Could Connecticut off-track betting outlets take wagers on jai alai matches?

Plain-English summary

In March 1994, Connecticut’s AG concluded that the state’s off-track betting system could not take wagers on jai alai games at the Milford and Hartford frontons. The off-track betting statute allowed wagers on “races.” Other statutes repeatedly distinguished racing from jai alai, calling the latter an exhibition of a game. The AG therefore declined to read “races” as covering jai alai.

The opinion recognized that the General Assembly could broaden off-track wagering to include other lawful gambling activities. It had not done so under the statute then in force. The AG also pointed to a regulation that prohibited selling jai alai pari-mutuel tickets anywhere other than the fronton where the game was played.

Betting operators at the time

The opinion treated jai alai wagering at an off-track outlet as outside the authorization for race betting. The fact that jai alai itself was legal did not put it within the off-track system.

Legislators and gambling regulators at the time

The AG placed any expansion of permissible off-track events with the legislature, rather than with an interpretation of the existing word “races.”

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could an off-track betting shop offer jai alai wagers in 1994?
A: No. The AG said the statutory authority for off-track betting covered races and did not include jai alai games.

Q: Why did the AG distinguish jai alai from a race?
A: Connecticut statutes used separate terms for racing and jai alai. The AG read that repeated distinction as intentional.

Q: Could the legislature have allowed jai alai wagers at off-track facilities?
A: Yes. The opinion said lawmakers could expand the authorized activities, but had not done so.

Background and statutory framework

Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-572 authorized off-track betting on races. The AG compared that language with Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-574(p) and related provisions that described jai alai as a game and separated it from racing. He also noted the then-current restriction on pari-mutuel ticket sales away from the fronton.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-572; Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-574(p).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1994-formal-opinions/honorable-thomas-d-ritter-house-of-representatives-1994007-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connec

Original opinion text

Honorable Thomas D. Ritter, House of Representatives, 1994-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

March 15, 1994

Honorable Thomas D. Ritter

Speaker of the House

House of Representatives

Legislative Office Building

Room 4100

Hartford, CT 06106-1591

Dear Speaker Ritter:

You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether "it would be possible for the Milford and Hartford Jai Alai to be the subject of wagering at off-track betting (OTB) facilities." The statutes, as presently drafted, do not permit the incorporation of jai alai games as part of the OTB system.

Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-572 as amended by Public Act 93-3321 establishes the parameters of permissible wagering which can be offered in the off-track betting system (hereinafter, OTB). This provision permits the Division, or other business organization, "to establish and conduct a system of off-track betting on races held within or without the state ..." (emphasis added).

The term "race" or "races" is nowhere defined in the statutes. Accordingly, its meaning must be derived from the context in which it is used and its common, ordinary meaning. Kelemen v. Rimrock Corp., 207 Conn. 599, 604, 542 A.2d 720 (1988); Beloff v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 203 Conn. 45, 59, 523 A.2d 477 (1987).

A perusal of the various provisions of the controlling statutes reveals that a sharp distinction is drawn between racing and a jai alai game. Thus, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-574a(b) provides that "(N)o licensee may conduct any racing or jai alai event on any Sunday ..." without local approval (emphasis added). This distinction is repeated many times in the statutes. See, e.g., Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 12-574(p), 12-575(a), 12-575(b) and 12-575(k). Thus, the relevant statutes relating to those activities which may lawfully be presented as part of an OTB system specifically focus upon "races" conducted within or without the geographical boundaries of the State. Jai alai activity, on the other hand, is consistently described in the statutes as an "exhibition of the game of jai alai." Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-574(p). It is a maxim of statutory construction that "the use of different words ... must indicate a difference in legislative intention...." Plourde v. Liburdi, 207 Conn. 412, 416, 540 A.2d 1054, (1988) (citations omitted).

Of course, as a matter of public policy, the General Assembly may determine that any legal gambling activity is a proper subject of OTB wagering. However, to date, the legislature has not made such a determination. On the contrary, it has restricted the scope of permissible activity to those which involve "races" or "racing."

The General Assembly could easily have provided that the exhibition of jai alai was a "race" for the purposes of OTB wagering. However, it has not done so. "Where, as here, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts may not by construction supply omissions in a statute, or add exceptions merely because it appears to them that good reasons exist for doing so." Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413, 418, 533 A.2d 879 (1987). The U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps, has said it best:

"[C]ourt's must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Conn. National Bank v. Germain, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992).
It is therefore our opinion that, absent legislative action, the game of jai alai is not an authorized activity which may be presented for OTB wagering.2

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Richard M. Sheridan

Assistant Attorney General

RB/RMS/td

Footnote: 1 One of the purposes of this Public Act was to authorize the "privatization" of OTB. Pursuant to this authority, the OTB system was sold to, and is presently operated by, a private corporation. 2 We would observe that the Division of Special Revenue Regulations, Operation of Jai Alai, § 12-574-D14a(c), expressly prohibit the sale of pari-mutuel tickets at a place other than the fronton at which the game is played.