The heated disagreement between the Texas Racing Commission and the powers behind the Safety and Integrity Act (HISA) boiled over on Monday, when the commission’s chief executive issued a letter warning Texas would prohibits the import and export of simulated pari-mutuel signals at its tracks if the Act goes into effect July 1 with jurisdiction over the state’s Thoroughbred racing activities.
In the LetterAmy Cook, executive director of the Texas Racing Commission, cites various statutes in the Interstate Horseracing Act, the Texas Racing Act, and the Texas Racing Law to demonstrate this approach.
“As the Texas Equestrian Commission regulates all aspects of Texas horse racing, including, in particular, pari-mutuel and simulcast betting in Texas, the application of federal law under HISA in any respect of the horse racing regulations for a particular race or meeting would necessarily disallow the Texas Racing Commission to fully comply with the Texas Racing Act and thus require that no race be affected as such. will be allowed to conduct pari-mutuel betting on the spot or provide simulated output,” Cook wrote.
Cook added: “Any such request would be denied by the Texas Racing Commission.
In an article for Horseracing.netCook was quoted as explaining how Texan races, pending the committee’s approval of a race date, will be allowed to run after July 1, but entered and output bet signals will not cross the house boundary. country. In other words, “Texans support Texans,” Cook is quoted as saying.
To discuss some of the legal implications of Texas’ approach, TDN spoke with Frank Becker, a prominent equine attorney and former adjunct professor at the University of Kentucky School of Law.
The following is a combination of written responses and a recorded conversation, slightly edited for brevity and clarity.
TDN: As I understand it, federal HISA supersedes state law. Am I wrong to think so?
Becker: No.
TDN: And so, does this include Texas?
B: HISA goes as far as to state that it attacks inconsistent state law. Texas is clearly suffering the consequences of the federal government’s intrusion into what it considers state business.
TDN: Cook is reported that when it comes to pari-mutuel betting, only in-state bets are allowed through July 1. She also stated that under the Texas Racing Act, pari-mutuel betting on live or simulated races is not allowed on races not overseen by the state commission. What are your thoughts on the arguments and approaches? Are they legal?
B: The authority of the federal government is limited by the United States Structure. Often, the federal government justifies its constitutional authority over the popular ‘commercial provision’ of the constitution. ‘Terms of commerce’ states that the federal government has authority over ‘interstate commerce.’
HISA’s purported jurisdiction is based on commercial terms. It therefore relies on ‘interstate commerce’ as its justification. HISA attempts to codify authority in the definitions of ‘covered horse’, ‘insured’ and ‘covered herd.’
Texas seems to be trying to get kicked out of the definition of ‘covered dark horse’. That definition is: “The term ‘covered racehorse’ means any horse race involving insured horses with a substantial relationship to interstate commerce, including any any thoroughbred horse race that is subject to offline betting or interstate staking.”
While Texas tries to avoid its races being covered up by eliminating ‘interstate off-track bets or advance deposits’, that may not completely solve the problem because of a single track. in Texas could be considered to have ‘a substantial relationship to interstate commerce.’
The federal government often takes a very broad view of what constitutes “interstate commerce” and could argue that many other aspects of equestrianism involve “interstate commerce”. ” like the presence of horses, participants and even equipment from other states.
It will ultimately be up to the federal courts to determine this, although some courts that have recently taken a dim view of regulatory violations have attempted to be justified by an expansive stance on the matter. ‘interstate commerce.’
TDN: Let’s see the hypothetical scenario that Texas takes this approach on July 1st. What you’re saying is, if trainers, owners and charioteers and such people posted signed with HISA and competed in states under HISA supervision, if they also try to compete in Texas, that could potentially make Texas subject to the Interstate Equestrian Act?
B: Even if Texas succeeds in avoiding HISA for equestrian activity conducted in Texas, are horses and participants still subject to HISA, even for operations in Texas? We review HISA’s definitions of ‘covered horse’ and ‘sheltered person’.
‘Covered Horse’ means any Thoroughbred Horse from when it begins training at a ‘covered racecourse or at a training facility’ and ends ‘when the horse has be retired.’
The federal government may take the position that any Thoroughbred horse that has ever trained at any racecourse outside of Texas, or any training facility anywhere, is still subject to HISA even in Texas.
And because the definition of ‘insured’ is so broad and applies to handlers of ‘covered horses’, the federal government can make the point that all professionals and owners Racing owners are subject to HISA, even while racing in Texas, if the participating horse has worked outside of Texas.
If the federal government takes this approach, it seems likely that the only way to avoid HISA is to have horses and participants conduct activities exclusively in Texas.
As a result, Texas’ attempt to avoid HISA could end up excluding horses, trainers, owners, and other participants from racing in Texas, unless they limit all activities his own in Texas.
TDN: I know you’re not a self-proclaimed expert in the economics of the industry, but just based on a general perception of the situation at stake, how much this could affect the industry there ? Is Texas shooting itself in the foot?
B: It could have a significant negative impact on horse racing in Texas. It’s hard to imagine it wouldn’t.
I don’t think an economist needs to say, ‘oh my gosh, getting rid of the simulation is one thing, but if Texas had to take participants out of other states, that would have an extremely dangerous effect.’
TDN: So what do you think is driving this?
B: Do you want me to answer this?
TDN: Sure.
B: There seems to be no difficulty in complying with the regulations. It seems a bit philosophical. Texas has traditionally disliked excessive federally regulated access to what it considers state business.
TDN: What do you think of the other argument that Texas is making, that they are doing this to slow down the HISA rollout in order to better manage some of the issues that have arisen and are expected to still arise? ?
B: It seems to me that deceleration might be their main goal here. Hard to say. I mean, [if so]it’s a pretty drastic action to get them to slow down.
