tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN March 3, 2018 7:01am-8:01am EST
an hour. >> it is good to be here with you. i'm just a just -- i am jim hood. great lawyer is a from texas. the staff has been great over the years. ands assisting 25 years ago i have been aged 14 and the staff is good or better than it has ever been in my term. i appreciate all the help from that. in putting this panel together, we talk about gaming on the -- i'm the coach of the gaming
committee. that i was president of nag, there was effort for us to set up a gaming committee. up -- mark to set went on and appointed those chairman to that committee. darn if it didn't land on me to do it. my colleague, mark, ran the gaming commission and i thought my partner would handle all of the heavy lifting. he had been driving a lot. he wasn't able to be here with us today. it has landed on me to talk about this case that is pending before the united states supreme court on sports betting. it goes back to the professional, amateur sports protection act of 1992. him what the act did was ban all of the sports betting with three exceptions.
one of the exceptions was of states had an existing scheme of lotteries at that time, then they were accepted. that was organ, delaware, and montana. they made an exception for nevada which already had sports betting. the third allowed a window for states that had casinos already in place to change their law. didn't, most didn't make that change. with that in place, it is my position as an attorney general, and this is one of the great issues that all of us republicans and democrats agree upon, is state's rights. states should make decisions particularly on gaming in our states instead of congress dictating to the states. mississippi joined west virginia's brief in support of new jersey in its appeal in the
christie case. that was argued in december. anare to set -- expecting opinion to come down probably in april to make in -- to make a decision on whether or not for the states to have sports betting. about 20 states have casinos. some of you have statutory schemes to allow it to go into effect immediately. such as in mississippi. if the supreme court rules like we think they probably will, that's reversing the third circuit, we will have to develop regulations. inpoint to you, if you're one of those states, you better get ready because your lawyers are going to be busy establishing a regulatory scheme for sports betting. if you lease holes in it, there professionalslick sports better that will find those holes and exploit them in
your system. it is going to also create an of you doing it for prose and not college games. that is another issue that i issue can -- i have an about, college. i would think college players would be more susceptible to bribes. the counterargument is just as good that that is already happening now with bookies. they are already susceptible. point, is dealing with the integrity monitoring system. it is software, supposedly within again, within seconds, without rhythm is supposed to figure out if something is wrong, if something ends -- if someone is trying to throw the game. --europe, it is pretty worked pretty good, but i always have concerns about technology. be something that
states have to be careful in what they do. the sports leagues are trying to get in a position where they will be the regulatory. i don't want to see that. i want to see the state law enforcement gaming commissions to be that regulatory authority. issuesl still have the offshore and across state lines betting. those are going to be concerns be,ys and will continue to but for online betting, that is where people will probably move to, betting on a cell phone. in mississippi, if the spring court -- supreme court reverses, we already have a regulatory allow a sports -- to allow sports betting solely on existing casinos which are on our coast and the mississippi river. just briefly, and we have experts that will tell a lot
more about the actual christie case and argued that -- argue both sides of it. the argument stands from a case, new york versus u.s. in 1992 where the supreme court held that congress could not dictate states. you had to pass or prohibit certain laws so that new york case is the basis of the christie case and now before the supreme court that congress states onate sport -- what they can and cannot do. the first case went through in 2013 in the third circuit, the court claimed -- it sounded like the position that the third court took. they said, we can't force you to -- the court held that congress can't force a state to
pass legislation. it can prohibit it from legalizing it, but it can't make you repeal prohibitions. in other words, they made a distinction between repealing prohibitions and passing statutes that would legalize sports gaming. new jersey exploited that language in that opinion, and that is where christie 2 came from. the third circuit reversed itself. the -- congress can require states to maintain the prohibitions that we already have in place. that is the issue. it is a states rights issue. being from the south, i am a baptist. i'm not taking a position as to the wisdom of sports betting in the state. i've a first cousin that is addicted to that, as anybody is
addicted to methamphetamine. he has lost several fortunes in his life. as baptists, we don't gamble and drink and we don't lie. at least in public, we don't do that stuff. [laughter] against is an argument the validity of it. in the case that we joined west they didn'tthat, take any information on wisdom for sports putting -- sports betting. with that i will introduce you to the panelists that we have. lin --st up is albert lynn. albert is a former general of west virginia. that was a state that did the amicus. to -- is deep-pocketed
gupda. .hird will be he is the chief of staff of nevada. it is actually nevada, right? can our southern drawl, we always say nevada. catherine used to correct me. talking -- has me saying it correctly. if the supreme court rules like we think it well, and allow sports betting. is michaelt least bailey, he is the chief of staff of arizona. he has the toughest job of anybody in the room trying to corral mark.
