Two Democratic political consultants and the chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association apparently want to kick online Missouri sports betting off the November ballot.
Why they are doing it and who might be backing them remains a mystery to even the most astute industry observers.
Missouri-based political consultants Jacqueline Wood and Blake Lawrence filed the suit last week against Missouri Secretary of State John Ashcroft, challenging the validity of the certification process to put MO sports betting on November‘s ballot. A hearing for the case is set for September 5, while the ballot will be finalized September 10 and early voting begins September 24.
Multiple industry sources told LSR they do not know where the lawsuit originated, and there is no concrete evidence to date of who is behind it.
“This suit contains an incredibly odd mix of political bedfellows and the lengths to which whatever interests are behind the suit are going to mask their identities makes the whole thing all the stranger and juicier,” one industry source told LSR this week.
Missouri sports betting ballot lawsuit
Wood and Lawrence contend Ashcroft’s certification process for the ballot question was flawed. The suit says Ashcroft used the 2020 gubernatorial election to determine how many votes were needed in each congressional district.
A ballot petition needs to secure 8% of voters in six of eight congressional districts, which would require at least 170,000 signatures. Winning for Missouri Education, the coalition behind the sports betting initiative, turned in 370,000 signatures in May.
The suit argues congressional districts were redrawn following the 2020 election and that map was used to determine where the signatures were gathered. Using the 2020 districts would lead to insufficient figures in the 1st and 5th Congressional Districts, according to the suit.
The change would mean the sports betting petition only secured sufficient signatures in four districts, the plaintiffs allege.
Parties quiet in the Show-Me State
Lawrence and attorney Matt Vianello referred LSR to Brad Ketcher, the attorney handling media for the plaintiffs. Ketcher did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The Missouri Gaming Association declined to comment on the lawsuit, as executive director Mike Winter is out of the country until next week. Ashcroft’s office also declined to comment, while St. Louis Cardinals President Bill DeWitt III issued a statement on behalf of Winning for Missouri Education, which will argue against the suit in court.
“This effort to decertify our ballot initiative is completely without merit, as Missourians came out in force to sign the petition that will be on the ballot in November,” DeWitt said.
Who are the plaintiffs?
Wood is the owner of JWood Political Strategies and a registered lobbyist in Missouri. According to the Missouri Ethics Commission, Wood is also associated with Governmental Services Group, Jones Advocacy Group and Madsen-Wright Inc.
Lawrence has been the principal and director of policy and legislative affairs at BML Consulting since 2016. He was chief counsel of the Missouri House Democratic Campaign Committee from 2019 to 2021.
Prior to consulting, Lawrence was chief counsel of the Missouri Senate from 2014 to 2016. Lawrence also worked for several Democratic politicians.
Republican attorney working with plaintiffs
The plaintiffs are represented by multiple attorneys, including Marc Ellinger, a partner at Ellinger Bell. Ellinger is the chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association and was the association’s lawyer of the year in 2022.
Ellinger has represented multiple casino operators, gambling equipment suppliers and game developers in Missouri. Earlier this year, he argued to stop the proliferation of video lottery terminals in Missouri in the Western District Court of Appeals in Kansas City on behalf of the Missouri Gaming Association.
Ellinger filed most of the documents in court on behalf of the plaintiffs. Ellinger’s political clout suggests to at least some industry sources there is weight behind the lawsuit.
“Marc won’t put his name on something just for fun,” one industry source said.
Legislative opponent on sideline
For the past three years, Sen. Denny Hoskins has been the main antagonist for Missouri sports betting proponents. Hoskins sought to include VLT legalization in any sports betting bills.
Hoskins is the Republican nominee to replace the term-limited Ashcroft as Secretary of State. He told LSR he has not paid attention to the sports betting ballot campaign.
“I’ve been focused on my Secretary of State campaign and have not paid attention to the campaign or lawsuit,” Hoskins said.
Missouri casino companies quiet
The Missouri Gaming Association and its members supported sports betting legislation the past three years. Now, however, they remain quiet during the ballot initiative and lawsuit.
Penn Entertainment, which owns three casinos in the state, declined to issue a statement regarding the ballot question or the lawsuit. Caesars Entertainment, which also owns three Missouri casinos, also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Boyd Gaming, which owns a 5% stake in FanDuel through a market-access deal, did not respond to a request for comment. In 2022, Boyd was the lone casino company that opposed sports betting legislation.
Why casinos might dislike ballot question
The Missouri Gaming Association represented the casino companies in support of the sports betting legislation at committee hearings throughout the legislative attempts. Prior to the lawsuit this summer, however, multiple industry sources told LSR that Caesars might run an opposition campaign against the ballot question.
In earlier versions of proposed sports betting legislation, Missouri casino operators received multiple online sportsbook skins, similar to the license setup in New Jersey. The ballot question only allocates one skin per casino operator and professional sports team, a change sources said the casino operators dislike.
Sources also suggest the casino companies do not like the two untethered licenses the Missouri Gaming Commission could issue. DraftKings and FanDuel are among the most likely companies to seek untethered licenses, as they do not have a physical casino presence in the state.
‘Intervening party’ in Missouri
Winning for Missouri Education successfully petitioned to intervene in the case to support the ballot question. In its petition to intervene, the committee argues that no other party is adequate to defend the question, and that there are enough signatures regardless of which district map is used.
“Although Secretary Ashcroft will defend his signature verification, the government does not always ‘adequately represent the unique interest of each individual citizen,’” the motion reads.
The committee also argues it received approvals throughout the process from Ashcroft and “denying the question access to the ballot as a result of government actions would violate the First Amendment right to Petition the government. Only Winning for Missouri may assert that claim/argument.”
Sports betting path to November 2024
Hoskins derailed the past three attempts to pass sports betting legislation. The bills were backed by Missouri sports teams, which are behind Winning for Missouri Education.
St. Louis Cardinals President Bill DeWitt III told LSR last summer the ballot initiative was coming in 2024.
DraftKings and FanDuel have contributed more than $10 million to the sports betting campaign.
Missouri sports betting ballot question
If successful, the November question would legalize in-person and online Missouri sports betting.
Along with the two standalone licenses, the question would create online licenses for the state’s six professional teams and the six casino operators. The state would tax sports betting revenue at 10%.
Missouri sports betting polling does not show a significant majority for or against the ballot question.
