Case Title: WYOMING DOWNS RODEO EVENTS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and V. STATE OF WYOMING; and JON R. FORWOOD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
WYOMING DOWNS RODEO EVENTS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and V. STATE OF WYOMING; and JON R. FORWOOD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF WYOMING2006 WY 55134 P.3d 1223Case Number: 05-201Decided: 05/04/2006
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
WYOMING DOWNS 
RODEO EVENTS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; 
and

WYOMING 
HORSERACING, INC., a Wyoming corporation,

 
 
Appellants

(Plaintiffs),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE OF WYOMING; 
and JON R. FORWOOD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, STATE OF 
WYOMING,

 
 
Appellees

(Defendants).

 
 

Appeal from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The Honorable Edward L. Grant, 
Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellants:

 
 
Bruce A. Salzburg of Freudenthal, 
Salzburg & Bonds, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

 
 
Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney 
General; and Terry L. Armitage, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. 
Armitage.

 
 
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, 
VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 

HILL, Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellants, 
Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC, and Wyoming Horseracing Inc, (collectively 
Wyoming Downs) contend that the district court erred in granting summary 
judgment in favor of Appellee, the State of Wyoming.  That judgment had the effect of 
declaring that Wyoming Downs' Instant Racing terminals were prohibited gambling 
devices.  The judgment also denied 
Wyoming Downs' request that the District Attorney for the First Judicial 
District be enjoined from taking any action to prevent Wyoming Downs from 
operating the Instant Racing terminals at its facilities in Cheyenne.  We will affirm.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Wyoming Downs 
raises these issues:

 
 
The issue presented in this case is 
whether Instant Racing, a patented computerized system offering pari-mutuel 
wagering on horse races run in the past, is lawful in Wyoming.  The answer to this question requires the 
Court's consideration of the following issues:

 
 
1.  Whether the Wyoming 
Pari-Mutuel Commission had statutory authority to approve Instant Racing in 
Wyoming?

 
 
            
2.  Whether, following the Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Commission's 
promulgation of a specific rule to authorize Instant Racing, the Instant Racing 
terminals are nonetheless illegal "gambling devices" prohibited by Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. §§ 6-7-101, et 
seq.?

 
 
The State articulates the issues in 
slightly different terms:

 
 
            
I.          
Whether "Instant Racing" electronic gambling devices are expressly 
authorized by Wyoming statutes.

            
II.          
Whether "Instant Racing" electronic gambling devices are prohibited by 
Wyoming 
law.

 
 
FACTS AND 
PROCEEDINGS

 
 
[¶3]      This case was 
initiated when Wyoming Downs filed an action for declaratory judgment, seeking 
the court's declaration that Instant Racing is lawful in Wyoming.  Wyoming Downs also sought a preliminary 
injunction and a permanent injunction against the State of Wyoming, following the issuance of an order by the 
Cheyenne Police Department that Wyoming Downs cease operation of its Instant 
Racing terminals in Cheyenne.  
The district court denied injunctive relief in both instances. 

 
 
[¶4]      The following 
background information, taken from the complaint filed in this case and verified 
by other materials in the record, is necessary to an understanding of the 
proceedings at hand:

 
 
            
5.  Wyoming Downs is a permittee and operator of the only 
licensed and permitted horse track in the State of Wyoming in the vicinity of 
Evanston, Wyoming, pursuant to the authority set out in Wyo. Stat. § 
11-25-105(a).  Further, pursuant to 
the authority granted to the Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Commission by Wyo. Stat. § 
11-25-102(vii)(A), to permit pari-mutuel wagering on "simulcast" events, Wyoming 
Downs operates four off-track betting establishments (OTBs"), located in 
Evanston, Rock Springs, Cheyenne and Evansville, Wyoming.

 
 
            
6.  "Instant Racing" is a patented pari-mutuel wagering system 
consisting of a number of remote computer terminals connected to a central 
server located in the State of Maryland.  The patent for the "Instant Racing" 
system is held by Race Tech, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company.  "Instant Racing" is more particularly 
described as follows:

 
 
                        
a.  The "Instant Racing" central server contains more than 
100,000 races (horse and dog) which have been previously run at various 
locations around the United 
States under the authority of the state 
licensing and regulatory agency of the particular 
jurisdiction.

