South Dakota voters added a state-lottery clause to the state constitution in 1986. The clause permitted the Legislature to authorize a state lottery, provided the lottery was 'regulated, controlled, owned and operated' by the state. The Legislature then passed video lottery in 1989. Here was the puzzle: the actual video lottery machines were owned by private licensed operators (bars, lounges, convenience stores), not by the state. The state owned only the central control computer system to which all machines had to connect. Was that enough 'state ownership' to satisfy the constitutional clause? Governor Mickelson wanted a written AG opinion before video lottery rolled out fully.

Plain-English summary

In 1986, South Dakota voters amended Article III, § 25 of the state constitution to allow the Legislature to authorize a state lottery, provided the lottery was "regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the state of South Dakota." The Legislature responded in 1987 by passing the South Dakota Lottery enabling legislation (Senate Bill 254), establishing the SD Lottery as an independent state agency under a seven-member commission. The 1987 legislation authorized only an instant-game lottery (scratch tickets).

In 1989 the Legislature expanded the menu. Senate Bill 129 authorized "video lottery," a class of electronic gaming machines that would be placed in bars, restaurants, and convenience stores around the state. The 1989 legislation set out comprehensive regulation: licensure of manufacturers, distributors, and operators; prototype testing of every machine model; placement restrictions; age limits; legal hours of operation; penalties for tampering. The Lottery Commission's rule-making authority expanded to cover mechanical and electronic specifications. Every video lottery machine had to connect to a central control system run by the SD Lottery from Pierre. The state collected 22.5% (rising to 25% as of January 1, 1991) of the income after winnings.

By early 1991, video lottery was live and generating substantial revenue. Governor George S. Mickelson wanted an attorney general opinion on whether the scheme satisfied the constitutional clause requiring the lottery to be state-owned. The constitutional puzzle was visible: the machines sitting in bars were owned by licensed private operators, not by the state. The bars were owned privately. The communication protocol was state-controlled but the manufacturers held permissions to use it. Was the lottery really "owned" by the state, or was it just regulated by the state while privately owned?

Mark Barnett's January 30, 1991 opinion answered yes, it was state-owned, and it was constitutional.

The opinion led with a procedural note: the Attorney General does not normally issue opinions on the constitutionality of legislation, because the AG has the duty to defend the state's legislative enactments when their constitutionality is challenged in court. Issuing a pre-litigation opinion on constitutionality could compromise that defense posture. But the Governor's request came with three special circumstances: the Governor was the chief executive officer of the state, the issue was of great public importance (video lottery was already operating and generating revenue), and the agency involved (the Lottery Commission) was under the executive branch. The AG made an exception.

The constitutional standard. SD courts have established that a constitutional amendment is presumed to have been adopted with knowledge of prior law (Kneip v. Herseth (1974)). An amendment prevails over previously adopted provisions where they cannot be harmonized (S.D. Auto Club v. Volk (1981)). Constitutional amendments aim to make a change to the existing system, and courts must "consider the old law, the mischief, and the remedy, and interpret the constitution broadly to accomplish the manifest purpose of the amendment." The 1986 amendment to Article III, § 25 was therefore adopted with the understanding that gambling had previously been broadly prohibited under the SD Constitution, and the 1986 amendment was to permit a controlled state lottery as a revenue source.

The constitutional presumption. SD legislative acts are presumed constitutional, and the presumption is not overcome unless "the constitutionality of the act is clearly and unmistakably shown" and "there is no reasonable doubt that it violates fundamental constitutional principles" (Independent Community Bankers Association v. State (1984)). No statute should be held unconstitutional unless the infringement is "so plain and palpable as to admit of no reasonable doubt." This is a strong tilt in favor of upholding legislation, and it applied here.

Applying the standard. The AG worked through the four constitutional requirements:

Lottery. A lottery is "an event or affair whose outcome is or seems to be determined by chance" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1981). Video lottery games are games of chance. The scheme constitutes a lottery.

Regulated, controlled, operated. The SDCL ch. 42-7A regulatory framework is comprehensive. The SD Lottery Commission has rule-making authority. The Commission tests every prototype. The executive director and staff run the operations. There is no realistic dispute that the lottery is regulated, controlled, and operated by the state.

