way to establish these forms, whether it is a slot machine in HHR format, a sports gambling, or a casino in general. As a result, the issue of gambling expansion is left to the voting and is left to the people of the people, not legislation. Lexington's supporter Stan Cave, a Family Foundation, is a supporter of this idea in connection with the expansion of gambling in Kentucky, "The simple language of the Kentucky Constitution, the simple language of the Constitution of the State State, and the local prosecutor. The consideration of the Kentucky Supreme Court, which clearly shows the timing of the concept and 2, requires that the constitution is needed to restore the sporting fee for caricature examinations. " 159] The restoration of the constitution is also a method of Kentucky legalized in 1988. [Despite the fact that the lottery was not clearly approved in Article 226, this limited exception was recognized by the ethnic referendum, and the constitution of the Kentucky state has been revised. It is well known that the state parliament has no ability to legalize gambling in all forms.

If you leave Ohio, which borders Kentucky, it is considered a great idea to apply constitutional amendments to casino gambling. Based on the Ohio Constitution, the state's gambling laws were literally the same as Kentucky: "The detection and resale of lottery tickets for any purpose is forever prohibited in this state."[163] In 2009, the residents of Ogio passed a decision to allow casino gambling by having the residents of the Constitution vote.[164] Features of the bill included a 33% tax rate on all casino gross profits (with a thorough explanation of how these funds would be distributed), a $50 million fee for opening all casinos, and the creation of the i-Ganberry Commission, a uniform duty to accommodate gambling in Ohio. The issue of expanding gambling to the ballot would initiate a legislative body to connect with people-focused politicians and bills, as it was in Ohio, since its adoption would depend on the encouragement of the people (as in the case of constituting a status constitution). If the people of Kentucky decide to allow HHRs such as slots, sports gambling, or casinos and understand that it will actually cost Kentucky a huge amount of money, they will do the following.

[1] J. D. of the Kentukka Institute Law Institute named after J. David Rosenberg It is assumed 2023, B. of the Kentukki Institute

[2] Horse Capital of the World, Lexington Visitor Ctr., https://www. visitlex. com/ Things-to-do/Horses/(last visited 10 December 2022) [https: // perma. /5XTM-4U3Q] See.

[3] John Isaac, Guide to Online Casinos in Kentucky: The Best Kentucky Casino Sites 2022, online-gambling, https://www. online-gambling. com/us/kentucky/casinos/ (last accessed 11 October 2022) [ https://perma. cc/wu9m-gaqy]. [4] M. Shannon Bishop, And they're gone: the legality of interstate pari-mutuel wagering and its impact on the thoroughbred horse industry , 89 K. Y. L. J. 711, 712 (2001).

[6] Kentuckybred. org, https://www. kenceptybred. org/kentucky-equine-industry-impact/ (послеeug посещенение 17 ice 2022222222 CC/9CRH-6DZU]; J. Shannon Neibergs, Kentucky Parimutuel Revenue Policy Simulator, Gaming RSch. & amp; amp; amp; Rev. J. 17 (2000).

[7] History of horse racing, winningponies. com, https://www. winningponies. com/horse-racing-history. html (последнеее посещенение 11 октября 2022 г) [https://perma. cc/ww2g-9cyr ].

[8] СЃ. Kentucky online casinos & amp; amp; amp; Real money gambling, lets Gamble USA (30 August 2021), https://www. letsgambleUSA. com/kentucky/ [https://perma. cc/4cse-mspl].

[9] Adam K. Raymond, How decades-old horse racing saved a distinctive Kentucky industry, Spectrum News 1 (23 April 2021), https://spectrumnews1. com/ky/louisville/news/2021/204/21 /The-Rise-of-Historical-Horse-Racing-In-Kentucky [https://Perma. cc/e253-Zftg]; Mike Murphy, Kentucky Supreme Court rules against historic horse racing, gettingusa. com (6 October 2020), https://www. bettingusa. com/supreme-court-kentucky-hr-case/ [https: // perma. CC/742C-QDRL].

[11] Ky. Op. Att'ys Gen. 93-58 (1993).

[12] Fam. tr. found. of Ky., Inc. 競馬委員会、620 S. W. 3d 595, 600-03 (Ky. 2020)。

[13] Ky. Op. 93-58（1993 年）。

[14] Joe Sonka, Kentucky Senate passes Bill to legalise slot-style historic horse racing machines, Louisville Courier J. (Feb. 9, 2021), https://www. courier-journal. com/story/ News/Politics/ KY-General-Assembly/2021/02/09/Senate-Passes-Bill-Legalising-Historical Horse-Racing-Machines/4455009001/[https://Perma. cc/cr7g-6eat].

