An all-day hearing on Thursday (5 September) in a Missouri federal court did not yield a decision about whether or not a sports betting ballot initiative could move forward. But it was good theatre.
Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel R Green did not rule Thursday in Jacqueline Wood et al vs John Ashcroft, but did say to expect a quick decision.
In the lawsuit, Wood and fellow political consultant Blake Lawrence claim the voting districts used by the secretary of state to certify the Missouri wagering initiative are incorrect. In Missouri, a proposal needs verified signatures from 8% of voters in six of the state’s eight voting districts. Lawmakers redrew the congressional districts in 2020.
According to the lawsuit, the secretary of state’s office used old districts to determine if enough verified signatures were collected. It then used the new districts to determine where voters live.
Essentially that means that even if a signature came from a person who remains at the same address, it may not count in the same district now as it did prior to the 2020 redistricting.
It also claims that some signatures are invalid.
Despite the legal challenge, proponents Winning for Missouri Education have already begun campaigning. The initiative would go on the November presidential ballot.
Winning for Missouri Education, the group behind the state's sports betting ballot measure, says it will "continue to work tirelessly to inform voters about the benefits of this initiative" now that it will be on the election ballot this November. pic.twitter.com/w7F0banpG7
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) August 13, 2024
Pro teams back proposal
Missouri’s professional sports teams back the Missouri wagering initiative, which would legalise statewide digital wagering. Some of the digital sportsbook-only companies have contributed to the campaign. But the state’s casinos are not all on board.
The initiative would allow for existing casinos and professional sports venues to partner with commercial operators. Each casino company and venue would be allotted one skin, or platform. Under previous proposed legislation, the casino companies could have had one skin per location, up to three. But state lawmakers have failed to legalise despite repeated tries.
DraftKings donated an additional $3.5 million to Winning for Missouri Education, a ballot initiative to legalize sports betting in Missouri.https://t.co/e4mVt6NVBU
— Bennett Conlin (@BennettConlin) August 21, 2024
Green listened to about seven hours of testimony, including going through signature rolls from Missouri’s District 1. Marc Ellinger, who is representing the two political consultants that brought the lawsuit, said his clients are focused on 768 questionable signatures from that district.
During the hearing, both sides offered up signatures for discussion. If the ones Ellinger pointed to are deemed invalid, it would mean that the initiative does not have enough signatures to move forward.
“In the course of review and evidence, you’ll find there are 768 signatures that were counted that were simply invalid,” said Ellinger in his opening statement. “Evidence will overwhelmingly show that the petition did not receive necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot.”
Proponents filed 370,000 signatures ahead of a 5 May deadline. The state requires 170,000 verified signatures from 8% of voters in at least six of eight voting districts.
Piles of questionable signatures presented
Missouri assistant attorney-general Eric Kinnaw is representing Ashcroft, the secretary of state. Kinnaw said that the signatures provided by local election officials are valid and, if they are found not to be, “Everything we’ve done in the last 20 years in ballot petitions would be thrown out.”
Kinnaw also argued that not only does case law support the existing process, but that the plaintiffs must prove the individual signatures are invalid. Ellinger’s team attempted to do that during the hearing. National Political Consultants, hired by the plaintiffs, combed through signatures ahead of the hearing. It compiled a list of what it says are invalid signatures.
The group, represented by Kevin Oglesby, however, has a questionable history, according to the Missouri Independent, which reported that National Political Consultants was previously “investigated for misrepresenting initiative petitions they were hired to canvas for in Michigan in 2020 and 2022”.
Will judge examine signatures himself?
But Oglesby said that in reviewing signatures for the Missouri wagering initiative, he found many that did not match voter registration cards. He also said that some had different names from those on voter cards. But the defence said that there is a process for verifying signatures that do not match voter registration cards. For example, signatures from married women who have changed their names would be counted.
Deputy chief of staff for the secretary of state Scott Clark said the state uses two software programmes to validate signatures. At least one of those programmes shows a voter’s previous name and signature history.
At one point during the hearing, Green asked if the attorneys expected the court to review the signatures for matches. Ellinger replied by saying that if the judge didn’t accept a witness’ testimony as fact, then he should review them. Green replied by saying, “I’ll take that as a yes”.
The deadline to remove an initiative from the ballot is 5pm local time on 10 September. Green ordered both parties to submit proposed judgements by Friday afternoon. His ruling could come any time between then and the deadline.