anyway, michael will talk about the landscape and the impact of this decision. i will turn it over to albert. good morning. >> thank you for having me here. is good to be back. general'she attorney office until recently and i'm a jesse to the private sector. that is right, the opinion probably won't come down until april. the supreme court is sitting today, and i was joking with depac today and that the court might render everything we have said irrelevant. so, i will try to cover more of the background in terms of things that might influence or the court's opinion goes.
let me try to give you more insight into what to look for when the opinion comes down. as general that mentioned, the issue is, the constitutional challenge to this professional amateur sports protection act. it is important that it is here, before the supreme court in the second iteration, christie 2. when it comes out, i think it will be called murphy versus ncaa because of the new governor of new jersey. what the law says, but the provision position -- says states cannot authorize. that is what is issue here. cannot authorize or license supports gambling. what new jersey try to do the andt time, in their brief arguments, nevada style regulation of sports wagering.
they wanted to implement a complementary regulatory regime. the third circuit said you can't do that. the suit -- the supreme court didn't take it the first time around. when it went back down, and reliance to some of what the third circuit had said, and what the united states had said in their opposition at the supreme said, we willsey repeal in part our laws. they repealed the prohibitions on sports wagering as they applied to racetracks and casinos, and only in those locations. that's went to the third circuit, they said it is still not ok. here we are in the court. it took the issue. there are a couple issues in the case, and i think there are three. the first is a statutory question. it is important because the
constitutional question is interesting. it is important, for all of the attorneys general in this room. you should make sure you are aware that it reaches well beyond sports gambling. that federalism principles in this case could be sweeping depending on the court's ruling. the statutory question, if the court rules on those grounds, it may not reach the constitutional issue. i said before, the provisions involved, the two words authorizing and licensing, one of the questions asked in an argument was white as the statute applied to what new jersey did here? is the repeal of the sports gambling law really authorizing or licensing sports wear during -- sports wagering? it is entirely possible that if a majority of the court were to read the statute not to apply to new jersey's law, they would win the case.
