Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
The Minnesota Constitution and Minnesota statutes allow for pari-mutuel betting at Running Aces and Canterbury Park. On April 1, our state regulator, the Minnesota Racing Commission (MRC), approved our application to offer pari-mutuel On-Track Advance Deposit Wagering on Historic Horse Racing (ADW/HHR) terminals for our customers who want to bet on past horse races.
Despite opposition from tribal casinos, the MRC overwhelmingly voted 5-1 to approve the terminals. The tribes then filed a lawsuit to overturn our regulator’s approval. The lawsuit is pending in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. We believe that this lawsuit is absolutely without merit. The tribes and their legislative supporters are attempting to circumvent our judicial system by jamming a bill through the Legislature to prohibit Minnesotans from wagering on pari-mutuel ADW/HHR at Minnesota racetracks (“Bet ban off to races,” April 9).
Why are some politicians in St. Paul so eager to circumvent the established legal process for disputing a decision made by the statutorily authorized MRC that allows for On-Track ADW/HHR at the state’s two Class A racetracks?
Even the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, plaintiffs in the case, followed the prescribed method and filed a petition with the courts. Lawyers for the SMSC went on to state “absent a reversal, formal rulemaking should be required, or a contested case hearing be initiated that could allow for more input.”
We agree 100% with this approach.
So, why is a bill being introduced by state Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids, and others that disregards the actions of the filing party? Why are these politicians attempting to pass a bill that would determine the outcome of this pending legal case as well as amendments that would cripple the racing industry?