My name is Clay McCall. I’m the attorney for Pope County.

County officials, of no fault of their own, inherited both the Constitutional Amendment 100 and local ordinance 18-0-42.

Amendment 100 is a brand new law, the likes of which the state of Arkansas has not seen before.

Some of the provisions of the law that are pertinent to our County are issues of first impression, if they were to be litigated, meaning that these specific issues have not been interpreted by the courts in the state of Arkansas.

Before we dive into the law, I would like to address some confusion that I think I’ve heard from some of the people here today, specifically with regards to what they voted on…, what they voted on in 2…, in the November 2018 election.

Local Ordinance 18-0-42, known as the local option ordinance, was an attempt to restrict the Pope County Judge and the Pope County Court.., Quorum Court, from issuing a letter of support or a resolution of support without first submitting the issue to a vote to the citizens of Pope County.

The confusion lies that a vote for or against Amendment 100 was not the same vote contemplated under local ordinance 18-0-42. The local ordinance provides for a completely separate election, in which that question, the question of whether the voters want the county judge or quorum court to issue a letter and resolutions of support, would be submitted to the Pope County voters first.

In layman’s terms, if you voted against the casino in November, you did not exercise local option control saying you didn’t want a casino under the local ordinance. You have to have another vote to do that under the ordinance.

I’d like to go into a overview of Amendment 100 and local ordinance 0-42 so everyone understands and is on the same page.

During the Pope County Quorum Court’s last special called meeting on June 11, the possibility of enacting the voting mechanism set out in local ordinance 18-0-42 was discussed. The job tasked to me was to look at Amendment 100 along with any implications that the local ordinance may have and determine this governing body’s available courses of action.

First, I want to briefly go over the relevant provisions of Amendment 100. [continue reading…]

Statements by Pope County Judge Ben Cross at the August 13, 2019 special Pope County Quorum Court meeting.

(transcription by Mike Goad from River Valley Now video recording)

Alright, I’ll take this time to address some things that, by you getting up here and speaking on June 11th and getting up tonight and speaking that I feel are things that need to be addressed as a community.

The divisiveness,… the divisiveness of this is astounding. I don’t think Pope County has ever seen the level of opposite ends of the spectrum this has created.

And, so, I think, things I need to personally address, because I think people have misconstrued some things that have been put the public, and why. And so I’m looking to go through those.

Transparency. In a normal business environment, when a normal business outside of a casino chooses to come to our county and locate, they deal with the Alliance for Economic Development, the Chamber of Commerce, the first thing they do when they walk in is they slide confidentiality agreements across the desk to everybody involved in recruiting new industry for this County.

This has been just the opposite. I came in in January. I got sued on day one. Now I’ve gotten sued again today. And, so, this has been just the opposite. And so, from a transparency standpoint, I would have to disagree to the extent that I have met with every civic group in town. I’ve met with every news media outlet in town. I penned a nine page editorial in March where I outlined every step of every person that has contacted me and what their content is.

Again, if a… if an Amazon distribution center wanted to come to Russellville, you would find out about it when they cut the ribbon and start digging dirt. That’s the way normal business recruitment happens, that those confidentiality agreements. So, I haven’t signed any confidentiality agreements. I’ve told everybody, dating back to day one, everything I’m doing in every capacity I’m doing it.  There’s no more transparency I can (be) involved in that.

Are there proprietary information unique to each vendor out there? Absolutely, absolutely.

At a combined City Council and Quorum Court meeting, a first historical event that ever occurred, April 11, sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, the entire Russellville City Council and the entire Quorum Court that could attend, both sides, attended. The media was there. Casino vendors were there. In that, I provided a PowerPoint where I laid out all of Pope County’s infrastructure needs. I laid out who does what, what county services provide to the city, what the city does the county, how we are so intertwined upon one another, as Russellville being the largest entity in this county.

I have the mayors of every other city surrounding me. So, I have, in April 11th, everybody was there, saw the PowerPoint that dictated out every infrastructure need Pope County has, what services Pope County provides to every citizen of this county, whether you’re in the city limit or not. That was all, that was all put out there.

The casino vendors that were present? They came to me and said, “I hear you.”

And so, it’s not my job to go out and recruit casinos. I’m not for casinos. I made that abundantly clear. I am not for casinos. [continue reading…]

Statement by Pope County Justice of the Peace Caleb Moore at the August 13, 2019 special Pope County Quorum Court meeting.

(transcription by Mike Goad from this video recording )

For over a year now, this casino issue has been front and center in Pope County.