 
 
                        
b.  When money is inserted at a remote terminal (in either $.25 
or $1.00 denominations), information regarding an historic race is displayed on 
the terminal without identification of the location where, or date on which, it 
was run.  Horses1 and jockeys, or dogs, are 
identified only by number, such that it is a statistical impossibility for the 
wagerer to know the result of the race prior to the placement of his wager.  True and accurate past performance 
information (as published in the "Daily Racing Form" for horse races, or Rosnet" 
for dog races, on the date of the race), presented in graphic form, is displayed 
on the terminal to enable the wagerer to handicap the race prior to placing the 
wager.

 
 
                        
c.  Following placement of the wager, the wagerer has the 
option of viewing the entire race, or viewing only the final furlong of the 
race, and after the race is shown, the date and location of the race is 
disclosed to the wagerer.

 
 
                        
d.  The wagered amount is placed in a pari-mutuel pool of 
similar denomination wagers, and the first wagerer within the pool to have 
placed a winning wager wins the pool, less authorized deductions established by 
the law of the jurisdiction in which the wager was placed.  If no wagerer within a particular 
pari-mutuel pool is successful, the pool is carried over.

 
 
                        
e.  Wagerers who utilize the handicapping information provided 
enjoy a significant increase in the odds of placing a winning wager over the 
odds of winning based upon pure chance.

 
 
[¶5]      Wyoming statutes provide 
that both "gambling" and "professional gambling" are crimes.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-7-102 (LexisNexis 
2005).  "Gambling"  is defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
6-7-101(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2005):

 
 
(iii)  "Gambling" means 
risking any property for gain contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, 
the operation of a gambling 
device or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting 
event, over which the person taking a risk has no control, but does not 
include:

                        
(A)  Bona fide contests of skill, speed, strength or endurance 
in which awards are made only to entrants or the owners of 
entries;

                        
(B)  Bona fide business transactions which are valid under the 
law of contracts;

                        
(C)  Other acts or transactions now or hereafter expressly 
authorized by law;

                        
(D)  Raffles or bingo conducted, or pull tabs sold, by 
charitable or nonprofit organizations where the tickets for the raffle or bingo 
are sold only in this state and the pull tabs are sold only on the premises 
owned or occupied by the charitable or nonprofit 
organization;

                        
(E)  Any game, wager or transaction which is incidental to a 
bona fide social relationship, is participated in by natural persons only, and 
in which no person is participating, directly or indirectly, in professional 
gambling;  or

                        
(F)  Calcutta wagering on contests or events conducted by a 
bona fide nationally chartered veterans', religious, charitable, educational or 
fraternal organization or nonprofit local civic or service club organized or 
incorporated under the laws of this state, provided that:

(I)  The contest or event 
is conducted solely in this state;

(II)  Any rules affecting 
the contest or requirements for participants are clearly 
posted;

(III)  The total prizes or 
prize money paid out in any one (1) contest or event does not exceed ninety 
percent (90%) of the total wagers;

(IV)  A minimum of ten 
percent (10%) of the total wagers on each contest or event is donated within one 
(1) year by the sponsoring organization to a bona fide charitable or benevolent 
purpose;

(V)  No separate 
organization or professional person is employed to conduct the contest or event 
or assist therein;

(VI)  The sponsoring 
organization before conducting the contest or event gives thirty (30) days 
written notice of the time and place thereof to the governing body of the county 
or municipality in which it intends to conduct the contest or event and the 
governing body does not pass a resolution objecting 
thereto;

(VII)  The sponsoring 
organization has complied with the relevant sections of the internal revenue 
code of 1954, as amended, relating to taxes on wagering.

                        
(G)  Display or private use of antique gambling devices in the 
owner's residence.  [Emphasis 
added.]

            

            
"Gambling device" is defined like this:  "Gambling device' means any device, 
machine, paraphernalia or equipment except an antique gambling device that is 
used or usable in the playing phases of any professional gambling activity, 
whether that activity consists of gambling between persons or gambling by a 
person involving the playing of a machine[.]'"  Wyo. Stat. Ann § 6-7-101(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 
2005).

 
 
[¶6]      "Professional 
gambling" means:  "(A) Aiding or 
inducing another to engage in gambling, with the intent to derive a profit 
therefrom;  or (B) Participating in 
gambling and having, other than by virtue of skill or luck, a lesser chance of 
losing or a greater chance of winning than one (1) or more of the other 
participants[.]"  Wyo. Stat. Ann § 
6-7-101(viii) (LexisNexis 2005).