Owned. This was the close question. The AG identified that the central control system is the key. The hardware (computers in Pierre) is owned by the state. The software (audit and terminal control programs, communications protocol) is owned by the state. Manufacturers receive permissions to use the protocol but have no ownership; the permissions are nontransferable. Machines cannot be transported into the state without prototype approval. Each machine must conform exactly to the approved prototype. Machines are inoperable without connection to the state-owned central control system. The state can enable or disable any machine from Pierre at any time. The control system also detects unapproved games. In short, no machine has any economic value without the state's central control system.

The AG drew the constitutional line: the constitutional amendment did not require "a state proprietary ownership interest in each and every item that is necessary to conduct the video lottery." Some private ownership (machines, premises) is consistent with the constitutional requirement so long as the lottery itself is state-owned. The state-owned central control system was the dispositive ownership: without state-owned hardware/software, no machine could function and no proceeds could be paid. That was enough.

Conclusion. The video lottery scheme was constitutional under Article III, § 25. The legislative scheme passed constitutional muster.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991. 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. SD video lottery has been operating continuously since 1989-90 and has been the subject of subsequent legislation, regulatory changes, and litigation. The state ownership analysis here remains the foundation, but technical implementation has evolved (modern terminal hardware, network architecture, payment processing). Anyone evaluating SD lottery constitutional issues today should check current Article III § 25 text, SDCL ch. 42-7A, and subsequent court rulings.

What the opinion meant at the time

For Governor Mickelson, the opinion provided the constitutional cover needed to defend video lottery against the legal challenges that were almost inevitable given the new gaming framework's unprecedented scope. The AG's stated reluctance to issue constitutional opinions, combined with the willingness to make an exception here, signaled both the importance of the issue and the AG's confidence in the answer.

For the South Dakota Lottery Commission and the SD Lottery as an agency, the opinion validated the operational architecture they had built. The central control system in Pierre was the structural fact that made the scheme constitutional. Continued investment in and maintenance of that central system would protect against future "but the machines are privately owned" constitutional attacks.

For video lottery machine manufacturers and licensed operators, the opinion confirmed that the licensing framework, while restrictive, was on solid constitutional ground. The state's protocol-as-property approach (manufacturers got permission to use the protocol but no ownership of it) was deliberate and constitutionally significant.

For hospitality establishments (bars, lounges, restaurants) hosting video lottery machines, the opinion confirmed that the revenue-sharing relationship was lawful. The state's 22.5% (rising to 25% in January 1991) take after winnings represented the state's economic stake in the lottery, alongside the central control system ownership.

For SD legislators considering future gaming expansions, the opinion provided a template. State ownership of a central control system (or its functional equivalent) could plausibly satisfy the Article III § 25 ownership requirement even when individual gaming components were privately owned. Subsequent gaming legislation could be drafted with that template in mind.

For Mark Barnett as AG, the opinion was an exceptional move. By signaling that constitutional opinions to the executive were possible in cases of great public importance, the opinion set a precedent the office could use sparingly later.

For citizens and gambling-policy advocates following SD lottery developments, the opinion clarified that the constitutional state-ownership requirement was meaningful but not absolute. State ownership could be partial (the lottery itself, the central control system) without requiring state ownership of every component (the machines, the premises).

For anti-gambling advocates contemplating a challenge to video lottery, the opinion identified the strongest argument against state-ownership compliance and explained why the AG nonetheless concluded the scheme was constitutional. A challenge would have to overcome the central-control-system argument and the strong presumption of constitutionality from Independent Community Bankers Ass'n (1984).

Common questions

Q: When did SD voters amend the constitution to allow a lottery?
A: 1986. The amendment to Article III, § 25 permitted the Legislature to authorize a state lottery, provided it was regulated, controlled, owned, and operated by the state.

Q: When did the Legislature first authorize a lottery?
A: 1987, with Senate Bill 254 establishing the SD Lottery as an independent state agency. The initial authorization was for instant games only.

Q: When was video lottery added?
A: 1989, with Senate Bill 129 authorizing video lottery as a category of state lottery.

