PRESS RELEASE: State High Court announces oral arguments on Instant Racing case, discovery to be discussed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 3, 2013

LEXINGTON, KY—"We are very encouraged that the Supreme Court wants to talk about what we want to talk about and what the Horse Racing Commission and the horse tracks don't want to talk about," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation, after the Supreme Court announced oral arguments for the Instant Racing case for 10:00 AM August 21.

"Our brief focused on two issues: whether our right to ask questions was violated at the trial court level and whether Instant racing is parimutuel horse racing." The High Court asked that oral arguments be divided equally between the issue of discovery and the substantive issues of the case.

"We have maintained from the beginning that the facts of this case are essential in order to decide it properly," said Cothran, "and Instant Racing advocates have been opposed to those facts being known. The Court's announcement could be a sign that someone in the legal system actually thinks that they need to know what Instant Racing is in order to make a decision about it."

###

Family Foundation files brief in Instant Racing Case

I was quoted in yesterday's Lexington Herald-Leader story on Instant Racing, an issue now before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Did the gambling industry have undue influence in the original Instant Racing decision?

Jake over at Page One, Kentucky has discovered that the clerk for the trial court judge in the Instant Racing case was tied in to the horse racing industry, which is pushing for the installation of the machines despite the fact that Kentucky law prohibits them. The horse racing industry won that case, partly as a result of the fact that The Family Foundation, which had argued that Instant Racing violates Kentucky law, was not allowed to take discovery.

The case was on its way back from the Appeals Court to the trial court when the Kentucky Supreme Court intervened.

Maybe now we know the reason why The Family Foundation was never allowed to ask questions or present evidence.