that it wouldn't apply to partial repeals. but there would still be a significantly open question whether it prevents any regulatory scheme. that is something to look for on the statutory question. the other angle to that question, although this argument did not get a lot of traction, the united states took a slightly different position in supporting sports leagues. statute does apply here, but it does not implicate a constitutional question. they said, even though it is a partial repeal, it is an authorization or licensing because, by doing a selective repeal with respect to places that the state has sponsored gambling, that which new jersey is doing is cleverly channeling sports gambling into state-sponsored institutions. therefore, it turns out to be authorizing or licensing emma however, the court if you read it that way, the court doesn't
have to reach a constitutional says, hisecause this case has nothing to do with whether a full-scale repeal of the fourth wagering laws would be constitutional or or whether paspa would be constitutional if it prohibited such a repeal. are constitutional questions at issue that may court from reaching the constitutional question. as for the constitutional question, as general hood said, it all stems from the two cases most people are aware, new york states and prince versus united states. which basically says the federal can incentivize states to act, it can preempt it can cajole states to act but it cannot make states do stuff. the real nub of the question here is how far does right?, what does it mean to say that the federal government can't
commandeer states? and the real intersection here the principle of commandeering and preemption. federalow, the government can enact laws and if constitutionally under federal power, it can say there contrary state law so is this commandeering or is that'seemption and really, i think, important ramifications for sports wagering but also important ramifications for all kinds of federal-state relations. and i think there's two the court could decide this issue. to say, well, wheredeering occurs you -- let me take it a different way. preemption is where the federal government is displacing state displaces existing state law. commandeering is where the
actuallyovernment is actuallyng -- is making -- barring the state from taking certain affirmative action or making the state take affirmative actions. be if issue here would stateis prohibiting a legislature from repealing a law that's on the books, that is a stateering by making them do a certain thing which is not repeal existing state law. that's one divide. there's another potential way which isd go at this to say that preemption only where there is an existing federal regime and one of the important points in this there is -- there's some dispute over this but the justices seem to agree with this, including justice breyer, there's no
federal regime, there's no federal law in place that sports wagering. the only prohibition of sports is through state law. paspa says that states cannot do these things but there's no federal criminalization or formal policy on the books. another preemption commandeering divide is to say federal government can only preempt if they have a federal policy in place but enactedre, they haven't a federal policy but are simply effectuate federal policy through the states, that's commandeering. are,nk both of those lines definesort of -- will commandeering in a way that could be very important in sports wagering but also a lot other different fields. third issue which i'm not going to spend a lot of time on,
severability question. and as i mentioned, there's only issueovision of paspa at here and only really two words with that one provision. so the sports -- in the states argued at some threapth even if the statute the courtd each if finds those two ports of -- unconstitutional, that provision, the whole statute does not have to go and that, too, is an important thing the opinionwhen comes out because there are a couple of gentlemen here today that will talk about what you do if the court strikes down paspa. i think you'll want to be very careful about parsing that figuring out how much of paspa is left, if anything. it's always dangerous to make predictions about how the court's going to come out. when i clerked for justice
thomas, he would always have us predictions after oral argument and then he would make it of us later when we got completely wrong but i'm going to go ahead and make a prediction. i was at oral argument and i sat and listened for a while. it seems to me that there are at votes for new jersey, chief,t's aledo, the gorsuch andmas, breyer. and breyer seemed to be very therep on the idea that is no federal regime here, that what the federal government is through theely states. i don't know if there's going to a a majority for constitutional ruling. gorsuch seemed to think you the statute narrowly. so the devil will be in the details here. i think even if new jersey wins, not sure that the ruling is far reaching as
people think it will be, as people hope it will be. that's true, if it's not just a blanket invalidation of paspa, there's going to be a lot of complicating details for everybody in this room to work out. thanks for inviting me and elbert for that great tomary because it allows me dive right in without explaining the complicated backdrop. here in the unenviable position of talking to state general about why i rightshe anti-state's side of the case is the better side and normally as an advocate the court and in cases about federalism i have been much more often on the states'
