Elected officials in Door County have the ability to improve integrity issues
Pete Rose wrote “I mean it when I say I’m sorry” to Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred, https://dam.tmz.com/document/a8/o/2022/11/11/a877b161992341e9b175d58861f8a8b0.pdf, but Manfred’s response was “you belong on the permanently ineligible list”: https://x.com/EvanDrellich/status/1593296989898383360/photo/1. Yet he stated that eligibility for the Hall of Fame was a separate decision, and had to be made by the Hall of Fame board.
Manfred knows that MLB has an integrity problem. His answer showed that he was not indifferent. Or was he not strict enough? Gambling continues to be an issue: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10127897-rob-manfred-says-integrity-of-the-game-is-mlbs-no-1-issue-amid-betting-scandals
According to https://www.newsweek.com/2024-election-betting-markets-warning-manipulation-1954815, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission stated in a court document that election betting has been manipulated in the past, and can still be manipulated. The article describes the CFTC as claiming that such manipulation can “severely damage the integrity of elections”.
This is true in the sense it was intended. But in Wisconsin, there is another manner in which election integrity is damaged by betting. The law about “Disqualification of electors” states the following under 6.03(2):
No person shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.
This is not the only way to be disqualified as an elector. The part directly above this describes the other reasons. People who are incapable of understanding the objective of elections, or are placed under a legal guardian without the judge deciding that voting rights should be retained, or are incarcerated or under probation for treason, felony, or bribery convictions are also disqualified.
Perhaps some readers have already placed a bet on the elections. I’m not sure about other states, but in Wisconsin that means it is time to sit this one out.
Somehow state legislators decided to outlaw it. Why so? Surely they would have known there would be issues with enforcing it. They must have cared about integrity. On October 2, a federal appellate court allowed one corporation to take election related bets through its website. The effects this could have in Wisconsin are described in a subsequent post: https://doorcounty.substack.com/p/october-2-2024-federal-court-appeals-decision-kalshi-election-gambling
In the 2000 election, the electoral college was decided by just one vote. That led to recount efforts in Florida and a Supreme Court case. It was messy, but at least the outcome was decided within the United States.
There are election betting websites in Europe, which in theory do not allow Americans to place wagers. However, I would be surprised if some people do not figure out how to circumvent it. Searching Google gives this as the top result:
Maybe this particular website does not actually follow through on what it promises, but the search result still indicates what is being marketed.
In 2000, Wisconsin went for Gore, with a margin of just 5,708 votes. Were the outcome of a presidential election to someday be decided by Wisconsin’s ten electoral votes, and there was a foreign election betting entity that had records of thousands of Wisconsinites who placed bets through their website, that information could be used to discredit the outcome. It could even fuel a court challenge to try and overturn the election.
I am not predicting this specific adverse outcome for 2024. But it still isn’t good that most people probably don’t even know that betting on a political race in Wisconsin causes you to be disqualified as an elector, just as much as serving a felony conviction.
Maybe there should be public service announcements warning people not to vote if they’ve gambled on the election. If you don’t like these ideas, perhaps you can come up with better ones. (Or ask Bing Copilot, like I did to help out with this list.)
Spotty the ballot circle says
Remember! only you can PREVENT ELECTION FRAUD
Your Vote is Priceless, Don’t Bet It Away!
Placed a wager on the election?
Say
NO!
To Voting!
Stay Legal, Stay Fair
No Election Wagers!
STOP
GAMBLING
YOUR VOTE AWAY
Voting and Election Betting Don’t Mix: Keep Your Vote Clean!
Plan on voting this November?
Don’t bet on it.
What else can be done? Election betting isn’t isolated, because some who gamble on elections probably also gamble illegally in other circumstances.