Q: What is the central control system?
A: A state-owned computer hardware and software system, operated from the SD Lottery main office in Pierre, that all licensed video lottery machines must connect to. The system extracts, stores, and assimilates monetary and game-play transactions; controls enrollment of machines; and can enable or disable any machine remotely.

Q: Why was state ownership the constitutional issue?
A: Article III, § 25 requires the state lottery to be "regulated, controlled, owned and operated" by the state. Video lottery machines were owned by private licensed operators, and the bars they sat in were privately owned. Critics could argue the lottery was not truly state-owned.

Q: How did the AG resolve the ownership question?
A: By distinguishing the lottery itself (state-owned) from the components used to play it (privately owned). The state-owned central control system, communication protocol, and rule-making authority were sufficient state ownership. The constitutional amendment did not require state proprietary ownership of every component.

Q: What constitutional presumption did the AG apply?
A: The strong presumption of constitutionality from Independent Community Bankers Association v. State (1984). A legislative act is presumed constitutional, and the presumption is not overcome unless the act's invalidity is clearly and unmistakably shown.

Q: Does the AG normally issue opinions on the constitutionality of legislation?
A: No. The AG has the duty to defend legislative enactments when their constitutionality is challenged in court. Issuing a pre-litigation opinion could compromise that defense posture. The AG made an exception here because of the Governor's request, the great public importance, and the executive-branch agency involvement.

Q: What's the state's revenue share?
A: 22.5% of income after winnings, rising to 25% effective January 1, 1991. This was a substantial revenue source for the state general fund.

Q: Could the scheme have worked without the central control system?
A: Constitutionally, probably not. The central control system was the key feature making the lottery state-owned. Without that system or its functional equivalent, the lottery's state ownership would be much harder to defend.

Background and statutory framework

The 1986 constitutional amendment. Before 1986, SD's constitution broadly prohibited lotteries and many forms of gambling. The 1986 amendment to Article III, § 25 carved out a single exception: "it shall be lawful for the legislature to authorize by law, a state lottery which is regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the state of South Dakota, either separately by this state or jointly or in cooperation with one or more other states. The entire net proceeds of such lottery shall be devoted to the operation of state government or such other purposes as the legislature shall determine."

The 1987 enabling legislation. Senate Bill 254 in 1987 created the South Dakota Lottery as an independent state agency. A seven-member commission was appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The executive director ran day-to-day operations. The 1987 legislation authorized only instant-game lottery products (scratch tickets), which began selling in late 1987.

The 1989 video lottery legislation. Senate Bill 129 expanded the menu of state lottery games to include "video games." The 1989 legislation:
- Required prototype testing of every machine model;
- Required machines to be tamper-resistant;
- Required machines to have meters and accounting software for permanent transaction records;
- Required ticket voucher printing capability;
- Required coin and bill mechanisms designed to prevent manipulation;
- Required communications capability for linking to a central system;
- Placed restrictions on wagers and prizes;
- Placed restrictions on machine placement;
- Set minimum age (21) and legal hours;
- Imposed penalties for tampering;
- Granted the Lottery Commission rulemaking authority for mechanical and electronic specifications.

The central control system architecture. By 1990 the SD Lottery had implemented a central control system that became the structural heart of the scheme. Every approved video lottery machine had to connect to the system to function. The system was based in Pierre and provided real-time monitoring, transaction recording, and operational control. Machines could not be activated, transferred, or operated without central control system enrollment. The state owned the hardware and held a nontransferable perpetual license to the internal software.

The licensing scheme. Multiple license tiers: manufacturer license (for makers of approved machines), distributor license (for distribution into the state), operator license (for the entity placing machines in establishments), and licensed establishment status (for the bar or convenience store hosting the machines).

The 1991 question. By January 1991, video lottery had been operating for a year. The revenue impact was visible (the increase from 22.5% to 25% reflected ongoing legislative refinement). Critics had begun to question whether the scheme was truly state-owned or whether it was instead a regulated-private gaming scheme dressed up as a state lottery. Governor Mickelson wanted to lock down the constitutional question.

The AG's analysis. Three steps:

Step one: identify the four constitutional elements. The lottery had to be regulated, controlled, owned, and operated by the state. Three of the four were not in serious dispute (regulated, controlled, operated). The "owned" element was the close call.

