BUILDING THE STATE'S BUDGET ON A HOUSE OF CARDS

The Missouri Supreme Court has the potential today to cave in -- both realistically and metaphorically -- a house of cards. A ruling is forthcoming by Missouri's top judges on a legal challenge to the state's riverboat gambling law. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, a scramble will be touched off to set it right. While we think the contingency plans made in anticipation of such a ruling are sound, this instance points out the teetering nature of hinging a budget on revenue sources such as gambling.

At the heart of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court is the question of whether riverboat gambling can be effected in Missouri through a change of state law, as opposed to a constitutional amendment. (The case made its way to the high court through Cole County, where a lawsuit was filed by a man named Troy Harris in December 1992. An East St. Louis, Ill., riverboat company had also been an original plaintiff, less interested certainly in constitutional law than protecting some lucrative turf; the court ultimately said the company lacked standing in Missouri and the firm dropped out of the proceedings.) To the average citizen, this assumes the guise of wrangling over legal technicalities; after all, Missouri voters who approved the statewide riverboat gambling question in November 1992 probably drew no distinction between its standing as a constitutional matter or a statutory one. Despite this clear intent of the majority of voters, however, the court could abrogate the law that has set millions of dollars in development in motion.

There are 22 applicants on file for state licenses to operate riverboat casinos in Missouri, not to mention locales such as Cape Girardeau that are still in the planning stages for such operations. Consider the local situation -- competing companies proposing respective $58 million and $51 million developments in Cape Girardeau -- and you have an idea of the stake gambling enterprises have in Missouri. Millions have been spent just in drawing up proposals, making applications and acquiring land, and the whole endeavor could be pulled apart depending on how the Supreme Court rules, perhaps as early as today.

Understand, too, that the budget package espoused by Gov. Mel Carnahan during this month's State of the State address includes the distribution of $45 million in revenues from the first year of riverboat gambling to the state's colleges and universities. How can these institutions make plans for money that might never make it to the state treasury or, in a more forgiving scenario, might be stalled on its way there? Elementary and secondary education is targeted for receiving the riverboat gambling revenues after the first year. What must those school administrators think of revenue that might never materialize for their benefit?

State officials insist that, in a worst-case scenario where the court strikes down the law on the constitutional question, a new statewide vote could be held before the July 1 start of the fiscal year. While it seems certain such a measure would pass a statewide test (like gambling though, there is risk involved), it would inevitably slow gambling developments around Missouri and delay access to revenue they would generate. On the basis of a lawsuit over legal minutia, the windfall of riverboat gambling could remain a slight breeze. And building a budget on uncertain revenues remains no less tenuous than building a house of cards.