Judge's ruling right on casino votes

The state Supreme Court got it right on Friday.

A vote on casinos is a vote on casinos, at least in the mind of most voters.

The court overruled Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers' ruling that a casino petition did not violate the state constitution's limit on submitting similar ballot proposals more than once in three years.

At issue was a package of three petitions, sponsored by the Committee for Better Schools and More Jobs in Nebraska Inc., that would allow one casino in each of the state's three congressional districts. It also would earmark funds for kindergarten through 12th-grade education, horse racing and treatment of compulsive gamblers, plus create a board to regulate and license casinos in the state.

Nebraskans voted down two casino plans only two years ago, one touted by Las Vegas casino interests and the other by the Legislature.

Attorney General Jon Bruning argued the the district judge's ruling misinterpreted and misapplied the resubmission clause, looking past the essential substance of the similar measures and focusing on specific clauses.

Although the latest casino measures changed the number and location of casinos, the effect would be the same, to permit casino gambling in Nebraska, Bruning's office argued in court briefs.

Assistant Attorney General Dale Comer argued that the state constitution does not require the courts to "compare every single detail or every single piece" of two initiatives to see whether they are similar in nature. Or, as his boss said Friday, "casino gambling is casino gambling."

That's all voters need to know. We should not be subjected to campaigns, for or against gambling, every two years. One could even argue that the even the three-year limit would be too short.

In any case, petition proponents, for whatever cause, shouldn't have free rein to browbeat the voters into submission by bringing the same issue back too often.