rights side in litigating preemption cases where the which prevails, a background state law regime or federal regulation alleged to conflict with it. interesting about this case is it's the first time really that the court is going the clashronting between preemption on the one this doctrine that elbert was describing, this anti-commandeering doctrine that emanates from the 10th amendment. for supreme court nerds, for law nerds, this is a great case. a consensuse's among court watchers that this case,entially a sleeper that even though it's about sports gambling and that's why there's a lot of public attention to it, that
arispotentialy could be really important case that every law student reads in their first book.ase that's because it goes to fundamental questions about how the federal system works. think it's worth going back to the text of the constitution to the legal issues are in a case. i'm going to read you the text amendment. "the powers not delegated to the theed states by constitution nor prohibited to are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." ofhink, and a lot constitutional scholars think this, the framers thought this was quite a significant but it hasn't received a lot of significant treatment case law. court as elbert said, there are only cases, both pretty recent, from the 1990's, that strike down a federal statute on the basis that the federal statute
commandeers the states under the 10th amendment. thing aboutr weird this, if you just look at the text of the 10th amendment, it aboutt say anything commandeering. what it says is -- what it reads like, at least if you were someone who knew nothing about doctrinal constitutional law but knew how to read the english language and you that sentence, i think would think it was a default rule that says unless the federal government specifically does something, state law will prevail. and yet, oddly, as those of you who have dealt with preemption know, the most obvious flowede that would have from that would be the argument preemption and the supreme court has been tosistent in its commitment the presumption against
other claused the in this case is the supremacy says the law of the united states shall be the supreme law in the land, anything in the constitution or any state to the contrary notwithstanding. is a really just a preemption case and i think some cases, justice kagan, at oralginsberg, argument, seemed to think that although i agree with elbert, cobbley not be enough to a majority. so paspa is this law that doesn't actually compel the states or anyone else, for that matter, to do anything. affirmative command of any kind. it doesn't require states to enact, enforce, or do anything. instead, it just says what states can't do. they can't refrain from taking operatingtions, i.e., sports gambling schemes on their own or authorizing third parties
so in their stead. why isn't this just a preemption case? why isn't this just the typical case where the federal government sets forth a prohibition and the states can't laws that is contravene prohibition? i grant that the way this is set up is a little weird because the federal government has actually said is that states can't authorize gambling and new did something pretty clever which is that it really anwhat's authorization of certain gambling as a of repeal and then it said what you're doing is stopping us from own laws and i think several of the justices framingnd that appealing. but it's really, as a practical different from what happens in all sorts of preemption cases, right?
some of you may be familiar with regime involving airlines and trucking. so there's this statute called airline deregulation act. deregulatented to transport in civil aviation and wanted to prevent states from regulating it so that statute actually says that states shall not enact laws that relate to servicess, routes or of airlines. why is this any different? there isn't a ton of comprehensive federal regulatory oversight in that area. a regulatory scheme here. paspa does do some things. states can't operate sports gambling themselves. individualsate can't have these schemes. statesbasically preempts from authorizing or licensing such conduct.
know, i think what matters as much as what the i agree withere is elbert, the way i read the tea argument, there may be five votes or more for new jersey. but what matters at least as much from a federalism perspective is how they write this opinion and if they're writing a constitutional ruling, it's going to be a tough opinion to write because we only have two cases on commandeering so far and they were unquestionably cases about the told to dog something. not just preempting their laws case of the brady law, the gun law, conscripting do the workals to of the federal government or in the case of the new york case, conscripting the states to enact own federal regulation
of substances in the environment. this is really different. and so the challenge, i think, be to writet, will an opinion, if it's going to strike down this new jersey law, open up a kind of 10thdoor through the amendment to undermine jurisprudence. so -- and there are some other siden the offenses ofderalism this law, that i don't think really hold up. there's going to be confusion about whose law is in effect so that's an accountability problem but that's the same in lots of preemption contexts, right? of contexts in which the state has a law on the books but it's only written the form thator in the it's in because it has to be that way because of background federal preemption. and then the states say that
