Opinion ID: 2069708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: constitutionality of the statutory exception

Text: The Court of Appeals held that MCL 750.303(2); MSA 28.535(2) unconstitutionally denies equal protection and is unconstitutionally vague. We disagree with both findings.
The Court of Appeals correctly stated that the appropriate test for an equal protection claim under both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions is whether the legislation bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate goal of the Legislature. As we stated in Johnson v Harnischfeger Corp, 414 Mich 102, 114; 323 NW2d 912 (1982), in challenging a statute on equal protection grounds, a plaintiff must show that the classifications created are so arbitrary that they cannot be supported under any state of facts, either known or which could reasonably be assumed. See also Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 613; 267 NW2d 72 (1978); Mutchall v Kalamazoo, 323 Mich 215, 227; 35 NW2d 245 (1948). It appears that the Court of Appeals in this case found that the distinction made in the statute between machines which allow fifteen or fewer free replays and those which allow more was unconstitutionally arbitrary. We cannot agree. The Legislature may reasonably believe that the larger the number of free replays available, the greater the incentive to make cash payoffs. As the existence of such payoffs may be difficult to prove, the Legislature strove to avoid the problem simply by allowing only a small number of replays to accumulate on these machines. The fact that the Legislature picked a particular number as the dividing line is a matter purely within its discretion. As we have noted in the past, A classification having some reasonable basis does not offend [the Equal Protection] clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. Naudzius v Lahr, 253 Mich 216, 222-223; 234 NW 581 (1931).
In its review of MCL 750.303(2); MSA 28.535(2), the Court of Appeals also found that the language used was vague. The Court stated: We are unable to fathom what the Legislature meant by 15 games. What is meant by one replay? What is the purpose of prohibiting a knock off button or making recordation of free games illegal. [141 Mich App at 466.] We find these objections unpersuasive. Obviously, one replay is a single game awarded by the machine. A knock off button is a button which allows free replays to be discharged without actually being played thus violating that section of the statute which requires free replays to be discharged only by reactivating the machine for one additional play. The statutory requirement that exempt machines keep no permanent record of the free replays is likewise perfectly comprehensible. [3] We do not find the language of the statute unconstitutionally vague.