Opponents of the Nancy Todd Poker Palace constitutional amendment — still undergoing review for signature sufficiency by the secretary of state and still in the field for more signatures — earlier had contested the legality of placing the measure on the ballot for a variety of flaws in the ballot title and content.
Opponents raised anti-trust questions and impact on existing casinos at the Southland and Oaklawn racetracks. The opposition is funded by Southland and they hired a major Little Rock law firm, Wright Lindsey and Jennings, to argue the case to the attorney general.
Now Todd has filed her answer, another extensive brief by a major Little Rock law firm, Williams and Anderson. The firm has been advising Todd and her backers in Branson, Mo., from the outset.
Todd's lawyer naturally says her amendment is legal, that arguments attacking it are incorrect or premature and that the amendment does NOT threaten existing gambling at the Southland and Oaklawn casinos. Why, that is not casino gambling, but electronic games of skill at existing parimutuel wagering facilities. Who could ever call slot machines, blackjack tables, poker rooms and digitized version of other casino games, well, casinos? Certainly, Southland and Oaklawn do not as a rule, except after a fashion in the brief opposing Todd's casino amendment.
Here's the response. Peruse at leisure. The attorney general has yet to weigh in.