 
 
[¶7]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
11-25-101 (LexisNexis 2005) creates the Wyoming pari-mutuel commission.  As a general rule, the activities which 
the commission oversees are not "gambling."  See Wyo. Stat. Ann § 
6-7-101(a)(iii)(C).  The commission 
is required to "make reasonable rules and regulations for the control, 
supervision and direction of applicants and permittees, including regulations 
providing for resolving scheduling conflicts and settling disputes between 
permittees and the supervising, disciplining, suspending, fining and barring 
from pari-mutuel events of all persons required to be licensed by this act, and 
for the holding, conducting and operating of all pari-mutuel events conducted 
pursuant to this act."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
11-25-104(e) (LexisNexis 2005).

 
 
[¶8]      The definition 
section for the pari-mutuel statutes, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-102 (LexisNexis 
2005) provides this information:

 
 
(iv)  "Event" means a 
pari-mutuel event;

            
(v)  "Pari-mutuel event" means the events which are authorized 
by the commission for the conduct of horse racing (to include quarter horse, 
thoroughbred or other approved races), harness racing, cutter racing, chariot 
racing, chuckwagon racing, professional roping events and simulcasting of dog 
racing and the events described in this paragraph as prescribed by the 
commission;

            
(vi)  "Pari-mutuel wagering" means wagering on the outcome of 
pari-mutuel events in which those who wager purchase tickets of various 
denominations on entrants in the events and all wagers for each event are pooled 
and held by the permittee for distribution, and when the outcome of the event 
has been decided, the permittee distributes the total wagers comprising the 
pool, less an amount not greater than twenty-five and nine-tenths percent 
(25.90%) and less the amount for breakage to holders of tickets on the winning 
entries;

            
(vii)  "Simulcasting" means the sale of pari-mutuel pools on 
interstate or intrastate televised pari-mutuel events as prescribed by the 
commission.  The commission shall 
authorize simulcasting subject to the following 
conditions:

                        
(A)  Simulcasting may be conducted only by a holder of a permit 
to simulcast issued under this act.  
The permit shall be authorized annually by the commission for a specified 
number of days.  The commissioners 
shall issue a simulcast permit only to an applicant authorized under this act to 
conduct a pari-mutuel event other than simulcasting;

                        
(B)  Simulcasting may be conducted off the permitted premises 
only if the board of county commissioners of the county in which such 
simulcasting will be conducted grant [grants] its 
approval;

                        
(C)  No simulcasting may be conducted within one hundred (100) 
miles of any premises permitted under this act, except that the commission may 
waive the one hundred (100) mile limitation if the simulcast permit application 
includes written approval from the permittee whose permitted premises is within 
the one hundred (100) mile limitation;

            

[¶9]      The district 
court considered the cross motions for summary judgment and heard the arguments 
of counsel, although the arguments of counsel were not transcribed and not made 
a part of the record.  It is safe to 
say that there was no disagreement about the "facts" of this case and the 
district court accepted the facts as set out in Wyoming Downs' complaint, as 
well as the supporting affidavit.  
Those facts are recited by the district court in its Order in about the 
same form as we have set then out in ¶4 above.  Based on the other materials contained 
in the record, the district court made these additional 
findings:

 
 
            
2. 

                        
d.  Commencing in 2002, the Commission investigated "Instant 
Racing."  Following the 
investigation, the Commission determined that "Instant Racing" is a form of 
pari-mutuel wagering; however, it also determined that its regulatory definition 
of "simulcasting" did not contemplate the display of an historic horse or dog 
race because the Commission's rules defined the term "simulcast" as the "sale of 
pari-mutuel pools on interstate or intrastate televised live pari-mutuel events."  (emphasis added)  Rules of the Wyoming Pari-Mutuel 
Commission, Ch. 1, § xx (2002).

                        
e.  On February 7, 2003, the Commission proposed amendments to 
its Rules including a change in the regulatory definition of "simulcast" to 
delete the word "live."  In the 
accompanying statement of reasons for the proposed rule change, the Commission 
stated that the purpose of the change was to "allow the simulcast operator to 
explore new technologies in pari-mutuel racing."

                        
f.  The proposed rule change was submitted to the office of the 
Attorney General and Legislative Service Office on April 18, 2003, and following 
review by the Legislative Service Office, it found that the "rules appear to be 
within the scope of statutory authority and legislative 
intent."

                        
g.  The rule change was approved by the Governor on May 20, 
2003, as within the scope of the statutory authority delegated to the adopting 
agency, and within the scope of the legislative purpose of the statutory 
authority granted to the agency.  On 
May 21, 2003, the rules were duly filed with the Secretary of State, State of 
Wyoming.

