Local Voter Approval Required for Historical Horse Racing Under Article XII, § 6(C)

Introduction

In Donovan Fremin et al. v. Boyd Racing, LLC et al. (2025-March-21), the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed whether the legislature, by enacting 2021 La. Acts No. 437 (“Act 437”), could legalize “historical horse racing” without submitting the question to voters in affected parishes. Plaintiffs—parish residents and voters—challenged Act 437 as unconstitutional under Article XII, § 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution (1996 amendment), which requires prior voter approval for any new form of gaming not in existence before October 15, 1996. Defendants—racing operators and the State Racing Commission—argued that historical horse racing simply falls under the legislature’s longstanding authority to define pari-mutuel wagering and is not a “new” form of gaming. The trial court declared Act 437 unconstitutional; on direct appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that “historical horse racing” did not exist as a form of pari-mutuel wagering before the 1996 constitutional amendment.
Because Act 437 authorized a new form of gaming without obtaining approval by local referendum, it violated Article XII, § 6(C) and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment declaring Act 437 unconstitutional and denying defendants’ exceptions.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Gandolfo v. Louisiana State Racing Commission (1954): Defined pari-mutuel wagering as the statutorily preferred form of betting on horse races and highlighted the legislature’s broad power to regulate it.

Polk v. Edwards (1993): Confirmed that the legislature’s power to authorize or suppress gambling derives from Article XII, § 6(B) and is plenary except where the constitution imposes a restriction.

Latour v. State (2001): Reviewed the removal of moral condemnation from the 1973 Constitution but reaffirmed legislative supremacy over gambling regulation.

Kinnett v. Kinnett (2021): Articulated the standing requirement for parties challenging constitutionality, emphasizing that voters may assert their fundamental right to vote when a statute deprives them of a referendum.

Other authorities (Broome v. Rials, Shepherd v. Schedler, Snowton v. Sewerage & Water Board) informed the Court’s treatment of justiciability, statutory interpretation principles, and constitutional construction methodology.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

Constitutional Text and Scope of § 6(B) vs. § 6(C): Article XII, § 6(B) empowers the legislature to “define and suppress gambling.” Section 6(C)(1)(a) bars any new form of gaming not “specifically authorized by law” before October 15, 1996, unless approved by local referendum.
Novelty of Historical Horse Racing: Historical horse racing machines—algorithms based on past races, slot-style terminals, random number generation and anonymous results—did not exist at the time of the 1996 amendment. The first such system appeared in Arkansas in 2000 (“Instant Racing”). Because it was not authorized prior to October 15, 1996, it qualifies as a “new form of gaming.”
Separation of Powers and Judicial Review: Although the legislature may define gambling, the judiciary must ensure that it does not contravene constitutional limits. The Court applied de novo review, interpreting Article XII textually and in context. It rejected the argument that definitional power permits the legislature to bypass the constitutional referendum requirement.

3. Impact

This decision has immediate and long-term implications:

Local Referendum Requirement: Any parish wishing to host historical horse racing must hold a referendum and secure majority voter approval.
Future Gaming Innovations: States and legislatures will need to assess whether new betting technologies constitute “new forms of gaming” under constitutional or statutory referendum provisions.
Legislative Drafting: Lawmakers must be cautious not to define genuinely new games in terms so broad that they effectively evade local or statewide referendum mandates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pari-mutuel Wagering: Betting in which all wagers of a particular type are pooled, the house takes a commission, and participants share the remainder according to the relative size of their bets on the winning outcome.
Historical Horse Racing: A gaming system using pre-recorded horse races and slot-machine-style terminals. Players wager on anonymous race results drawn by an algorithm; payouts come from a shared pool, similar to pari-mutuel pools but without live races.
Local Option Referendum: An election in which voters in a particular jurisdiction approve or reject a proposed form of gaming, as required by constitutional amendment for any new gambling not in existence before October 15, 1996.

Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling in Fremin v. Boyd Racing reaffirms the constitutional safeguard established by the 1996 amendment to Article XII, § 6(C): truly new forms of gambling cannot be imposed without direct voter consent. By striking down Act 437 as unconstitutional, the Court preserves the people’s reserved right to shape gaming policy through local referenda, and it sets a clear precedent for evaluating future innovations in wagering technology.

Local Voter Approval Required for Historical Horse Racing: Louisiana Supreme Court Decision Clarifying Article XII §6(C)