Raleigh, N.C. — Is the North Carolina Education Lottery a tax, and was the law making it legal in the Tar Heel state passed unconstitutionally?
State Superior Court Judge Henry Hight, in March 2006, ruled against a lawsuit challenging the lottery's legality, saying the bill was legally passed, because it is not a tax and no one is forced to play the lottery.
But Robert Orr, former executive director of the North Carolina Institute of Constitutional Law and one of the lawyers pressing the challenge to the lottery, that it is indeed a tax, because a portion of the proceeds go to education.
"The fundamental criteria is that the revenue is going to the general benefit of the public," Orr, the taxpayers' lawyer, told the three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals. "The lottery was sold as a revenue-raising proposition to raise money for education in North Carolina."
At issue in the case is how the General Assembly passed the law and whether it was constitutional. North Carolina law requires votes on separate days for laws that lead to higher taxes or borrow against the state's credit.
Attorneys for the state have argued that the lottery law does neither and that both chambers' votes were legal. (In April 2005, the House approved the lottery bill in a single day by a vote of 61-59. In August of the same year, the Senate needed a tie-breaking vote from Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue for the measure to pass 25-24.)
The state takes at least 35 percent of ticket revenues -- projected to reach $350 million for the fiscal year ending June 30 -- and earmarks them for education initiatives, including class-size reduction, pre-kindergarten programs, school construction and college scholarships. It's that use of the money -- for such a broad concern as education -- that Orr and his clients consider a tax.
The bigger question, however, for appeals court judges Tuesday was what happens if the lottery, which recently reached the $1 billion sales mark, is ruled unconstitutional.
Court of Appeals Judge James Wynn questioned whether the ruling would harm contracts in place with private businesses to operate the lottery. Sales could stop and winnings could be returned, he theorized.
"How can it be done without having all chaos break out?" Wynn asked.
Orr, who is also a GOP candidate for governor, said the court could delay enforcing the ruling, allowing lottery sales to continue until the General Assembly passes a new lottery law.
The plaintiffs who appealed include the Wake County Taxpayers Association and the North Carolina Family Policy Council. Lawyers for the nonprofit North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law are representing the taxpayers who sued.
The appeals panel, which also included Judges Ann Marie Calabria and Robert Hunter, didn't say when they would rule, but it likely won't be for a few months.
If the court overturns Hight's decision, it is possible lawmakers would have to vote again on the lottery. If the court upholds the ruling, the case is likely to go to the state Supreme Court.
N.C. Court of Appeals Hears Lottery Lawsuit
- Reporter: John Bachman
- Photographer: Keith Baker
- Web Editor: Kelly Gardner
RELATED TOPICS: Wake County, Beverly Perdue, Supreme Court
Copyright 2011 by WRAL.com and the Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
89 Comments
| MOST | Viewed | E-mailed | Discussed | |||
Most Viewed Stories
Most Viewed VideosMost Viewed Slideshows
| ||||||
| MOST | Viewed | E-mailed | Discussed |
Most E-mailed Stories
Most E-mailed Videos | |||
| MOST | Viewed | E-mailed | Discussed |
Most Discussed Stories
Most Discussed Blog Posts | |||
Multimedia
Key dates in the investigation of Lance Armstrong on charges he used performance-enhancing drugs.
Key events in Iran's relations with the West.
An interactive look at the controversial decision and reversal of the Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop funding breast exams at Planned Parenthood.
Save Money On Your Energy Bill - togetherwesave.com
New Townhomes in Chapel Hill - promo price



![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/share/2012/02/09/10711513/4f348e7981bb5-51x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/out_and_about/2012/02/04/10712136/pics_agunn53833-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/entertainment/2012/02/11/10719067/10719072-1329050037-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.highschoolot.com/asset/content/2012/02/11/10717011/10717011-1328936455-100x75.jpg)
![[SLIDESHOW]](http://wwwcache.highschoolot.com/asset/content/2012/02/11/10717059/10717059-1328939591-100x75.jpg)







WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.
This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.
I know that the Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the state. I also read it in each of your numerous posts on this article. Do you really think there is anyone out there that hasn't gotten that message?
Do you understand that the Court of Appeals will rule on the case and that they are not bound by the decision of the lower court? Have you listened to any of the arguments before the court? Please, I'm begging you, don't answer again that some county judge ruled in favor of the lottery's legality.
May 23, 2007 5:09 p.m.
And you can be in denial too. The only reason it is still in the courts is because the side you favor, the losing side, appealed the decision. Not because of any questionable ruling...you do know how court cases work and the appeals process work, don't you?
May 23, 2007 1:42 p.m.
What we need is a law that would force a lawyer to pay the litigation costs for any lawsuit that is totally without merit. That will stop all of the waste of money on things like this because lawyers would have to think twice before taking on the lawsuit.
May 23, 2007 12:40 p.m.
May 23, 2007 10:18 a.m.
They already have.
May 23, 2007 7:48 a.m.