The fate of the Missouri sports betting ballot question remains in limbo, but a ruling on the case challenging its certification could come as soon as Friday.
Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel R. Green did not make a ruling following Thursday’s hearing on Jacqueline Wood et Al v. John Ashcroft, but said to expect a quick decision, perhaps as early as Friday morning. Green also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case during the hearing, which included nearly a dozen witnesses discussing the verification process and the science of signatures.
The deadline to remove a ballot question in Missouri is 5 pm on September 10. Green said ballot question cases are not easy “because of the time frame.”
The plaintiffs’s suit challenges the certification of the Missouri sports betting question on the November ballot. Ashcroft, the Secretary of State, certified Winning for Missouri Education’s ballot petition last month.
Mystery behind the suit
The plaintiffs, Wood and Blake Lawrence, are both political consultants who largely work with Democratic clients. During Thursday’s testimony, Wood said she brought the lawsuit at the request of one of her attorneys and was relying on information provided to her.
They are represented by a team of lawyers led by Marc Ellinger, the chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association. In the past, Ellinger has represented the Missouri Gaming Association.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys did not respond to multiple requests for comment leading up to the hearing. The Missouri Gaming Association and several member casinos, including Caesars Entertainment, did not respond to requests for comment. Penn Entertainment declined to comment on the ballot initiative and lawsuit.
Missouri sports betting lawsuit basics
The plaintiffs claim Ashcroft’s certification process was flawed. They argue that he used 2020 gubernatorial voting figures to determine the required signatures but counted them using a redrawn congressional map from after the election.
The suit argues Winning for Missouri Education’s signature gathering fell short in four of eight congressional districts when it needed six to qualify for the ballot. Winning for Missouri Education turned in 370,000 signatures prior to the May 5 deadline as it needed 170,000 signatures with 8% of voters in at least six of the eight districts.
During Thursday’s hearing, Ellinger said they are now solely focused on the 1st Congressional District. During witness testimonies, Ellinger said there were multiple signatures from deceased voters and felons.
“In the course of review and evidence, you’ll find there are 768 signatures that were counted that were simply invalid,” Ellinger said during his opening statement. “Evidence will overwhelmingly show that petition did not receive necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot.”
Defendent arguments in Missouri
Assistant Missouri Attorney General Eric Kinnaw argued on behalf of Ashcroft during Thursday’s hearing. Kinnaw said the certification process followed the constitutional requirements laid out for the ballot petition process.
Kinnaw also said local election officials provided the valid signatures, and case law supports that process. The defense also argued the plaintiffs need to show how each individual signature is legally invalid.
“The case law, the Missouri Constitution is against him,” Kinnaw said. “If he were to have his way, it would throw everything in chaos. Everything we’ve done in the last 20 years in ballot petitions would be thrown out.”
Missouri intervenor claims
Prior to Thursday’s hearings, the judge approved Winning for Missouri as an interested party in the case. Both plaintiffs and the defense filed to have the intervening party dismissed, which Green said he would take under advisement.
Charles Hatfield, the attorney representing Winning for Missouri Education, said if the suit is successful it would also affect all other ballot initiatives, including a question Green ruled to be valid last week.
Hatfield also said the Secretary of State’s office stopped counting when the 1st Congressional District votes were sufficient. He said they could demonstrate up to 652 additional signatures in the district.
Sportsbooks supporting ballot push
The Missouri Gaming Association supported sports betting legislation during failed efforts over the past three years. However, the organization stayed quiet during the ballot initiative, which was led by Missouri professional sports teams.
DraftKings and FanDuel have contributed more than $10 million to the Winning for Missouri Education organization. Ellinger questioned the committee’s treasurer, Mike Pridmore, about the donors, asking him, “Are they trying to buy a constitutional amendment?”
Previous legislative language provided the land-based casino operators with multiple online skins. The ballot language, however, includes one skin for the six operators and six professional teams, as well as two untethered licenses, a setup industry sources suggest the land-based casinso, including Caesars, oppose.
Missouri sports betting polling update
Missouri sports betting polling suggests the ballot question will succeed.
The latest poll from Saint Louis University and YouGov shows that 50% of voters support the sports betting initiative, and another 21% are undecided.
The findings are in line with previous surveys.