states of corehe power they should have over their government. but again, this is really not different from states having to conform their law because of preemption. so i'll just say, you know, the implications of this could be huge but the gambling implications could be huge, as well. court rules for new jersey, this is going to -- i know other speakers are going to talk about this more in depth -- it's going to unleash gambling onsports the nation and force all of the states now to confront how thisre going to deal with problem. amicus brief on the unusualthe ncaa for an coalition in this very hyperpolarized time, it's unusual that you see a coalition of groups on the far left and far right but this coalition offiled the brief on behalf
includes the christian coalition, it includes baptist groups. groups thatincludes are concerned about low-income consumer advocacy groups more associated with the left. and the reason they all got file this brief is they're concerned about the incentives that led to paspa in place, that states have a hard time regulating gambling on their own because happening is that people go across state lines to hasother state that permitted gambling. so you suffer all the social the gambling in your state but then the other state is getting the tax revenue a rush to thes bottom where states feel forced gambling even if, principles and policy perspective, they wouldn't. we quote the governor of kansas thisays dealing with problem is like dealing with the problem with one hand tied
behind your back. perspective,icy i'm very concerned, and our broad coalition of clients are very concerned, that the states to have the tools, because of these incentives, because of federalism, really, really aith what is national problem. >> first of all, i wanted to thank general hood, as well as elbert for setting the table about the discussion on paspa and the case. my job today is to discuss nevada's experience with legal sports wagering. nevada has a long and successful track record of regulating sports betting. our regulatory structure can serve as a model for states that legalize sports betting in the wake of paspa that's howk down, if
the court so decides that case. so over the next few minutes i'm talk about our regulatory structure, our regime asenforcement well as evolving regulations and that thoseges regulations have to our state respect to keeping us on the cutting edge of sports also making sure that the industry is regulated respect to nevada's gold standard of gaming. sports betting locations in nevada. the industry is about $5 billion year and wagering handle, that just means the amount of gross are placed in nevada, $5 billion, and the industry has the last few decades and now includes mobile wagering,account wagering on virtual events,
olympics -- each of these things i'll discuss later in the presentation. is nevada's regulatory structure. for those states that don't have a gaming -- gaming industry. basis for nevada being known as the gold standard regulation. the nevada gaming commission and the nevada gaming control board things gaming in nevada. the commission is comprised of members appoint to the governor by four-year terms. with adopting thelations that govern industry as well as approving all final approves for licenses in the state. control board handles everything on a daily basis with gaming in the state. it has three full-time members also appointed to four-year terms by the governor
and 400 staff that are spread around six divisions in the control board. the two divisions i'm going to talk about today are the investigations division and enforcement division. so before anybody -- stepping back just a bit. take a betbody can game, be involved in the gaming industry to have a they need nevadaricted license in and a nonrestricted license is a noense with no limitations, limitations on slot machines, no games.ions on table that's your normal casino, the sands, thed, the wynn. a restricted license, however, license that limits slot machines, limits table games. example, at a truck stop you might have a gas station with four or five machines.
be a restricted license. so in order to have sports wagering, you need to have a nonrestricted license and with that, the investigations division of the control board very extensive background check to make sure that the suitable.s the enforcement division, on the other hand, makes sure that the licensee maintains compliance with nevada's rules, laws and internal controls. our office, the attorney office, we have about eight lawyers that advise the gamingion and the control board on all the matters i just discussed. inside of the enforcement division, there's 120 staff members. 90 sworn peace officers, and 30 administrative staff. bottom of the screen, those are some of the duties that the enforcement division maintains. so, investigating criminal matters associated to any
wagering abnormalities, match et cetera. reviewing other event betting questions. betting requests is where the action is right now in sports wagering in nevada. approving administrative approvals of parlay bets that are out of the normal, house rules, surveillance by the allrcement division, that's done in those staff of 120 state.es of the so, in order to talk about where toare with respect regulations, i wanted to give a brief recap of where sports it'sng started and how developed in nevada. it first game on the scene in 1951 with turf clubs. clubs operated at the time independently from casinos. au couldn't have a casino and sports book turf club in the same location.
