Opinion ID: 1264099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Definition of Lottery

Text: Obtaining its definition from the Random House Dictionary, the majority holds a lottery is a gambling game ... in which a large number of tickets are sold and a drawing is held for certain prizes. [1] This definition equates a lottery with a raffle and ignores the South Carolina Constitution and this Court's long-standing legal precedent. With the adoption of the State Constitution in 1868, lotteries were constitutionally prohibited for the first time in South Carolina. S.C. Const. art. XIV, § 2 (1868) (Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any purpose whatever, are prohibited, and the General Assembly shall prevent the same by penal laws.). Similarly, the 1895 Constitution prohibited lotteries. S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 7 (No lottery shall ever be allowed, or be advertised by newspaper or otherwise, or its tickets sold in this state; and the General Assembly shall provide by law at its next session for the enforcement of this provision.). In 1974, the citizens of South Carolina voted to amend the anti-lottery provision of the Constitution. This amendment was ratified by the General Assembly in 1975. The current anti-lottery provision of the South Carolina Constitution states as follows: No lottery shall ever be allowed or be advertised by newspapers, or otherwise, or its tickets be sold in this State. The game of bingo, when conducted by charitable, religious or fraternal organizations exempt from federal income taxation or when conducted at recognized State and county fairs, shall not be deemed a lottery prohibited by this section. S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 7 (emphasis added). The underscored language of this provision, which has remained virtually unchanged since 1868, is unambiguous. It prohibits all lotteries. If the framers of the Constitution had intended to only prohibit ticket lotteries, as asserted by the majority, the constitutional prohibition would have expressly limited the prohibition to ticket lotteries. To the contrary, the South Carolina Constitution has never limited a lottery to a scheme which issues tickets or other indicium of entitlement to a prize, as asserted by the majority today. In fact, with the passage of the constitutional amendment in 1974, the citizens of this State specifically recognized that the game of bingo is a lottery prohibited by article XVII, § 7. [2] By adopting the amendment, the citizens of South Carolina legalized the playing of bingo in certain limited instances. Under the majority's definition, however, the playing of bingo would be legal in all circumstances since the game does not involve the issuance of tickets. See Knight v. State ex rel. Moore, 574 So.2d 662, 669 (Miss.1990) ([A]ny attempt to equate a bingo card with a lottery ticket would be superficial at best and unpersuasive at worst.). The majority's definition is contrary to the citizens' understanding of the constitutional provision. Further, the constitutional prohibition against the sale of lottery tickets does not limit and/or characterize lotteries as a form of gambling in which tickets are sold. Instead, it merely forbids the sale of lottery tickets, in addition to the operation of lotteries and the advertisement of lotteries. Similarly, in many jurisdictions, the term lottery is not limited to ticket lotteries, even though the constitutions in those jurisdictions, like the Constitution in this State, refer to tickets. Ill. Const. art. IV, § 27 ([T]he general assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets in this state.); Kan. Const. art. XV, § 3 (Lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets are forever prohibited.); La. Const., art. XIX, § 8 (Lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets are prohibited in this State.); Ohio Const. art. XV, § 6 (Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any purpose whatever, shall forever be prohibited in this State, except that the General Assembly may authorize an agency of the state to conduct lotteries....); Oregon Const. art. XV, § 17 (Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any purpose whatever, are prohibited, and the legislative assembly shall prevent the same by penal laws.); Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 5 (The Legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries for any purpose and shall pass laws to prevent the sale of lottery tickets in this State.); W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 36 (The legislature shall have no power to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets in this State;....). Finally, the majority's definition of lottery ignores this Court's holding in Darlington Theatres v. Coker, 190 S.C. 282, 2 S.E.2d 782 (1939), where, after considering various definitions, [3] the Court ultimately concluded: to constitute a lottery or a scheme in the nature of a lottery, it is essential that three elements be present, to wit: (1) The giving of a prize, (2) by a method involving chance, (3) for a consideration paid by the contestant or participant. Id., 190 S.C. at 291, 2 S.E.2d at 786. The majority of other jurisdictions have adopted the same three element test in defining the term lottery in their own constitutional provisions prohibiting lotteries. [4] I do agree with the majority's assertion that a lottery is a form of gambling. However, it does not necessarily follow that lottery must be defined narrowly as a scheme in which a large number of tickets are sold and a drawing is held for a certain prize. [5] In fact, this definition leaves unanswered questions. How many tickets must be sold for a scheme to constitute a lottery? If one person buys one thousand tickets and another buys one ticket, is the game a lottery? If the prize is altered by the number of players, i.e., the prize is determined by the number of participants, is the prize certain? [6] I adhere to the three element test established in Darlington Theatres, supra, to define the term lottery. While the framers of the South Carolina Constitution could not contemplate computer simulated games when drafting the anti-lottery provision of the Constitution, they nonetheless intended to prohibit lotteries, i.e., all schemes involving consideration, chance, and prize. The Constitution is a flexible document applicable to changing times and conditions. Knight v. Hollings, 242 S.C. 1, 4, 129 S.E.2d 746, 747 (1963) ([A] constitutional provision ... is not to be viewed solely in the light of conditions existing at the time of its adoption, being intended not to obstruct the progress of the state but rather to meet and be applied to new conditions and circumstances as they may arise....). Accordingly, any scheme which meets the definition of lottery is prohibited by the Constitution. See 38 Am.Jur.2d, Gambling § 5 (1968) (It has been said that the word `lottery' is generic, and that it includes every device whereby anything of value is, for a consideration, allotted by chance.).