State Sen. Barfoot on gambling ‘no’ vote: Constitutional amendment referencing ‘general law’ that hasn’t been passed is putting ‘cart before the horse’

One of the “no” votes that was thought to be a possible “yes” vote on State Sen. Del Marsh’s (R-Anniston) comprehensive gambling package, which included a constitutional amendment that fell just two votes shy of meeting the three-fifths majority required, was State Sen. Will Barfoot (R-Pike Road).

Barfoot, similar to his Montgomery-area colleague State Sen. Clyde Chambliss (R-Prattville), took issue with the possibility of passing a constitutional amendment on gambling without having a full understanding of enabling legislation, which would have laid the groundwork for the expanded gaming the amendment would legalize.

The Montgomery County legislator told Mobile radio FM Talk 106.5’s “The Jeff Poor Show” that while he wasn’t an advocate of gambling, he was not against it, either. However, he likened a “yes” vote on Marsh’s legislation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 2010 proclamation of having to pass a bill to know what is in it during the Affordable Care Act debate.

“Let me say this — you won’t see me on the State House steps advocating for gaming,” he said. “I’m not the guy that says we’ve got to have it under any circumstances. But, you know, I was not a ‘no’ from the beginning, from the standpoint I do think that, you know, if you have a palatable piece of legislation — it will never be perfect — but a palatable piece of legislation to give the folks an opportunity to vote on, I think that is certainly something I could do. So, my opposition this past Tuesday was, you know, more procedurally than it was on the merits. I wasn’t a ‘no’ vote based on the merits. Although I think myself, like many other of the senators — even some of the ‘yes’ — had concerns understanding and knowing the if it had gotten that 21 votes, three-fifths of the Senate, it would have moved to the House, where they would continue to shape it, mold it, modify it, maybe cut out some things or add to it. But my ‘no’ vote on Tuesday was, you know, the constitutional amendment, as you know — the Constitution of Alabama, the 1901 Constitution, says there is a prohibition against games of chance. And that has been amended some 18, 19 or so times — local legislation that allows bingo facilities around the state, other local county organization to conduct certain types of gaming.”

“But that constitutional amendment referenced many times multiple places general law,” Barfoot continued. “That is not existing general law that it referenced. It was general law pertaining to legislation that had just been filed on Tuesday and, you know, in my opinion, a ‘yes’ vote on that on Tuesday — a constitutional amendment that referenced law that we had not discussed, debated, or even passed in the Senate would be akin to, you know, we throw bombs at Democrats in Washington on account of, ‘Well, let’s pass it and then we’ll know what’s in there.’ I think it’s a proverbial ‘cart before the horse.’ That’s what happened last Tuesday. And had that enabling legislation that required a simple majority — had that been up for debate first, the finer points of how that would be — lottery, sports wagering, casino-style gaming — had that been debated, decided and passed first in the Senate, you might have seen a different vote on the constitutional amendment.”

Barfoot speculated the legislation could return, either later in the regular session or a special session possibly called by Gov. Kay Ivey.

“I don’t think it’s dead,” he added. “Mark Twain, you know, said, ‘The rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated.’ I think that’s probably true with the gaming legislation, whether it be later this session or maybe in a special. I think you’ll see it again, and you know I think they’ll be an opportunity. Ultimately, if it were in a special, you can kind of isolate that and have everyone focused on how to make that potential legislation better — something to send to people maybe to vote on. I think that’s probably the way to go about it. But again, voting on a constitutional amendment with references to general law that we haven’t discussed, debated, or even passed — I think that is a faulty error.”

@Jeff_Poor is a graduate of Auburn University and the University of South Alabama, the editor of Breitbart TV, a columnist for Mobile’s Lagniappe Weekly, and host of Mobile’s “The Jeff Poor Show” from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. on FM Talk 106.5.