## Facts

- Utah enacted Chapter 77, Laws of Utah 1925, creating a State Racing Commission to regulate horse racing and authorizing pari-mutuel wagering on races.
- Under pari-mutuel wagering, bettors’ money was pooled, a commission deducted, and payouts determined by the distribution of bets on each horse; bettors could not know the final odds when placing bets.
- Utah State Fair Association and related parties sought to conduct races using pari-mutuel wagering and filed a declaratory judgment action to confirm the statute’s constitutionality.
- Salt Lake City officials and other opponents contended the statute violated the Utah Constitution’s ban on legislative authorization of “any game of chance, lottery, or gift enterprise.”
- Opponents also argued the act violated the constitutional requirement that a bill embrace one subject clearly expressed in its title, asserting the title did not disclose pari-mutuel betting.
- The district court upheld most of the act but held the pari-mutuel authorization section unconstitutional for inadequate title coverage; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether statutory authorization of pari-mutuel wagering on horse races constitutes legislative authorization of a prohibited “game of chance” (or lottery) under the Utah Constitution.
2. Whether the act’s title failed the single-subject/clear-title requirement as to the provision authorizing pari-mutuel wagering.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the judgment invalidating the pari-mutuel provision and directed entry of judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held pari-mutuel wagering on horse races, as regulated by the act, did not violate the constitutional prohibition on authorizing games of chance or lotteries.
- The court held the act’s title, which addressed creation of a racing commission and regulation of horse racing, was broad enough to include pari-mutuel wagering provisions germane to that regulatory purpose.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional ban on legislative authorization of “games of chance” and “lotteries” is aimed at schemes where chance predominates; it does not necessarily reach regulated wagering incidental to a contest treated as primarily skill-based.
- Horse racing may be treated as predominantly a contest of skill for purposes of determining whether regulated wagering mechanisms constitute a prohibited game of chance.
- Under a single-subject/clear-title clause, a broad general title establishing a regulatory commission and describing its subject matter can validly cover auxiliary provisions reasonably connected to executing the act’s regulatory objectives.
- A provision is not an additional subject merely because it is detailed; if it is germane to the act’s stated regulatory purpose, it may be included without separate title mention.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court upheld a statute authorizing and regulating pari-mutuel wagering on horse races, concluding it did not amount to legislative authorization of a constitutionally prohibited game of chance and that the act’s title sufficiently encompassed the wagering provision as part of the horse-racing regulatory scheme.


Utah State Fair Ass’n v. Green, 249 P. 1016 (Utah 1926)