State ex rel. Mountaineer Park, Inc. v. Polan
| Citation | 190 W.Va. 276,438 S.E.2d 308 |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 21767,21768,s. 21767 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia ex rel. MOUNTAINEER PARK, INC., A West Virginia Corporation, Petitioner, v. Charles POLAN, Secretary of the Department of Administration of the State of West Virginia, and Ronald Riley, Director of the Purchasing Division of the Department of Administration of the State of West Virginia, Both in Their Official Capacities Only, Respondents. STATE of West Virginia ex rel. The WEST VIRGINIA STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Charles POLAN, Secretary of the Department of Administration of the State of West Virginia, and Ronald Riley, Director of the Purchasing Division of the Department of Administration of the State of West Virginia, Both in Their Official Capacities Only, Respondents. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Article VI, section 36 of the West Virginia Constitution provides an exception to the prohibition against lotteries to allow the operation of a lottery which is regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the State of West Virginia in the manner provided by general law. Only those lottery operations which are regulated, controlled, owned and operated in the manner provided by general laws enacted by the West Virginia Legislature may be properly conducted in accordance with the exception created under article VI, section 36 of our Constitution.
2. In order for a delegation of authority by the legislature to an administrative agency to be constitutional, the legislature must prescribe adequate statutory standards to guide the agency in the administration of the statute, and not grant the agency unbridled authority in the exercise of the power conferred upon it. A general delegation of authority by the legislature to the Lottery Commission under W.Va.Code, 29-22-9(b)(2) [1990], authorizing it to promulgate rules and regulations with regard to "electronic video lottery systems," is clearly not a sufficient statutory standard which would vest the Lottery Commission with power to include electronic gaming devices, such as electronic video lottery, as part of the operations of the state lottery. To hold otherwise would result in an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Lottery Commission and would violate article VI, § 36 of the West Virginia Constitution.
3. "As a general rule the Legislature, in delegating discretionary power to an administrative agency, such as a board or a commission, must prescribe adequate standards expressed in the statute or inherent in its subject matter and such standards must be sufficient to guide such agency in the exercise of the power conferred upon it." Syl. pt. 3, Quesenberry v. Estep, 142 W.Va. 426, 95 S.E.2d 832 (1956).
4. Syl. pt. 1, Perilli v. Board of Education, 182 W.Va. 261, 387 S.E.2d 315 (1989).
5. Syl. pt. 4, Delardas v. County Court of Monongalia County, 158 W.Va. 1027, 217 S.E.2d 75 (1975).
John L. McClaugherty, Louis S. Southworth, II, Wendell Turner, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, for petitioner, Mountaineer Park, Inc.
Robin Welch, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Roane County, for petitioner, West Virginia State Lottery Comm'n.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Atty. Gen., William S. Steele, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondents.
Reverend James M. Kerr, West Virginia Counsel of Churches, Charleston, amicus curiae.
Scott A. Churilla, Robinson & McElwee, Charleston, for amicus curiae GTech Corp.
Martin J. Gaughan, Weirton, for amicus curiae Racetrack Employees' Union Local 101.
In these original proceedings in mandamus, the petitioners, Mountaineer Park, Inc. (hereinafter "Mountaineer") and the West Virginia Lottery Commission (hereinafter "Lottery Commission"), each seek a writ from this Court to compel the respondents, Charles M. Polan and Ron Riley, to approve a contract entered into between the petitioners for the operation of an electronic video lottery game. For the reasons stated herein, we deny both writs.
On November 6, 1984, the voters of the State of West Virginia ratified an amendment to article VI, section 36 of the West Virginia Constitution to allow the legislature to "authorize lotteries which are regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the State of West Virginia in the manner provided by general law, either separately by this State or jointly or in cooperation with one or more other states[.]" Upon receiving voter approval, the legislature enacted the State Lottery Act, W.Va.Code, 29-22-1 through 29-22-28, "to establish and implement a state-operated lottery[.]" W.Va.Code, 29-22-2 [1985].
The State Lottery Act provides that the lottery is to be operated under the supervision of the Lottery Commission and its director. Under the Act, the Lottery Commission was first authorized to initiate a "preprinted instant winner type lottery." W.Va.Code, 29-22-9(a) [1990]. The Act further provides that the "commission shall proceed with operation of such additional lottery games, including the implementation of games utilizing a variety of existing or future technological advances at the earliest feasible date." W.Va.Code, 29-22-9(c) [1990].