[15] 811 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2: 060 (2021).

[16] Ky. ж†Іжі•гЂ‚В§ 226 жќЎгЂЃгѓ“г‚·гѓ§гѓѓгѓ—гЂЃе‰ЌжЋІжіЁ 4гЂЃ603гЂ‚

[17] Jane Block, Legal Wetting, Poker & amp; amp; amp; Casinos in Kentucky, gambling online (Oct. 15, 2021), https://www. gamblingonline. com/laws/kentucky/ [https://perma. cc/3n5j-xj6w].

[18] pari-mutuel gambling-what it is and how it works, New York sports betting https://www. nysportsbetting. com/guide/pari-mutuel/ (последнее посещенение 25 отт�р���р 20222 perma. cc/3mkr-8veb].

[22] What is a takeout in horse betting, EzhorseBetting (16 июня 2017), https://www. ezhorseBetting. com/what-is-takeout-in-horse-betting/ [https://perma. cc/hvz 6-MZXM]; Paul Bergeron, Why horse bettors should keep an eye on take-out rates and bets соответстoelLus с этим, playusa (2 июня 2021), https://www. playusa. com/why-horse-bettors-would eye-takeout-rates/ [https/ [https : //perma. cc/2xvs-pwrx].

[24] Fam. 競馬委員会、620 S. W. 3d 595, 600 (Ky. 2020)。

[25] 1978 International Hall Law (Pub. L. No. 1811, 1812 (1978).

[26] Pari-Mutuel, online etymology (January 15, 2020), https: // www. Tymonline. Com/word/pari-mutuel [https: // perma. Cc/uq4h-yu55].

[27] CommonWealt v. Ky. Jockey Club, 38 S. 2D 987, 991 (Ky. Ct. App. 1931).

[28] 811 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:005 (as of May 31, 2019, the committee has revised its own rules).

[29] Raymond, the previous note 9; Murphy, the previous note 9.

[30] Themed-Games, Red Mile gaming & amp; amp; racing, https: // redmileky. Com/gaming/themed-games /Permma. CC/96n 6-BCZR].

[31] Preparation document of the appellant (10), Fam. Tr. Found. Horse Racing Comm'N, 620 S. W. 3D 595 (Ky to 2020) (No. 2018-S C-000630-TG).

[33] Fam. Tr. Found. Of Ky. V. Ky. Horse Racing Comm'N, 620 S. 3D 595, 600 (Ky. 2020).

[37] Reciprocal, Interglot Translation Dictionary, https: // www. Interglot. Com/Dictionary/En/FR/SEARCH? - Kgw2.

[38] Fam. Tr. Found, 620 S. W. 3D at 600.

[S. 120, (2021) https: // apps. Legislature. Ky. Ky. Gov/record/21rs/sb120.

[46] Fam. Tr. Found, 620 S. W. 3D at 600.

[47] SB 120-The Slots Bill The Stimulus of An Unconstitional Millionaire, The Family Foundation (15 February 2021), Kentuckyfa. MILY. Org/SB-20-THE-SLOTS-Bil l-wa s-an --UNCONSTITUTURONAROS-STIMULUS-BILL/[https: // perma. CC/XS5F-6RWZ].

[48] ​​S. 120 Article 15, the previous note 45 (current / final edition).

[51] S. 120 Article 15, the previously posted 45.

[52] Fam. Tr. Found, 620 S. W. 3D at 600.

[53] S. 120 (Note 45).

[55] Jon FRIEDL, Kentucky Slot Machine Casino Gambling, Professor Slots (Sept. 22, 2021), https: // Professorslots. Ambling/[https: /////////s . CC/968 7-m299].

[56] Jennifer NEWLL, Pokerstars with Kentucky After Scotus Petition, Legal Us Pokersites (27 September 2021), LeguspokerSITES COM/NEWS with-Kentucy/28193/[https: // Perma. cc/3SC 8-E84a].

[57] Joseph BentiveGNA, Sports Gambling Is Another Tax On the Poor and Minorities, Ct ViewPoints (1 APRIL 2021), https: // ctmiror. ViewPoint s-Gamblin g-Ou t-Aanghe r-Ta x-o n-Th e-Poor-and-minorities [https: // permma. cc/G29L-34T6].

[59] Op. Att'ys Gen. 05-003 (2005).

[60] Kentucky jockey club, 38 S. W. 2D at 992.

[68] Otto v. Kosofsky, 476 S. 2D 626, 629 (Ky. 1971).

[69] Ky. Op. 93-58 (1993).

