Ohio high court hears case on skill games

June 10, 2010 at 12:00a.m.

By MARC KOVAC

COLUMBUS

Were lawmakers out of line, constitutionally speaking, when they set prize limits on so-called skill-based amusement machines?

That’s the question the Ohio Supreme Court is wrestling with, following oral arguments Wednesday in a case pitting a central Ohio game parlor against the state attorney general.

In October 2007, the state Legislature changed Ohio law to regulate skill-based amusement machines, including limiting the value of prizes that could be won to $10 or less.

The owners of a gaming parlor south of Columbus subsequently sued the state, saying the statute changes were unconstitutional. A trial court sided with the state, but an appeals court ruled that the $10 prize limit was unconstitutional.

Stephen P. Carney, arguing before the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the attorney general’s office, said the value limit is rational and should stand.

“We cap prices on all sorts of products throughout the law,” he said. “And we also say if you buy a certain product, we regulate its size, shape, weight, color, the interest rate on your home [mortgage] or the interest rate on payday loans. We say here are the parameters, so there’s no right to go beyond $10.”

Additionally, the prize limit serves as a preventive measure, stopping operators from shifting from legal skill-based games to illegal chance-based ones, Carney said.

But Gail M. Zalimeni, representing a Circleville game parlor, said there is no rational basis in state law for setting prize value limits on skill-based games, and the $10 limit is discriminatory against players and operators.

“If this is the state’s real legitimate interest, not to allow illegal gambling, then the ultimate prize is what you should focus on, not what an individual play is,” she said, adding later, “Whether it was $10 or whether it was $20 or whether it was $30, that in this argument is really immaterial ... because the process and the manner in which the law is written is the basis of the unconstitutionality. No legitimate state interest is set forth by the state, whether it was in the trial court where they argued the evils of gambling or in the appellate court where they talked about amusement or now in this court today”

The Ohio Supreme Court is considering the matter and will announce a decision in coming months.