they were allowed, however, at hotels, as long as the hotels did not have table games or slots. andit's evolved by leaps bounds and in 1975, that repealed ands inrts books were allowed casinos for the first time and it was the stardust hotel that had the first sports book that we knew of with numerous tv's seating for watching games while place bets while watching games. 1985 that the board mandated that all book making be done in a computerized way as opposed to by hand. important, again, general hood referenced statistical algorithms. now we use those to ensure there's no anomalies in betting flesh out whether there's any match fixing going on in a
particular game. 2005, more than a decade ago, of account wagering came to nevada. it allows a patron in nevada who has an established account with a sports book in nevada to place using remotely technology -- a smartphone or their computer. housey can be at their making a bet at the sports book. to approximately 2013, thingsas also these called shorthand, a book in a a sports book kiosk that started popping up wereghout nevada and they in these books in a box were in both restricted and nonrestricted locations, meaning book in a box a at a 7-eleven with three or four slot machines. like i referenced before, that's
investigation that isn't as robust as the investigation for nonrestricted licenses. so in 2013, nevada changed its allowed for sports books in a box only in nonrestricted locations so books only find sports the casino floor or in a sports book for a casino with a nonrestricted license. finally, one of the more interesting things that has in recent years is sports betting funds. bill was signed into bettingwing a sports mutual fund in nevada. bill.he first of its kind it actually allows for out-of-state investors, including foreign investors, illegalorts gaming is currently, can buy into an anity, put money into
investment account and allow for this entity to make investments on sports wagering. thisegulations for particular bill put the onus on make sure book to that the entity, everything was the up and up with the entity and was ok. of thoseecause regulations that put the sports license in jeopardy if the entity isn't on the up and many sports books have decided to take bets from these hasn'ts so the industry really matured but that is thething that is on horizon. recent changes in sports wagering in nevada -- so let's step all the way back. onicense for taking bets
sports allows you to take bets events and other events by any system or method of wagering. statute says.e and like i said earlier, the "other events" language in that regulation is where the saction in sportson is betting right now. that is how, in a casino in bet on the world series of poker winner, the nfl m.v.p.,he super bowl the heisman trophy winner -- some of the more exciting bets on the super bowl. and those -- all of those types theets that are out of ordinary need to be approved by the gaming control board so they way up through the arercement division and approved by the chairman of the gaming control board. virtual events, or e-sports wagering were eventsred others
wagering and talking about e-sports. a whole new thing in nevada. some of you might have children "calllay video games -- call of duty," john madden 2017. there's an audience that goes watches two individuals playing a sporting event and places a bet on one of the two individuals. and so in order for that -- that used to be an "other event" type wagering but now there's a statute that expressly allows wagering in nevada and believe it or not, there's a of these e-sports stars, just like there is of your lebron james or kobe bryants. of these issues, these other events and cutting-edge issues out of the gaming policy committee. that's a committee chaired by experts fromwhere
industry come and bring their ideas. end up intted, and statute or regulation at some point. horizon? on the i'll briefly cut to what's on the horizon. obviously, we try to accommodate industry proposals and desires while being cautious with regard to the scope and the rate at which we proceed. should the paspa law get struck down, you know, a lot of states are going to have with that balance. another thing that's on the nevada, at least for and certainly in other states with professional sports -- before a few years ago, nevada did not have any professional sports teams. the golden knights nhl hockey team, in its first year, which is in first place so we're really proud of that. in a couple of years we'll have
raiders in las vegas. the integrity of the professional sports in important and the gaming associated with it. i think currently you can place bets on the golden knights and i the same for the las vegas raiders. be with that, you need to concerned with match mixing. you need to be concerned with the integrity of and i would submit that having a regulated sports wagering system determine states to whether or not the integrity is there. the other thing also on the horizon is the topic of today's conversation. whether other states will take up legal sports betting should they be allowed by the supreme court. thank you very much.
and5 years have gone by maybe the interesting thing to talk about is what will happen and weart is left over are all free. is there any reason to believe that any state will do anything different than twice i've years ago? that is what i want to talk about. i want to break it down into four topic areas. talk about two things that are exactly the same as they were 25 years ago emma and two things that have changed -- 25 years ago, and two things that have changed quite a bit. i will tell a couple of stories
to do that. i grew up in new york and when i was nine, i played little league. coach was a dad of one of my teammates, a friend i grew up with. i remember, as a nine-year-old wondering why coach had so many different phones in the same room in his house when he had the team over. didn't really think about it much as the season ended. i have revisited the thought, sometime in my high school years, when i learned that the coaches son was running a sports book out of a spiral notebook in our high school. the second story. night toking to other
members of sage. i learned that conversation that they had very similar experiences in this kind of exposure when they were young, when they were nine or 10. general miller, terry actually suggested and we will leave it for now. was beingrience utterly heartbroken when in october of 1920, they got home thatschool and learned shoeless joe jackson and the chicago white sox had been indicted. [laughter] so a sports betting has been around for a while and it will be.