[70] A. B. Long Music Co. v. Com., 429 S. W. 2D 391 (Ky. 1968).

[71] Brotherhood v. Malco-Memphis Theaters, Inc, 169 S. W. 2d 596 (1943).

[72] Brotherhood v. Allen, 404 S. W. 2d 464 (1966).

[73] Gilley v. Fraternity, 229 S. W. 2d 60 (1950).

[74] Kimberly C. Simmons, definitions of гЂЊgamblingгЂЌ and гЂЊgamingгЂЌ, 38 Corpus Juris Secundum 5 (2022).

[75] McDevitt v. Thomas, 114 S. W. 273, 274 (1908).

[76] op. On. 93-58 (1993).

[80] Kimberly C. Simmons, Definitions of гЂЊgamblingгЂЌ and гЂЊgamingгЂЌ - Terms descriptive of related actions, 38 Corpus Juris Secundum 6 (2022).

[81] McDevitt, 114 S. W. at 274.

[82] Kentucky Jockey Club, 38 S. W. 2D at 992.

[84] Op. On. 93-58 (1993).

[85] Kimberly C. Kimber C. Simmons, Definitions and awards with regard to skills and Kas games, 38 Corpus Juris Secundum 2 (2022).

[86] Commonwealth v. Allen, 404 S. W. 2d 464, 466 (1966).

[87] Letter for the person submitted 10, Fam. Tr. Found. or Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm ', 620 S. W. 3D 595 (KY. 2020) (No. 2018-SC-0630-TG).

[88] Kentucky Jockey Club, 38 S. W. 2D at 992.

[89] Fam. Tr. Found. supra, 620 S. W. 3D on 600.

[93] Letter for Petitioner AT 10, Fam. Tr. Found. or Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm ', 620 S. W. 3D 595 (KY. 2020) (No. 2018-SC-0630-TG).

[95] Fam tr. Found, 620 S. W. 3D AT 600.

[97] Letter for Petitioner at 10, fam. Tr. Found. or Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm ', 620 S. W. 3D 595 (KY. 2020) (No. 2018-SC-0630-TG).

[98] Factors to Consider when betting on horse racing, Theplaidhorse (July 7, 2021), https: // www. Theplaidhorse. COM/2021/07/07/Factors-to-consider-when-betting-on-horse-racing/[https: // perma. CC/5EZH-H5M4].

[99] Letter for Petitioner at 10, fam. Tr. Found. or Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm ', 620 S. W. 3D 595 (KY. 2020) (No. 2018-SC-0630-TG).

[100] Themed games, Red Mile Gaming & AMP; AMP; amp; Racing, https: // redmileky. com/gaming/Themed games (послеug посещенение 12 декаimately 2022 г.) [https: // perma. CC/Y8F7 BNVZ].

[101] ジョーダン スコッツ ・ フリン ・ ホランダー 、 、！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ の л ми моменforters ставки надок вадок в? -п?????? ????? ???.

[103] Kentucky Jockey Club, 38 S. W. 2D at 992.

[106] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 124 (1976).

[107] Commonwealth ex riot. Beshear v. Bevin, 575 S. W. 3D 673, 681 (KY. 2019)гЂ‚

[111] Letter for Petitioner AT 10, Fam. Tr. Found. or Kentucky, Inc. v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm ', 620 S. W. 3D 595 (KY. 2020) (No. 2018-SC-0630-TG).

[113] Sonja Ralston Elder, Standing up legal bulies: separation of powers, state courts and educational rights, 57 Duke L. J. 755 (2007).

[115] Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S. W. 2d 186 (Ky. 1989).

[123] Elder, повыше, примечание 114.

[125] Molly A. Hunter, All Eyes Forward: Public involvement and educational reform in Kentucky, 28 J. L. & amp; amp; amp; Educ. 485 (1999).

[128] エルダー、повыше примечание 114.

[131] Fam. tr. found, 620 S. W. 3d at 600.

[132] Op. 93-58 (1993)гЂ‚

[134] Martin Cothran, SB 120-The Slots Bill-was-an-unconstitutional-Millionaires-stimulus-bill, The Family Foundation (Feb. 15, 2021), https://www. kentuckyfamily. org/sb--120-the-lots-bil l-Was-an-unconstitutional-Millionaires-stimulus-bill/[https://perma. cc/dc45-8t4y].

[136] Op. 93-58 (1993).

[137] Joseph Bentivegna MD, Sports Gambling is Another Tax on the Poor and Minorities, CT Viewpoints (1 April 2021), https://ctmirror. org/2021/04/01/sports-gambling-another- Tax-on-the-Poor-and-Minorities/[https://perma. cc/26VR-8Y3A].