Opinion ID: 1651524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: K-12 Initiative

Text: Neither party questions the conclusion of the district court that the K-12 Initiative must be compared to Initiative 419, now enacted into law, because [t]he resubmission clause does not distinguish between measures rejected and those that are approved. We agree with this reasoning. The K-12 Initiative proposed for the 2006 general election ballot would enact a statute which directs or earmarks the use of tax proceeds derived from constitutionally permitted, state-authorized casino gambling. After providing funds to a state agency to control and regulate gaming; contributions to the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-817 (Supp. 2005); and funds for live horserace purse offerings, the K-12 Initiative requires a minimum of 95 percent of all remaining tax receipts to be used to provide financial assistance in the manner determined by the Legislature for elementary and secondary education. Initiative 419 was a statutory initiative measure approved by a majority of the electorate in the 2004 general election. See Nebraska Blue Book 2004-05 at 1022. Its provisions are codified at §§ 9-901 to 9-904. Section 9-902 provides: There shall be an annual gaming tax imposed by the State of Nebraska on gross gaming revenue generated at permitted locations by authorized operators from the operation of all games of chance, except for games of chance authorized under Chapter 2 or Chapter 9, as follows: (1) With respect to the operation of all games of chance operated by an authorized operator at a permitted location, a gaming tax equal to thirty-six percent of the first fifteen million dollars of the gross gaming revenue thereof and twenty percent of the gross gaming revenue thereof in excess of fifteen million dollars; (2) Of the gaming tax so imposed on gaming revenue at a casino, seventy-five percent thereof shall be payable to the General Fund and twenty-five percent thereof shall be payable to the community which authorized such games of chance at such casino; and (3) Of the gaming tax so imposed on gaming revenue at any other permitted location, twenty-five percent thereof shall be payable to the General Fund and seventy-five percent thereof shall be payable to the community, or the communities, pro rata, which authorized such games of chance at such permitted location. Section 9-903 provides for an annual gaming license fee to be paid by authorized operators of games of chance, and § 9-904 provides that gaming taxes and fees shall be in lieu of all other taxes, fees, franchise payments, occupation taxes or excise taxes levied or imposed by the State of Nebraska, but shall not be in lieu of such other fees, income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes levied or imposed against the public generally. The statutes which resulted from the voters' approval of Initiative 419 in 2004 deal with the collection and distribution of revenue which would have been derived from the community authorized gaming contemplated by failed Initiatives 417 and 420. We recognize that the K-12 Initiative differs from the 2004 initiatives in that it would create a method of distributing revenue from the state authorized gaming operations which would result from approval of the 3 Casinos Initiative, as distinguished from community authorized operations. Initiative 419 and the K-12 Initiative also differ with respect to the specific manner in which gaming revenue would be distributed. While we acknowledge these differences, we conclude that they do not go to the essential substance of the measures under comparison. The fundamental theme and purpose of each measure is the distribution of new gaming revenues which would result if the current constitutional prohibition of games of chance were amended to permit casinos to operate in this state. We therefore conclude that Initiative 419 and the K-12 Initiative are the same in essential substance, and we agree with the district court that the resubmission clause bars submission of the K-12 Initiative at the 2006 general election.