                        
h.  Following the rule change, on July 11, 2003, at a regular 
meeting of the Commission, Wyoming Horseracing, Inc., requested permits to 
operate "Instant Racing" terminals at it OTBs within the State of Wyoming.  Following a presentation regarding the 
system by Race Tech, LLC, the Commission determined that "Instant Racing" is a 
form of pari-mutuel wagering. On motion made and seconded, the Commission 
unanimously approved permits for ten "Instant Racing" terminals to be operated 
on a trial basis for ninety days.

                        
i.  Following the granting of, and in reliance on, the 
Commission's permit, Wyoming Horseracing, Inc., purchased and began operat[ing] 
ten "Instant Racing" terminals at its OTB located in Evanston, Wyoming.

                        
j.  On February 6, 2004, following the successful demonstration 
of the operation of "Instant Racing" terminals previously permitted, Plaintiff, 
Wyoming Horseracing, Inc., requested the Commission's authorization to operate 
an additional 70 "Instant Racing" terminals at its OTBs in Wyoming.  On motion made and seconded, the 
Commission unanimously approved permits for an additional 70 "Instant Racing" 
terminals.

                        
k.  Following the granting of, and in reliance on, the 
Commission's permit, Plaintiff, Wyoming Downs Rodeo Events, LLC, purchased an 
additional 70 "Instant Racing" terminals, which were installed and operated by 
Plaintiff, Wyoming Horseracing, Inc., at the OTBs in Evanston, Rock Springs, and 
Cheyenne, pursuant to a lease agreement between the Plaintiffs. 

                        
l.  On April 20, and June 7, 2004, the Wyoming Attorney General 
provided informal opinions to the Commission, questioning the legality of the 
"Instant Racing" terminals which the Commission had permitted.  As a result of these questions, at its 
June 14, 2004, regular meeting, the Commission reconsidered its permits.  Following the receipt of additional 
information from Race Tech, LLC, concerning the function and operation of the 
"Instant Racing" terminals, on motion made and seconded, the Commission 
continued the permits for the 80 "Instant Racing" terminals.  The Commission further determined that 
the Attorney General would retain the services of an expert to review the 
function and operation of the "Instant Racing" terminals, and to determine 
whether the "Instant Racing" terminals "are pari-mutuel according to the Wyoming 
Statutes on pari-mutuel wagering."  
[This is referenced in briefs and memos, but I couldn't find this in the 
record.  I don't think it makes any 
difference because there are no disputes about the facts and this isn't really 
"material."]

                        
m.  On June 28, 2004, Wyoming Horseracing, Inc., was ordered by 
an officer of the Cheyenne, 
Wyoming Police Department to cease 
operating the "Instant Racing" terminals situated in its Cheyenne OTB, and to 
remove all such terminals on or before noon, July 11, 2004.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 
therefore alleges that the order to cease operation and to remove the terminals 
was given on the advice and direction of Defendant, the Hon. Jon R. 
Forwood.  By subsequent agreement 
between the parties hereto, the order was amended to require that the terminals 
be shut down, but not removed, pending the declaration sought in this 
case.

 
 
            
Plaintiffs contend that, in light of this history, the Instant Racing 
terminals are "expressly authorized by law" under Wyo. Stat. § 
6-7-101(a)(iii)(C), and therefore, their operation does not violate the gambling 
statute, nor are they prohibited "gambling devices," under Wyo. Stat. § 
6-7-101(a)(iv).

            
Defendants generally contend that in authorizing and permitting the 
operation of the Instant Racing terminals, the Wyoming State Pari-Mutuel 
Commission exceeded the authority granted to it because Instant Racing terminals 
are not expressly authorized by Wyo. Stat. § 11-25-101, et. seq., and that the Instant Racing 
terminals constitute prohibited "gambling devices" as defined by Wyo. Stat. § 
6-7-101(a)(iv).  Defendants further 
contend that the Instant Racing system is unlawful in light of Wyo. Stat. § 
11-25-107, because the identities of the horses are withheld until the wager is 
placed, and that the system is unlawful because there was no county election 
specifically approving the system in Laramie County prior to the Commission's 
permits to operate the system.

            
The Court concludes that in approving the Instant Racing terminals, the 
Wyoming State Pari-Mutuel Commission exceeded the authority granted to it by 
Wyo. Stat. §§ 11-25-101 et seq., and further concludes that the Instant Racing 
terminals are unlawful "gambling devices" prohibited by Wyo. Stat. § 
6-7-101(a)(iv).