another thing that didn't change are the basic philosophical arguments for and against whether we should have legalized sports betting in our state. pro-arguments look at what is happening, just like with any of these things, it is happening, it is dangerous, as long as it is happening emma weekend regulated and make a little bit of money for the state. on the other side, arguments against legalizing anything, lottery included. and then just the regular arguments about prohibiting vice. today, those things are the same as they were in 1992. the next couple of things have changed quite a bit. today, it is hard to kind of
remember, but i think the first time i actually saw the internet guyback when yahoo! had a in 1996. when this happened, the illegal sports book was still phones. easy with theo data and communication available , it has expanded greatly. so we have more illegal sports betting and dangerous sports betting offshore emma the whole nine yards. -- offshore, the whole nine yards. another thing that has changed really a change in the gambling scene in the country as it is.
25 years ago, we were just starting to see tribal gaming pop-up in a couple of places. sheens --ew sloppy slot machines 50 miles away. today it is vastly different. phoenix, some of our prime real estate is in paradise valley. is an a five minute drive major casino where you can go and it is almost like las vegas. these things are popping up all around the phoenix area. tribesy, one of our anomalously bought some land within the city limits and had it put in a trust and they have
on it withinasino glendale. this is different. asteries, even as recently states have47 state-sponsored lotteries. the wholeey and thing, but sponsoring gambling. -- weigh waste changes the marginal benefits of the arguments for prohibition gamingnt now with tribal everywhere, lotteries everywhere? ,hat is the kind of question you know, one other story or is anration, this
illustration i heard general wilson give a couple of days ago. usei have permission to general wilson's story? he attributed this to abraham lincoln. tom going to attribute this general wilson, that way i have double protection if anyone wants to blame me for the story. basically, it was an illustration of how you can take a look at a set of facts and people can draw to different conclusions, and in some cases it is clearly wrong from the who drawsn the person the conclusion, they are wrong. the story goes, and jeff you can correct me if you want, i think it goes like this. a young boy lives on a farm and
he goes out and at some point while out playing he walks into see something that makes him uncomfortable. he saw his older sister in the and there was a ranch hand also in the barn, and the older sister was starting to lift up her skirt. and the red hand was doing something where it looked like he was going to take his pants down. -- the little band little boy ran as fast as he could to tell his dad. he runs in, dad, this is what i just saw happening in the barn. dad, i think they are going to on the head. the dad had -- pee on the hay.
the dad had a different conclusion. [laughter] think wease, i don't have any guess as to where it might go, things are so much different now than they were 25 years ago on the gambling front. a couple of last things. all, does happen, first of each of the states have their own individual contacts and tribes. tomorrow that some tobes contracts allow them run a sports book tomorrow, just based on the contract they have. that is not the case in arizona. if you have a general class three gaming provision, it is possible.
secondly, if it opens up, we are going to have everybody running in wanting a piece of the pie. recently the nbi -- nba made an argument that they should be allowed to take a fee to regulate sports betting themselves. two problems and arguments i heard from that. that the pro-sports are not where the corruption is going to happen. it is not the same as 1920. it is too much money with the athletes, not where the problems are. secondly, the leaks themselves arguably have a great incentive to promote gambling -- the arguablyhemselves up have a great incentive to promote gambling.
v.in the landmark 1954 brown board of education case, the u.s. supreme court decided the state law separating public schools for black and white students were unconstitutional. : anext on "reel america city decides," a 1956 film documenting the response of st. louis to the court's decision and a difficult process of integrating the city schools. the film was directed by charles guggenheim and was nominated for an academy award.