## Facts

- Gretna Racing, LLC operated a pari-mutuel horse track facility in Gadsden County, Florida, and sought a state slot-machine gaming license.
- Gadsden County is a noncharter county whose county commission placed on the ballot a question asking whether slot machines should be approved for use at the Gretna pari-mutuel facility.
- A majority of county voters approved the ballot measure in a countywide referendum.
- Gretna Racing applied to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering for a slot-machine license.
- Florida’s slot-machine licensing statute authorizes the Division to issue licenses only to “eligible facilities,” including facilities located in a county where voters approved slot machines “in a countywide referendum held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization” after the statute’s effective date.
- Another statutory provision and a Florida constitutional amendment (art. X, § 23) limited slot-machine authorization to Miami-Dade and Broward Counties through the constitutionally specified referendum process.
- The Division denied the application, concluding Gadsden County’s referendum was not legally authorized under the governing constitutional and statutory scheme.

## Issues

1. Whether a noncharter county referendum based on general home-rule and referendum powers qualifies as a “countywide referendum held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization” for slot-machine approval under Florida’s slot-machine statute.
2. Whether the statutory definition of “eligible facility” permits slot-machine licensing outside the counties and process specified by the constitutional slot-machine amendment and implementing statutes.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision upholding the Division’s denial of Gretna Racing’s license application.
- The Court held that Gadsden County’s ballot measure was not a referendum “held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization” to approve slot machines.
- The Court concluded the Division correctly denied the permit because submitting the slot-machine question to Gadsden County voters lacked legally specific authorization.

## Legal Principles

- A “countywide referendum held pursuant to a statutory or constitutional authorization” requires specific legal authority to conduct a slot-machine approval referendum; general home-rule or general referendum powers are insufficient.
- Florida’s constitutional and statutory scheme for slot machines is restrictive; where the Constitution expressly authorizes slot machines in specified counties through a defined mechanism, other counties are excluded absent an additional express grant.
- Statutory provisions defining “eligible facilities” must be read consistently with related statutory limits and the constitutional slot-machine amendment, preventing local governments from creating new classes of eligible slot-machine facilities through general local powers.

## Conclusion

The court held that a noncharter county cannot rely on general home-rule authority to approve slot machines by referendum; without a specific statutory or constitutional authorization for that referendum, the facility is not an “eligible facility,” and the state agency must deny the slot-machine license.


Gretna Racing, LLC v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Pro. Regul., 225 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 2017)