Columbiana County man can move forward with a suit against the state over casinos

COLUMBUS — A Columbiana County man can move forward with a suit against the state over casinos, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today.

Frederick Kinsey had argued in court filings that provisions in the state constitution and state law were depriving him of the right to offer casino gaming. His case will head back to common pleas court for further deliberations.

But justices also decided a conservative group and others do not have standing to pursue a legal challenge to video lottery terminals and other gambling policies adopted by the state.

Justice Judith French wrote in the majority decision, “Appellants have failed to establish that they have standing based on their status as individuals experiencing the negative effects of gambling, parents and a teacher of public-school students and contributors to the commercial-activity tax. Because no individual member of Ohio Roundtable has established standing, we further conclude that the Ohio Roundtable lacks organizational standing. Kinsey, however, has sufficiently alleged standing to survive appellees’ motion to dismiss his equal-protection claim.”

The case has been subject to legal proceedings for several years; oral arguments took pace before the state’s high court last June.

At issue was whether the conservative American Policy Roundtable and a dozen other plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge gambling-related legislation and executive actions.

Plaintiffs filed suit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, challenging law changes and policy decisions under former Gov. Ted Strickland and current Gov. John Kasich to allow video lottery terminals at horse racetracks, as well as agreements in place with the voter-approved casinos.

State-administered video slots are operating at tracks around the state, including in Austintown near Youngstown.

Plaintiffs in the case said the video slots amounted to casino-style gambling not been approved by voters, and the net proceeds from the devices were not being devoted to educational purposes, as stipulated under the state constitution.

Lower courts ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue on the issues and could not pursue legal action.

The Ohio Supreme Court mostly affirmed the latter, except in relation to Kinsey, who said in court filings that he “would engage in casino gaming” if not for provisions in the state constitution and subsequent state laws.

Kinsey, justices determined, had standing in the case, though French added, “Whether Kinsey could conclusively demonstrate standing were he faced with a potion for summary judgment is not before us. But under the standards for dismissal&hellip Kinsey has sufficiently alleged standing to withstand appellees’ motion to dismiss.”

There was little full agreement on the final decision, however.

Justice Sharon Kennedy concurred in French’s opinion.

Justices Paul Pfeifer and William O’Neill concurred in part and dissented in part — they would have given standing to all of the plaintiffs.

“We should honor the people of Ohio enough to allow a judge to hear the litigants’ arguments on the merits of the case,” Pfeifer wrote. “Whether the arguments are good enough to carry the day is unknown, but the litigants deserved the right to be heard concerning a significant constitutional amendment that as recently as six years ago engaged the attention of over 3 million Ohioans.”

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, along with Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and 7th District Appellate Judge Mary DeGenaro also concurred in part and dissented in part with French’s decision — they wrote that none of the plaintiffs should have standing.

Lanzinger wrote, “The majority’s holding that Kinsey has standing is based on unsupported, incomplete and conclusory allegations and allows his challenge to a constitutional amendment to go forward on the slender reed of what he says he ‘would’ do. There is no factual allegation that he has done anything or is capable of doing anything to further this hope.”