There has been complacency about illegal gambling. Difficulties in enforcing laws probably contribute to the complacency. Online gambling is illegal in Wisconsin, but some websites try to market to people in Wisconsin anyway. The https://basecampdoorcounty.com domain name is now used to benefit Indonesian gambling interests, leaving the actual Base Camp Door County to rely on its Facebook page instead. Likewise, the Wisconsin Gazette, according to https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2018/09/19/progressive-alternative-newspaper-wisconsin-gazette-ceases-publication/1357052002, once had a print circulation of 32,000, but now it has since folded and the domain name, https://wisconsingazette.com, is now used to promote gambling sites. There might not be anything that can be done about either situation, since whoever owns the domain name gets to decide what goes on it.
But just because some things can’t be helped, doesn’t mean that total capitulation is the answer. Generalized attitude, sometimes described as “culture” could change, with some effort by those holding seats on municipal governing bodies. It could even change despite the bad influences involved with pro sports. The board or council members could take steps to compel the removal of illegal gambling machines, that is, slot machines. Doing so would be a rather public process, which would help reverse the attitude of complacency.
I do not want readers to personally confront owners, or to send threatening communications. This is a problem which can be prevented in the future, or resolved in the present, entirely through legal processes. Business names are intentionally omitted.
This post is incomplete; I expect that there are other possible processes, not criminal vigilantism, that are not mentioned but might also achieve beneficial results.
At first glance, it may appear that Wisconsin’s law is ineffective in resolving issues about illegal gambling machines. The ordinary process is for law enforcement to issue a fine. The maximum fine listed in 945.03(2m) is not terribly high compared to the amount of profit which might be gained from the machines prior to enforcement. Nor are the machines necessarily too expensive to replace after confiscation. If an owner is fined, he might just go buy new ones.
There have been court challenges over certain technicalities, such as https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/06/12/supreme-court-pulls-plug-gas-station-gambling-machines/3176058001/ and https://www.wislawnow.com/2022/01/outcome-preview-doesnt-rescue-slot-like-video-games-from-gambling-ban/. These cases appear to indicate that state courts will not be too willing to side with gambling machine owners. The exception recognized by https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOA/Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx is very limited:
Bars and taverns may offer five or fewer devices for amusement only, meaning they must be free to play or not provide anything of value as a prize. Any other video gaming devices are illegal.
With or without enforcement by police, efforts to adjust municipal ordinances or to pass new ones may have value in imposing a lasting deterrence against illegal gambling machines.
For a situation involving a local establishment within a Door County municipality, it is possible for a municipality to help persuade the owner to remove the machines, or to not replace confiscated ones, by using the license to sell alcohol as leverage. At first glance, municipalities appear to be prohibited from doing so under 945.041(11), which states
No proceeding under this section may be commenced to revoke a Class “B” or “Class B” license or permit issued under ch. 125 to a person solely because the person knowingly permits 5 or fewer video gambling machines to be set up, kept, managed, used or conducted upon the licensed premises.
However, this is weakened by two terms, “revoke”, and “solely”.
Since it uses only the word “revoke” instead of “revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew” it is possible for a municipality to craft wording within an ordinance which is geared towards suspension or refusal to renew rather than revocation.
It is possible to write an ordinance stating that, for purposes of renewing a Class B license, the term “improper” in the sense of 125.12(2)(ag)2, includes the operation of illegal gambling machines. Municipalities have broad authority to define what is improper. Refusal to renew is covered in 125.12(3). Running an improper house is among the grounds for refusing to renew.
The situation with suspensions is similar. Suspensions are limited under 125.12(2)(b)2 to anywhere from 10 days to 90 days. Running an improper house is also grounds for suspension.
The use of the term “solely” means that it is also possible to write a municipal ordinance which defines the sense of “improper” as recognized by the municipality as including a combination of the offense of having the gambling machines along with something else, so that the two complaints could be jointly used as grounds to revoke a Class B license.
For these reasons, 945.041(11) is an obstacle to municipalities using a Class B license as leverage against gambling machines, but it isn’t a complete prohibition against this approach. Municipal governing bodies inclined against illegal gambling machines within establishments could oppose them by ordinance anyway. They are not rendered completely toothless by this subsection.
