SUPREME COURT CLEAR ABOUT RIVER WATER

If a circuit judge in Cole County (home of our state capital and the legal jurisdiction for lawsuits involving state laws) follows the lead of the Missouri Supreme Court, this state could become the first to shut down an operating casino in recent history. As a result, a ruling this week by the state's highest court is being closely watched.

It all started when some anti-gambling folks filed a lawsuit saying a huge casino complex in the Maryland Heights are of St. Louis along the Missouri River did not comply with a constitutional amendment that not only permits casinos, but specifies where they can operate.

Clearly, the Missouri Constitution says the casinos can operate "solely over and in contact with the surface" of the Missouri or Mississippi rivers. Lawyers for the casino argued that before voters approved that constitutional amendment, the Legislature had adopted a law saying casinos could operate in ponds up to 1,000 feet from those rivers.

Anyone who visits the casino complex in Maryland Heights would have a hard time comprehending that even a pond was involved, much less a river. The enormous casino and attendant buildings look much like similar large buildings that have nothing to do with staying afloat. In effect, the casino has tried to stretch the state law about as far as it could go.

But, the Supreme Court said, when voters later adopted the constitutional amendment, that took precedence over the existing state law. Any student in civics class might well question any law's validity once voters change the state Constitution in ways that affect that law. Wouldn't, they might ask, the new amendment make the old law unconstitutional?

Beyond that, the Supreme Court turned to a reliable source that isn't a law book: the dictionary. Words such as "contiguous" were looked up by the judges. And they came to unanimous decision. They said casinos have to float on more than water that looks like river water or is somewhat near river water. The judges said the casinos have to float on river water.

The case goes back to the circuit court judge who originally threw out the case without even hearing any testimony. He will have to proceed with the case in an effort to determine, once and for all, if the casino in a pond is legal.

Let's hope he has a dictionary too.