RALEIGH – It was an interesting coincidence for me on Tuesday, the day two Republican senators decided to green-light the creation of a North Carolina state lottery.
I was not at the General Assembly, having traveled to Winston-Salem for a previously arranged meeting and media appearance. On Mike Fenley’s afternoon program on WSJS-AM, I was able to offer immediate reaction to the narrow lottery victory in the Senate, and the first caller was none other than Republican Sen. Ham Horton, whose absence the previous week had nearly led to a late-night passage of the lottery then.
Meanwhile, on the way to Winston-Salem and back, I listened to the last couple of discs in an excellent reading of the seventh book of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. The title of the book is The Last Battle. Read for the audio version by Captain Picard himself, Patrick Stewart, it is a thinly veiled allegory for the events in the Book of Revelations. It seemed a fitting background track for the events of Tuesday, the culmination of many years of highly charged political conflict about the role of the state, the morality of gambling, and the distribution of the tax burden.
Was this really the Last Battle in the Lottery Wars? There is some talk of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of waiving the third readings of the lottery bill in both the House and Senate. Here’s the relevant language, from Article II, Section 23 of the state constitution:
No laws shall be enacted to raise money on the credit of the State, or to pledge the faith of the State directly or indirectly for the payment of any debt, or to impose any tax upon the people of the State, or to allow the counties, cities, or towns to do so, unless the bill for the purpose shall have been read three several times in each house of the General Assembly and passed three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days . . .
In both the House and Senate, the required third reading and vote on the lottery bill was not held. Leadership in both chambers seem to believe that either a decision by a presiding (and apparently deaf) member or a majority vote by legislators present can be sufficient to suspend this rule. But it is not just a rule, it is a constitutional mandate. It can’t be changed except by constitutional amendment.
The dispute, I suppose, would be about whether a lottery bill fits the definition of “revenue bill.” I would strongly argue that the proceeds transferred from the lottery coffers to the state treasury, typically about a third, is a tax. It acts either as an income tax on the lottery as a business enterprise or a tax on the sale of lottery tickets to buyers. What’s more, it’s possible that the lottery bill would meet the definition in another way, to the extent that start-up equipment is to be purchased by the state in anticipation of lottery revenues not yet received, a form of buying on credit.
No one really knows how a lawsuit filed on these constitutional grounds would turn out. Even if it did not ultimately block the creation of a state lottery, it would still be useful to clarify – and, one hopes, resurrect – the principle of holding separate votes on separate days. Taxpayers deserve to have their interests considered in good faith debate – not subject to fleeting whims, traffic accidents, or medical emergencies.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.