Another aspect about 945.041(11), is that it only applies to Class B licenses, not Class A licenses. For gas stations, an alternative to enforcement of 945.03(1m)(e) could be to compel the owner to remove the gambling machines by getting the attention of his franchisor. Even big oil companies can be made to listen to local elected officials.
Municipal governing bodies might be able to convince the franchisor that it should instruct the franchisee to remove the gambling machines. Franchisors should in theory be able to compel the removal of illegal gambling machines because they have the ability to suspend the delivery of fuel, and because they have existing business contracts which can be enforced in civil court.
What if a gas station is located south of the county border, yet the business is advertised to Door County tourists? What if the gambling machines are placed on the retail floor along with common convenience store and gift shop goods which are intended for Door County tourists?
In such a situation, whatever money is lost by tourists is money they won’t be spending in Door County. Would such circumstances be sufficient to motivate municipal elected officials within Door County to resolve the problem?
Yet it is a fact that municipal governments lack jurisdiction to govern outside their borders.
Because they cannot employ authority directly against the offending franchisee, Door County municipal governments could opt instead to get the franchisor of the offending franchisee to compel the removal of the franchisee’s gambling machines.
Under 125.12(2)(ag)1, the state grants broad authority to municipalities to revoke alcohol licenses on the basis of their ordinances. 125.10 gives broad authority to municipalities to issue regulations relating to the sale of alcohol. Each municipality can decide on its own additional regulations.
A municipal ordinance could state that if a given business holding a license to sell alcohol is found to have contracted with a franchisor known to the municipality to condone gambling machines, that is deemed to be improper in the sense of 125.12(2)(ag)2. Because it is improper, it is grounds for revocation or non-renewal of the business’s license to sell alcohol.
A procedure for officially recognizing which franchisors condone illegal gambling machines could be described with a second ordinance. The process could require a municipal board member or citizen complainant to submit evidence in the form of photographs of the machines and correspondence with the franchisor. The franchisor could be contacted directly by the municipality as part of the process, to invite a response. If the process is unsuccessful in obtaining the franchisor’s compliance, the municipal governing body could pass a resolution recognizing that the franchisor is known to the municipality to condone illegal gambling machines. It could also include a waiting period for the recognition to take effect, and instructions for how a franchisor, once recognized, can regain good status within the municipality.
The effect of this would be to give any of the franchisor’s franchisees within the municipality an option: either they can’t sell alcoholic beverages anymore, or they have to switch to a new franchisor. This would place economic pressure on the franchisor to require the removal of gambling machines operated one or more of its franchisees, even those located outside the county.
It would also encourage existing franchisees to proactively report illegal gambling machines operated by their gas station owning peers to the franchisor. Since they have existing business relationships, their complaints would presumably hold weight within the corporate bureaucracy and achieve satisfactory results.
In the long run, I expect that such ordinances would prove self-enforcing.
There could be court challenges against municipalities trying to get rid of illegal gambling machines. For owners, the cost of litigation itself may far outstrip the revenue brought in by a relatively small number of machines. For large oil companies, it would be bad publicity.
These factors would help reduce the risk of litigation, but the risk is still there. The question of jurisdiction could be contested in court. Yet if the recognition that a franchisor has a practice of condoning illegal gambling were to be based on its refusal to cooperate with proceedings by answering questions and addressing concerns, that should satisfy jurisdictional questions. In that case the basis relates directly to the municipality itself.
If the integrity of elections, or of government functions overall is unimportant, local officials’ response may be along the lines of “you can’t legislate morality”, “it is a state issue”, or “its unenforceable, and the state legislature should change the law”. It isn’t a secret that tavern and gas station owners have a degree of political influence. Shoring up integrity now could very well cost seats during the 2025 spring election, or whenever. It may be a hard thing for local elected officials to do what is right. Perhaps Pete Rose’s passing will give an opportunity to discuss and consider these things.
Other election or districting-related posts
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/election-or-districting-related
Posts about gambling
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/gambling
Posts about election betting
https://doorcounty.substack.com/t/election-betting