RULING PLANTS UNCERTAINTY IN RIVERBOAT GAMBLING PROCESS

A tiny aquatic thing called a snail darter, whose singular renown was being included on a federal endangered species list, once impeded construction of a massive dam project in the Tennessee Valley. Like that microscopic fish, a minute legal entanglement is holding up millions of dollars in commercial development along Missouri rivers. The Missouri Supreme Court ruling Tuesday concerning riverboat gambling does not kill this endeavor, but it packs the process with uncertainty. In the meantime, developers grow antsy and communities stand in limbo, their riverfront plans stalled.

In short, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri General Assembly wrote a bad statute by authorizing lottery-type games on riverboats; such games (foremost among them, slot machines, plus other "games of chance") can only be authorized by a constitutional amendment, said the court. In addition, the judges unanimously contended that creation of a special class of gambling boats in St. Louis (not required to leave port) was at odds with the law. The high court remanded the case to the circuit level for a new hearing.

Plenty of questions rest in the wake on this ruling, and the most prevalent answer ends with the words "don't know." What effect will this ruling have on gambling enterprises looking to locate in Missouri? What happens to the planning of governing bodies (municipalities, boards of regents, and so on) who stood to gain additional revenues from the operation of riverboat casinos? What does this mean for local votes taken on riverboat gambling, since they were based on an unconstitutional premise? The answers are unclear.

We don't pose any criticism here of the Supreme Court; the judges' job is to protect the state's constitution, and they did so without dissent among the panelists in this case. While it seems expedient in this matter, the high court can't be expected to overlook a badly crafted law. However, we accept as a fact that when Missouri voters approved riverboat gambling in November 1992, they would have done so whether posed to them as an amendment or a statute. The distinction is purely a matter of law, and the intent of citizens is unequivocal.

From a judicial standpoint, a circuit judge has been given an order from the Supreme Court, and that will be carried out. From a legislative standpoint, officials seem convinced the General Assembly will mold a constitutional amendment that can withstand the concerns of the high court and put it to a vote of the people. Optimistic lawmakers say such a matter could go on the ballot in April; more realistically, an August vote will carry the amendment. Again, uncertainty rules.

From a development standpoint, Missouri remains rich turf, but with an added dimension of instability. Companies that have riverboat gambling interests in other states can be forgiven for shifting their attention elsewhere, at least temporarily. Some of the early birds in the race to open Missouri casinos (expecting licensure in the spring) will find their efforts delayed or their operations curtailed; though gambling boats can feasibly be opened offering "games of skills," such as poker and 21, gaming businesses insist they can not be profitable without slot machines.

Our desire is to see movement forward in Cape Girardeau in selecting a riverboat gambling vendor and to see an amendment placed as soon as possible on the statewide ballot to clear up legal questions posed in Tuesday's ruling. The people of Missouri have spoken on this issue, and the delay brakes the implementation of their will.