 
 
[¶10]   The district court denied Wyoming 
Downs' motion for summary judgment and granted that offered by the State.  By order entered on September 20, 2005, 
this Court denied Wyoming Downs' motion to stay the district court's order 
pending this appeal.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶11]   When we review a summary judgment, 
we have before us the same materials as did the district court, and we follow 
the same standards which applied to the proceedings below.  The propriety of granting a motion for 
summary judgment depends upon the correctness of the dual findings that there is 
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the prevailing party is 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  
A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if proven, 
would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of an 
asserted cause of action or defense.  
We, of course, examine the record from a vantage point most favorable to 
the party who opposed the motion, affording to that party the benefit of all 
favorable inferences that fairly may be drawn from the record.  Questions of law are reviewed de 
novo.  Martin v. Committee for Honesty and Justice 
at Star Valley Ranch, 2004 WY 128, ¶8, 101 P.3d 123, 127 (Wyo. 2004).  In this instance, it is the perception 
of this Court that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and 
that the district court has construed the pertinent Wyoming statutes as a 
matter of law.  We review such 
decisions de novo.  See generally, 
Fraternal Order of Eagles Sheridan Aerie 
No. 186, Inc., et al. v. State of Wyoming, 2006 WY 4, ¶16, 126 P.3d 847, 855 
(Wyo. 2006).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶12]   Our discussion will be brief.  Both the briefs and the argument to the 
Court strayed considerably beyond the materials that are of record and go well 
beyond the findings and conclusions of the district court.  However, we take note from the record 
that the "Instant Racing" terminals look like and are used like a slot machine 
or other similar gambling device (e.g., poker machine).2

 
 
[¶13]   The patent documents describing the 
"Instant Racing" terminal (METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PARI-MUTUEL HISTORICAL 
GAMING) provide us with these additional clues:

 
 
            
The present invention is generally related to gaming devices, and more 
specifically, to a gaming device which enables pari mutuel betting on races such 
as horse and dog races.

 
 
            
.

 
 
            
[The] racing industry has seen a great increase in competition from 
lotteries and casinos.  At least 
some patrons prefer a more immediate reward and higher frequency wagering than 
customarily offered at race tracks.  
For example, a typical racetrack offers one race every half hour.  A casino having slot machines, however, 
offers a patron the opportunity to place a wager that can be won or lost every 
few seconds.  In order to remain 
competitive, the racing industry is in need of a gaming system that satisfies 
the preferences of many different types of patrons.

            
It would be preferable, of course, to provide patrons with an opportunity 
to place wagers on a game which supports the racetrack sport.  For example, some racetrack operators 
offer "simulcasting" which enables patrons to wager on races televised from 
other sites rather than watching a live race.  Simulcasting allows racetrack owners to 
offer more variety to their patrons in addition to the local live racing, and 
also facilitates maintaining operations even when the local racing season is 
over.  Although simulcasting does 
enhance patron loyalty, the number of wagers a patron can place is still 
limited, particularly in comparison to a slot machine.

            
Known video and mechanical racing games have fixed odds.  Such fixed odds typically are required 
in order to comply with the applicable regulations of lotteries and 
casinos.  However, for at least some 
patrons, fixed odds games typically are less enjoyable than pari mutuel 
wagers.  In addition, known racing 
games normally only simulate a real event, and tend to provide competition with, 
rather than support for, the actual underlying sport.  Also, pari mutuel gambling on racing is 
allowed in many more jurisdictions than casino games and even 
lotteries.

            
It would be desirable to provide a wagering mechanism which incorporates 
aspects of traditional racetrack wagers, e.g., pari mutuel methods, 
progressively increasing carryover pool for a large payoff, a more frequent 
consolation payoff to keep interest from waning, and possibly a series of 
related pools, yet which also can be played quickly, with a possible instant 
payoff.  It also would be desirable 
to provide the racing industry with added value or "shelf life", for reruns of 
live events.