Within a year after the enactment of the State Lottery Act, lottery operations began; first with the sale of instant game tickets 1 in January of 1986, and then with the implementation of an "on-line game" 2 the following month. In 1990, the Lottery Commission expanded lottery operations by entering into a three-year contract with Mountaineer for the operation of an electronic video lottery game at Mountaineer's thoroughbred race track in Hancock County, West Virginia. The video lottery terminals, which are provided by Mountaineer under its contract with the Lottery Commission, are owned by Scientific Games, Inc.
In 1993, Senate President Keith Burdette, in response to concerns raised by certain senators regarding the continuation and expansion of electronic video lottery, requested that Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw issue an opinion as to whether private ownership of the video lottery terminals was constitutionally permissible. Attorney General McGraw opined that article VI, section 36 of the Constitution requires that the state own all "devices" used in conjunction with the state lottery.
Thereafter, the Lottery Commission and Mountaineer submitted a contract amendment and extension agreement to the director of the Purchasing Division of the Department of Administration for approval. In a letter dated May 21, 1993, Mr. Riley, the director of the purchasing division and a respondent herein, refused to approve the contract amendment and agreement extension based upon the Attorney General's opinion that the video lottery terminals must be owned by the State of West Virginia.
The Lottery Commission and Mountaineer each now seek a writ of mandamus from this Court to compel the respondents to approve their contract amendment and extension agreement on the ground that the Constitution does not mandate that the State own the video lottery terminals.
As an initial matter, we point out that the parties to these mandamus proceedings have focused their arguments on the issue of whether the West Virginia Constitution mandates that the State must own each component of electronic video lottery. In our review, however, we have found that the more crucial inquiry is whether the Constitution requires the legislature to pass laws which prescribe: (1) the manner in which electronic video lottery operations are regulated, controlled, owned and operated before any can be properly conducted; and (2) sufficient standards to guide the Lottery Commission so that the delegation of authority is constitutional and does not vest the Lottery Commission with uncontrolled discretion. 3
Thus, in reaching our decision today, we are guided by the basic principles governing constitutional construction and interpretation. We succinctly stated these principles in State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 157 W.Va. 100, 108, 207 S.E.2d 421, 427 (1973):
The fundamental principle in constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of such organic law and of the people who ratified and adopted it.... If the language of a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous it is not subject to judicial interpretation, the intent of the framers and the people being readily ascertainable therefrom. When an ambiguity appears, however, ordinary principles employed in statutory construction must be applied to ascertain such intent. It must, therefore, first be determined whether the constitutional provision in question is imbued with ambiguity.
(citations omitted). Simply put, the object of constitutional construction and interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it. Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corp., 146 W.Va. 543, 122 S.E.2d 436 (1961); State ex rel. Trent v. Sims, 138 W.Va. 244, 77 S.E.2d 122 (1953). However, where the provision of the Constitution " 'is clear in its terms and of plain interpretation to any ordinary and reasonable mind, it should be applied and not construed.' " Syl. pt. 4, State ex rel. Casey v. Pauley, 158 W.Va. 298, 210 S.E.2d 649 (1975); syl. pt. 3, State ex rel. Smith v. Gore, 150 W.Va. 71, 143 S.E.2d 791 (1965).
Moreover, when, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wv Ass'n of Club Owners & Frat. Servs. v. Musgrave
...not enacted general laws for the regulation, control, ownership, and operation of video lottery. W. Va. ex rel. Mountaineer Park, Inc. v. Polan, 190 W.Va. 276, 438 S.E.2d 308, 317-18 (1993). The court also held that the Legislature failed to prescribe adequate standards in the State Lottery......
-
Randolph County Bd. of Educ. v. Adams
...... complaint is de novo." Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, ...McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995), we ...art. XII, § 1. See State ex rel. Mountaineer Park, Inc. v. Polan, 190 W.Va. 276, 283, 438 ......
-
State ex rel. Workman v. Carmichael
...provision, analysis must begin with the language of the constitutional provision itself." State ex rel. Mountaineer Park, Inc. v. Polan , 190 W.Va. 276, 283, 438 S.E.2d 308, 315 (1993). The framework for impeaching and removing an officer of the state is set out under Article IV, § 9 of the......
-
Fields v. Mellinger
...provision, analysis must begin with the language of the constitutional provision itself." State ex rel. Mountaineer Park, Inc. v. Polan , 190 W. Va. 276, 283, 438 S.E.2d 308, 315 (1993). Under Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution,[t]he rights of the citizens to be secure......