Step two: apply the presumption of constitutionality. Independent Community Bankers Ass'n gave the legislation a strong tilt in favor of validity. The AG was not free to invalidate the legislation on doubt; he could invalidate only on clear and unmistakable showing of unconstitutionality.

Step three: assess state ownership. The central control system was state-owned in fact (hardware physically owned by the state, software perpetually licensed to the state, communications protocol a state property right). Without the central control system, no machine could function. Therefore the state owned the lottery, even if private parties owned the machines and the premises. The constitutional ownership requirement did not extend to every component.

The opinion's lasting significance. The 1991 opinion validated the central-control-system architecture that has been the backbone of SD video lottery ever since. The opinion's holding that state ownership of the central system suffices for Article III § 25 was the foundation on which SD lottery operations were built. Subsequent legislation has refined the framework but has not challenged the central-system-equals-state-ownership principle.

The opinion's unusual posture (AG issuing constitutional opinion to the Governor) reflected the heightened public stakes. AG Barnett's stated reluctance to issue constitutional opinions in advance of litigation was a deliberate professional norm, and the exception he made here signaled both the importance of the question and the AG's confidence in the answer.

Citations and references

Constitutional and statutory:
- S.D. Const. art. III, § 25 (as amended 1986)
- 1987 SD Senate Bill 254 (lottery enabling)
- 1989 SD Senate Bill 129 (video lottery authorization)
- SDCL ch. 42-7A
- SDCL 42-7A-1(13), 42-7A-2, 42-7A-3, 42-7A-17
- SDCL 42-7A-37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 47, 48
- ARSD 48:01, 48:02
- ARSD 48:02:07, 48:02:08, 48:02:07:02, 48:02:07:06

Cases:
- Kneip v. Herseth, 214 N.W.2d 93 (S.D. 1974)
- South Dakota Auto Club, Inc. v. Volk, 305 N.W.2d 693 (S.D. 1981)
- McDonald v. School Board of Yankton, 246 N.W.2d 93 (S.D. 1976)
- Independent Community Bankers Association v. State, 346 N.W.2d 737 (S.D. 1984)

Source

• Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://atg.sd.gov/OfficialOpinions/Official%20Opinion%2091-04.pdf

Original opinion text

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 91-04, Validity of Video Lottery Legislation.

January 30, 1991

The Honorable George S. Mickelson
Governor
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 91-04

Validity of video lottery legislation

Dear Governor Mickelson:

You have requested an official opinion from this office regarding the following factual scenario:

FACTS:

In 1986, a statewide referendum was passed to amend the state Constitution making it lawful for the legislature to authorize by law a state lottery which is regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the state of South Dakota, either separately, jointly, or in cooperation with one or more other states. During the 1987 legislative session, Senate Bill No. 254 was passed establishing the South Dakota Lottery as an independent state agency under the direction of a seven-member commission appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. SDCL 42-7A-2; 42-7A-17. The administration of the South Dakota Lottery was placed with the executive director, appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and under the supervision of the South Dakota Lottery Commission. SDCL 42-7A-2; 42-7A-3. The overall management of the state lottery and control over the operation of its games were placed solely with the South Dakota Lottery. SDCL 42-7A-2. The legislature in SDCL ch. 42-7A set forth comprehensive requirements to preserve the integrity and security of the state lottery including, but not limited to: qualification standards and background investigations of vendors and licensees; management responsibilities of the executive director; lottery ticket sale and redemption restrictions; the transfer of net proceeds to the state general fund; penalties for violations of lottery laws; and the rule-making authority of the Commission.

The 1987 legislation authorized only an instant lottery game. In 1989, the legislature passed Senate Bill No. 129, "An Act to authorize product diversification of the South Dakota Lottery to offer video games and provide penalties for violation thereof." The legislation authorized video lottery games to be played on video lottery machines authorized by the Commission. SDCL 42-7A-1(13).

The Legislature set forth the requirements to license video lottery machines which include: randomness of play; operation of video games licensed and authorized by the Commission; meters and accounting software that maintain permanent records of play transactions; ticket voucher printing and dispensing criteria; coin and bill mechanisms designed to prevent manipulation; and, the capability to communicate and be linked under a central communication system to provide auditing and security control functions as approved by the Commission. Legislation places restrictions on the amounts that can be wagered and won on a game; the placement of video lottery machines; the age limit and legal hours of operation for video lottery machines; and, penalties for tampering and intent to manipulate the operation of a machine. See SDCL 42-7A-37, 38, 44, 46, 47 and 48.

