About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

44 Duq. L. Rev. 551 (2005-2006)
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Sustains the Constitutionality of the Gaming Act: Pennsylvanians against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth

handle is hein.journals/duqu44 and id is 563 raw text is: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Sustains the Constitutionality of the Gaming Act: Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION - PENNSYLVANIA RACE HORSE DEVELOPMENT AND GAMING ACT - The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the constitutionality of the Gaming Act. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Com- monwealth, 877 A.2d 383 (2005). Governor Edward G. Rendell signed the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (hereinafter Gaming Act) into law on July 5, 2004 as Act 71 of 2004.1 The constitutionality of the procedures employed by the Pennsylvania General Assem- bly in which House Bill 2330 (hereinafter H.B. 2330) evolved into the Gaming Act was the center of the dispute in this case.' On February 3, 2004, H.B. 2330 was introduced into the House and was titled, An Act Providing for the Duties of the Pennsyl- vania State Police Regarding Criminal History Background Re- ports for Persons Participating in Harness or Horse Racing.3 This bill was one page long and directed the Pennsylvania State Police to provide the State Harness and Horse Racing Commissions with criminal background checks and fingerprint data on all applicants for licenses.4 The bill was then given the three required considera- tions in the House and two initial considerations in the Senate. The third consideration by the Senate on July 1, 2004 resulted in the bill being substantially amended.' The amendments 1. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 877 A.2d 383, 390 (Pa. 2005). See also The Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 1101-1904 (2004). 2. Pennsylvanians, 877 A.2d at 391. Chief Justice Cappy authored the opinion for the court, Justices Castille, Nigro, Saylor, Eakin, and Baer joined the opinion. Id. Justice Newman did not participate in the consideration or opinion of this matter. Id. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. Id. at 391-92. 551

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most