Opinion ID: 1704640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the original provision

Text: In order to properly construe the phrase a state lottery in the 1986 amendment, we must first determine the nature of what was prohibited in the original provision. For most of this century, lotteries were suppressed, either outright or in most forms, in almost every state of the union and in Great Britain. [2] Lotteries were not always prohibited. In fact, governmentally sanctioned lotteries flourished in the colonial era as a means of raising revenue for public improvements, and were in widespread use for such purposes throughout most of the Nineteenth Century. [3] The usual form of lottery was one in which the legislature would grant a charter to a lottery company for a period of years in exchange for a cash sum plus a percentage of receipts from the sale of tickets. [4] The charter company would then sell the tickets to the public, which tickets were transferable; a ticket would entitle a buyer to share in the distribution of prizes. Under these charters, lottery companies sold tickets aggressively, ensnaring the public, regardless of age, class, or station. [5] This type of lottery spread throughout the country, and resulted in graft, corruption, and crime. [6] By the middle 1800s, millions of dollars were involved in as many as 420 chartered lotteries across the country. It was the chartered lottery that the United States Supreme Court was concerned with in the case of Phalen v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 8 How. 163, 49 U.S. 163, 12 L.Ed. 1030 (1850). In that case, Justice Grier wrote: Experience has shown that the common forms of gambling are comparatively innocuous when placed in contrast with the widespread pestilence of lotteries. The former are confined to a few persons or places, but the latter infests the whole community; it enters every dwelling; it reaches every class; it preys upon the hard earnings of the poor; it plunders the ignorant and simple. 8 How. at 168, 49 U.S. at 541, 12 L.Ed. at 1033. These lotteries were the principal evil which led to their prohibition in state constitutions. Stone v. State of Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814, 25 L.Ed. 1079 (1879). Original state constitutional provisions prohibiting lotteries varied in language. Most either prohibited lotteries outright or prohibited the legislature from authorizing them. [7] Others prohibited gift enterprises as well as lotteries. [8] A few, including South Dakota, prohibited any game of chance, lottery, or gift enterprise. [9] None of the constitutional provisions cited define the term lottery. Most states have enacted statutes prohibiting lotteries and other forms of gambling, either pursuant to self-executing constitutional mandates or under the general police power, or both. 38 Am.Jur.2d, Gambling, § 57 (1968). Under the constitutional mandates and statutes prohibiting lotteries as a matter of public policy, the courts developed a broad definition of the term lottery in order to dissuade all sorts of ingenious attempts to circumvent the prohibition. Absent any statutory definition, courts generally hold that any enterprise, whether it be a plan, scheme, game or other artifice, is a lottery if the three elements of chance, prize and consideration are present. This broad definition is used especially when the issue is whether a scheme, plan or device falls under a constitutional provision in which the only prohibition is against a lottery. [10] For example, in Idaho the proposed original constitutional provision contained the exact language as that of South Dakota; however, the term game of chance was deleted and the result was a prohibition against any lottery. The court in State v. Village of Garden City, 74 Idaho 513, 265 P.2d 328, 334 (1953), held that the meaning of the term lottery as finally adopted was plain and unambiguous, and included any scheme which included the elements of prize, chance, and consideration. See also, Brotherhood of Friends, 247 P.2d 787; Sherwood & RobertsYakima, Inc. v. Leach, 67 Wash.2d 630, 409 P.2d 160 (1965). Diverse plans, schemes, and games of all sorts have been found to be lotteries under the broad organic law definition, including: slot machines; [11] pyramid schemes; [12] wheels of fortune; [13] sales promotion schemes; [14] tailor clubs; [15]  bingo; [16] punch boards; [17] pinball machines; [18] and theatre bank nights. [19] 38 Am.Jur.2d, Gambling, at § 62, et seq. As opposed to those constitutional provisions which prohibit only lotteries, our constitution prohibits the legislature from authorizing three items: games of chance, lotteries, and gift enterprises. S.D. Const., art. III, § 25. The definition of gift enterprise is not germane to this case; however, the distinction between a game of chance and a lottery as contemplated by our forefathers is important. When a constitution prohibits both games of chance and lotteries, the question arises as to the distinction between the two terms. When both terms are used, the term lottery has a narrower meaning in that it is a special form of game of chance. Contact, Inc. v. State, 212 Neb. 584, 324 N.W.2d 804 (1982). It is the term game of chance which has a broad generic meaning. [20] To define game of chance, we turn to the organic law. A game of chance is one in which the result as to success or failure depends less on the skill and experience of the player than on a purely fortuitous circumstance incidental to the game, or the manner of playing it, or the device or apparatus with which it is played. Baedaro v. Caldwell, 156 Neb. 489, 56 N.W.2d 706, 709 (1953). It is a contest wherein chance predominates over skill. Bayer v. Johnson, 349 N.W.2d 447, 449 (S.D.1984). The test is whether chance is the determining element in the outcome of the game. Stubbs v. Dick, 89 N.E.2d 480, 482 (Ohio, 1949). The three elements of prize, chance, and consideration are present in a game of chance. Automatic Music and Vending v. Liquor, 426 Mich. 452, 396 N.W.2d 204 (1986). It is an encompassing definition which includes most forms of gaming; cards, dice, and craps, [21] pinball machines, [22] blackjack and roulette, [23] and video poker machines [24] have been found to be games of chance. We conclude that by separately stating the terms game of chance and lottery, the framers of the original provision intended the term game of chance to be broad in scope, including most forms of gaming, and the term lottery in the narrower sense contemplating the sale of tokens or tickets to large numbers of people for the chance to share in the distribution of prizes for the purpose of raising public revenue.