The legislation also expanded the South Dakota Lottery Commission's rule-making authority to include additional mechanical and electronic specifications for each video lottery machine. ARSD 48:02:07 and ARSD 48:02:08. The South Dakota Lottery thoroughly tests and examines prototypes of video lottery machines submitted by licensed manufacturers to ensure that all machines meet all statutory and regulatory requirements. SDCL 42-7A-40. No video lottery machine may be transported into the state unless its prototype has been approved by the Commission. Each video lottery machine licensed for placement in the state must conform to the exact specifications of the tested and approved prototype. ARSD 48:02:07:02 and :06.

In order to carry out its statutory requirements, the South Dakota Lottery has installed and implemented a video lottery central control system. The central control system is comprised of computer hardware and software programs that are designed to extract, store and assimilate monetary and game play transactions of each video lottery machine located in the state on a daily basis. The central control system provides the Lottery with complete control over the operational status of each video lottery machine located in licensed establishments statewide. All computer hardware of the central control system and the nontransferable and perpetual license in the internal video lottery audit and terminal control system software are owned by the South Dakota Lottery.

As a prerequisite to licensure and approval, each video lottery machine must be capable of properly communicating with the central control system. This is accomplished by a sophisticated communications protocol program used to communicate with the central control system and provide all the required information. The protocol program is a protected property right of the South Dakota Lottery. Licensed video lottery machine manufacturers are given permission to use the communications protocol program, but have no right of ownership. The protocol may not be transferred to any person or other entity nor can it be used for the manufacturing of any machine not intended for the South Dakota video lottery market. Further, to restrict availability of the games, all manufacturers with approved video lottery games have agreed to not knowingly distribute or make available the software and hardware to any person or entity for use or participation in the South Dakota video lottery unless such person is licensed and approved by the South Dakota Lottery. All manufacture agreements are effective from the date a game is approved by the Commission.

These video lottery machines are inoperable without direct linkage and enrollment to the central control system. These machines are of no value without linkage with the central control system which, as stated above, is owned, controlled and operated by the South Dakota Lottery. In addition, the Lottery holds total control over the enrollment of a machine onto the central control system to enable its operation and also the control to disable the operation of a machine from the main Lottery office in Pierre. The video lottery control system also ensures that only approved games may be played on video lottery machines. Absent linkage with the control system, approved game hardware and software cannot be activated. In addition, the control system can detect if a nonapproved game is being played on a video lottery machine.

Operators who purchase video lottery machines from distributors for placement in establishments are required to be licensed by the South Dakota Lottery. An operator license authorizes a person to purchase licensed and approved video lottery machines for placement in a licensed establishment.

The State receives 22.5 percent of the income after winnings generated from each machine in the State, which will be increased to 25 percent on January 1, 1991.

Based upon the above factual information, you have asked the following question:

QUESTION:

Does the legislative and regulatory scheme authorized in implementing video lottery in the state of South Dakota satisfy the requirement of Article III, 25 of the South Dakota Constitution that a state lottery be regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the state of South Dakota?

IN RE QUESTION:

The Attorney General normally does not issue official opinions concerning the constitutionality of legislative enactments. This in part is due to the fact that it is the duty of the Attorney General to defend legislative enactments when their constitutionality is raised in courts of this State. Given the fact that you, as the chief executive officer of the state of South Dakota, have requested the opinion, that the issue is of great public importance, and that the legal issues before me specifically concern an agency under your branch of government, I will make an exception and render my opinion on the constitutionality of the legislative scheme.

In 1986, the people passed an amendment to Article III, 25 of the South Dakota Constitution that stated:

However, it shall be lawful for the legislature to authorize by law, a state lottery which is regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the state of South Dakota, either separately by this state or jointly or in cooperation with one or more other states. The entire net proceeds of such lottery shall be devoted to the operation of state government or such other purposes as the legislature shall determine.

