Opinion ID: 2001496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New York State Constitution

Text: While our State Constitution generally prohibits gambling, this broad prohibition is subject to limited exceptions. For example, the Constitution provides that no lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, bookmaking, or any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state and the sale of lottery tickets in connection therewith as may be authorized and prescribed by the legislature, the net proceeds of which shall be applied exclusively to or in aid or support of education in this state as the legislature may prescribe, and except pari-mutuel betting on horse races as may be prescribed by the legislature and from which the state shall derive a reasonable revenue for the support of government, shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state (NY Const, art I, § 9 [1]). The Constitution further allows individual municipalities to authorize, by vote at a general or special election, certain games of chancesuch as bingo, lotto or other types of games where a winner is determined on the basis of a winning number, color or symbol ( see NY Const, art I, § 9 [2]). These types of games are further restricted by the Constitution, which requires that only certain religious, charitable or nonprofit organizations will be authorized to conduct these types of games ( see NY Const, art I, § 9 [2] [1]). In addition, only bona fide members of the particular organization are permitted to participate in the management or operation of such game and are not permitted to receive any remuneration for their participation ( see NY Const, art I, § 9 [2] [3]-[4]). Further, the entire net proceeds from these games must be dedicated to the lawful purposes of the organization ( see NY Const, art I, § 9 [2] [2]). The Constitution also restricts the prizes that can be awardedallowing no more than $250 for a single prize and a maximum total of $1,000 for any series of prizes on one occasion (NY Const, art I, § 9 [2]). Plaintiffs argue that because the State Constitution prohibits commercial gambling, subject to specifically stated exceptions, the Legislature may not authorize the Governor to enter into tribal-state compacts, nor may it allow video lottery terminals or permit the State to participate in a multistate lottery. Legislative enactments are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality ( see Schulz v State of New York, 84 NY2d 231, 241 [1994]). While the presumption is not irrefutable, parties challenging a duly enacted statute face the initial burden of demonstrating the statute's invalidity `beyond a reasonable doubt' ( LaValle v Hayden, 98 NY2d 155, 161 [2002], quoting People v Tichenor, 89 NY2d 769, 773 [1997]). With respect to parts C and D of the legislation, plaintiffs have failed to rebut that strong presumption. However, the inquiry is different as to part B, given that the State Constitution expressly prohibits commercial gambling. For part B, we must instead determine whether IGRA preempts this constitutional proscription because the State allows class III gaming for certain charitable and other purposes.