It rejects the standards the state uses in denying a license, but does not tell the voters what standards will take their place. But other proposals are subjected to months of hearings and amendments. Many of the prohibitions use language so broad that it would outlaw existing legal gaming, for example by outlawing all use of computers. Lobbyists for legal gambling operations like state lotteries and parimutuel racing have no choice but to ask the legislature to carve out exceptions for their clients. But, while federal governments have great power, states have almost always been the chief guardians of morality, including the control of gambling.
Police power is a power virtually without limits.
Federal governments, on the other hand, sometimes forget that they only have the power given them by the states that created them. The result is constant tension and endless disputes over who has the final say. This would not be a problem if everyone agreed on the solution for any particular political problem. But, as the fight over Internet gambling shows, a state may want to do something that is completely opposite the wishes of its federal government. In Australia, a moratorium on state Internet gambling licenses failed by a tie vote in the federal Senate.