Since the passage of the above constitutional amendment, the state legislature has enacted legislation establishing the South Dakota Lottery, a governing commission and a detailed statutory scheme. The statutory scheme authorizes certain types of lottery games to be conducted by the state lottery and sets forth guidelines on how those games shall be conducted and controlled. See SDCL ch. 42-7A. The state legislature also authorized the South Dakota Lottery Commission to enact further rules and regulations in carrying out its statutory mandates. The Commission has carried out this function. See ARSD 48:01, and 02.

As indicated in your extensive factual statement, one type of lottery game authorized by the legislature is video lottery. In determining whether the video lottery is constitutional, I will apply the standard of review utilized by the South Dakota Supreme Court.

In reviewing constitutional amendments, the Court presumes that the people adopted the constitutional amendment in view of and with the understanding of prior law. Kneip v. Herseth, 214 N.W.2d 93 (S.D. 1974). In addition, the Court has determined that a constitutional amendment will prevail over previously adopted provisions of the constitution with which it conflicts and with which it cannot be harmonized. South Dakota Auto Club, Inc. v. Volk, 305 N.W.2d 693 (S.D. 1981). Constitutional amendments are usually adopted for the purpose of making a change in the existing system. As such, "[t]he courts are under the duty to consider the old law, the mischief, and the remedy, and to interpret the constitution broadly to accomplish the manifest purpose of the amendment." South Dakota Auto Club, Inc., supra at 697.

In applying the above standard of review, it is my opinion that the 1986 constitutional amendment to Article III, 25 was passed to allow the legislature to authorize a state lottery. Given the fact that the Constitution is not a grant, but a limitation, upon the law-making power of the legislature, I must determine the question of the constitutionality of the legislative scheme by inquiring whether the constitutional limitations have been violated. McDonald v. School Board of Yankton, Etc., 246 N.W.2d 93 (S.D. 1976). In reviewing the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, the South Dakota Supreme Court in Independent Community Bankers Association v. State, 346 N.W.2d 737, 739 (S.D. 1984) stated:

Any legislative act is accorded a presumption in favor of constitutionality and that presumption is not overcome until the constitutionality of the act is clearly and unmistakably shown and there is no reasonable doubt that it violates fundamental constitutional principles. [Citation omitted.] Legislative action is also accorded the presumption in favor of validity and propriety and no statute should be held unconstitutional by any court unless its infringement of constitutional restrictions is so plain and palpable as to admit of no reasonable doubt. [Cite omitted.]

It is my opinion, based upon a review of the video lottery statutory scheme, that the legislation passes constitutional muster. The legislature through its enactments has created a video lottery that is regulated, controlled, owned and operated by the state of South Dakota.

First, it is my opinion that the video lottery scheme does constitute a lottery. A lottery is defined as "an event or affair whose outcome is or seems to be determined by chance." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981). The video lottery games that are legislatively authorized definitely constitute games of chance.

Second, there can be no dispute that the video lottery is regulated, controlled and operated by the state of South Dakota. The detailed factual information provided to me clearly sets forth that the legislature has enacted a scheme to be enforced by the South Dakota Lottery Commission. The legislature has set forth how the video lottery is to be operated and provides provisions that ensure video lottery is regulated, controlled and operated by the South Dakota Lottery.

Based upon the review of the information you have provided and legislative and regulatory provisions, the only question of constitutionality that can be raised is whether the video lottery is "owned" by the state of South Dakota. It is my opinion that the legislature has established a video lottery that is state-owned. It is clear that the key component of the video lottery scheme is the video lottery central control system. It is clear that the key hardware and software of the central control system are owned by the State. It is also clear that without these components no person can participate in the State video lottery as a machine manufacturer, distributor, operator or player.

I do not interpret the constitutional amendment to require a state proprietary ownership interest in each and every item that is necessary to conduct the video lottery. Though the legislative scheme is such that private individuals own the machines upon which the lotteries are played and the physical premises in which the machines are located, I nonetheless conclude the video lottery is owned by the State. This is due to the fact that no video lottery machine may be operated or provide pecuniary benefit to any private individual without connection to the central control system. Accordingly, I conclude that the statutory scheme is constitutional, when considered in the context of the strong presumption of constitutionality expressed by our Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,

MARK BARNETT
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MB:JPH:do