 
 
[¶14]   Based upon much the same reasoning 
we employed in the Fraternal Order of 
Eagles case cited above, we conclude that the district court correctly 
construed and applied the applicable statutes and that it did not err as a 
matter of law in applying the statutes as it did.  The description of the "Instant Racing" 
gaming device found in the patent documents makes it unmistakable that it is a 
"gambling device" as defined by Wyoming law.  Moreover, the description of the gaming 
device's operation provided in Wyoming Downs' affidavit, as well as the 
photographs depicting the gaming device which were put into evidence, 
corroborate the inescapable conclusion that the "Instant Racing" terminals are 
"gambling devices" that the Wyoming State Pari-mutuel Commission could not 
authorize via the statutory powers granted to it.  An administrative agency's authority to 
promulgate rules is circumscribed by the statutes that govern its activities. 
 Rules promulgated in excess of an 
agency's authority are null and void.  
McLean v. Hyland Enterprises, 
Inc., 2001 WY 111, ¶30, 34 P.3d 1262, 1270 (Wyo. 2001).  An agency may not rewrite a statute 
through its rulemaking power.  U.S. West Communication, Inc. v. Wyoming Public Service Commission, 992 P.2d 1092, 1096 
(Wyo. 
1999).

 
 
[¶15]   In passing, we take note that the 
term "pari-mutuel" is thoroughly digested at 31 Words and Phrases, (1957 and pocket Part 
2005), ("pari-mutuel," "pari-mutuel facility," "pari-mutuel machine," 
"pari-mutuel pools" and "pari-mutuel system"); also see Black's Law Dictionary 
1147 (8th ed. 2004) ("pari-mutuel betting"), 
and Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1642 (1986) 
("pari-mutuel").  Of course, in 
significant part we construe statutes based upon the language used by the 
legislature and its usual meaning (and in this case perhaps its technical 
meaning as well).  We are unwilling 
to embrace a more expansive meaning of pari-mutuel than that which can be 
discerned from the governing statutes and those sources cited above, which 
provide us with additional insight as to its usual meaning.  See Fraternal Order of Eagles, ¶16, P.3d at 
855.

 
 
[¶16]   We also note that the definition of 
"simulcasting" set out in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-102(a)(vii)(C) (LexisNexis 
2005) (providing that simulcasting may not be conducted within one hundred (100) 
miles of any premises permitted under this act) suggests that pari-mutuel races 
are generally live events.  Chapter 
10 of the Commission's rules and regulations suggests that:  (1) A wagerer is to receive a 
pari-mutuel ticket (and such tickets are not associated with Instant Racing); 
(2) that simulcast signals will be encrypted and these apparently are not; (3) 
and that "simulcast" means the simultaneous telecast of audio and visual signals 
of running horse races and other permitted pari-mutuel events conducted for the 
purposes of pari-mutuel wagering.  
See 2 Weil's Code of Wyoming Rules, 024 038 010-1 -2 (1995). 

 
 
[¶17]   Wyoming Downs contends that this 
was all clarified by the Legislature in 2005, when it passed legislation that 
would have clearly authorized the use of Instant Racing in Wyoming.  However, the Governor vetoed that 
legislation and the Legislature did not succeed in overriding his veto.  2005 Digest Senate and House Journal, 
H.B. No. 0156 at 278-79.  Wyoming 
Downs does not cite authority, nor does it make a persuasive argument, that this 
circumstance would change the meaning or tenor of enacted Wyoming law.  We have found no such authority.  Our conclusion based on simple reason 
and logic is that such a circumstance has no relevance to our decision today, 
although it is more likely that it betokens that the law required change to 
achieve such a result, than that it did not.

 
 
[¶18]   Wyoming Downs argued that "Instant 
Racing" terminals are a mere accoutrement of pari-mutuel wagering and that the 
governing statutes must be construed so as to embrace new "inventions" or 
"technologies."  We agree with the 
district court's tacit conclusion that we are not dealing with a new technology 
here, we are dealing with a slot machine that attempts to mimic traditional 
pari-mutuel wagering.  Although it 
may be a good try, we are not so easily beguiled.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶19]   We affirm the district court's 
order in all respects.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1As a quick aside, we note that Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 11-25-107 (LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 
     Every horse 
participating in any event authorized by a permit issued under this act shall 
participate under its true and registered name, shall be fully and truly 
identified and shall not participate under any other name or 
identification.  There shall be no 
substitution of horses nor shall any device whatsoever be used to conceal or 
confuse the name and identification of any horse.

 

2Black's Law Dictionary 611 (5th ed. 1979) 
identifies a "gambling device" like this:

 
 
Gambling Device.  Such 
device, apparatus, and the like, as is used and employed for gambling, in the 
sense that in using it, money or the like is staked, wagered, won, or lost as a 
direct result of its employment or operation.  A machine, implement, or contrivance of 
any kind for the playing of an unlawful game of chance or hazard.  See Slot 
Machine.

 
 
Black's then refers the reader to 
"gambling device" under its entry for "gaming device." Id.