To say that it has been divisive and controversial is an understatement.

But how did we get to this point today and how did the court come to the conclusion that we could not have a vote.

I would briefly like to walk you through the timeline and through the process over the last several months to explain how we ended up here today.

At the end of January, I walked into Judge Cross’s office and expressed my desire to start exploring a way Pope County could have a local vote on this casino issue.

He agreed that, since a majority of the voters wanted a local vote, that we should strive to do just that.

His office then calls the Secretary of State’s office to inquire how we could proceed. The reply that that we could not…The reply was that we could not hold a vote on this issue since it was already in the state constitution.

Not satisfied with that answer, a call was made to the State Election Commission. The same answer was given, that we could not hold a vote on this issue. Baffled by the response, but not ready to give up, we continued to search for a way to get this issue back out to the voters.

Sometime in March, we came up with the idea that we might be able to do an economic development plan by using upfront money from an operator. This money would be earmarked for certain county projects and a percentage would go to each municipality. As we started working on the details, we realized that, if this showed up on the ballot, that it could be very confusing. The length of this ordinance would be close to a page long.

One of the phrases that we have repeatedly heard is that people were confused during last November’s vote on both Amendment 100 and Local Ordinance 2018-0-42.

Since this could be confusing on a ballot as well as questions if there were legal or not, we decided that the economic development plan would not be suitable solution for a local vote.

We then realized that maybe the answer had been in front of us the entire time. We could retitle Local Ordinance 2018-0-42 and put it back out for a vote.

[continue reading…]

Several new articles related to Pope County and its casino process were published in the media in the last couple of days. Links, with excerpts for each article are provided below.

While the initial casino application period was one month, the new application period, which started after a new Pope County application was prepared, is for ninety days.  Hopefully, this period will be sufficient for opposition legal hurdles to be cleared, though, given the sometimes glacial pace of legal proceedings, that may be unlikely.

• August 20, 2019. AR Sports Betting May Expand With Casino Backed By Jerry Jones. LegalSportsBetting.com. (Added August 21, 2019)
  • Jerry Jones, the outspoken owner of the Dallas Cowboys, is one step closer to having his hospitality company build a casino in Pope County, Arkansas. It will be the first full-service casino in the state (not true) and would be able to host another Arkansas sportsbook.
  • The project would take within 18 months to complete but a timeline for when it will begin construction has not been announced. With residents and competing businesses potentially opposing the project, it may be some time before legal sports betting makes its way to Pope County residents.
• August 20, 2019. Arkansas Gambling: Fresh Applications Will Be Accepted For Pope County Casino License. Casino Buzz. (Added August 21, 2019)
  • The Arkansas Racing Commission has opened a new window for accepting fresh applications for awarding a casino license in Pope County.
  • The new application window will be open for 90 days. The announcement has been made after a Mississippi-based company filed a lawsuit against the commission for denying its request to reconsider its application which was earlier denied by the gambling authority.
• August 20, 2019. Arkansas Casino Race Favors Cherokee Proposal Amid Rancor. Latest US Casino News & Legislation Updates. (Added August 21, 2019)
  • On Tuesday night, the quorum court in Pope County, Arkansas passed a resolution and endorsed the Cherokee Nation Businesses’ proposed casino, Legends Resort and Casino, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock reported.
  • The quorum court – which functions basically like a county commission in Arkansas – had a vote of 13 justices of the peace (the state’s equivalent of county commissioners) on the matter. Eight voted in support of the casino, four voted against it, and one abstained.
  • Though the other four casinos were also hoping for an endorsement, as Little Rock ABC television affiliate KATV documented, Pope County Judge Ben Cross stated that Cherokee Nation Businesses were the most cooperative and willing to increase the infrastructure in the county.
• August 20, 2019. Arkansas Reopens Pope County Casino Bids on Heels of Lawsuit. Latest US Casino News & Legislation Updates. (Added August 21, 2019)
  • The ongoing saga over the casino situation in Pope County, Arkansas, entered a new chapter on Monday after one of the rejected applicants mounted a legal challenge against the Arkansas Racing Commission.
  • The Democrat-Gazette reported last week that Gulfside Casino Partnership filed a lawsuit on Aug. 15 in Pulaski County Circuit Court, following the Pope County Quorum Court’s decision to reject its application to open a casino. Pope County instead favored a proposal by Cherokee Nation Businesses.
  • According to documents obtained by Little Rock ABC affiliate KATV, the Mississippi-based Gulfside Casino Partnership has also asked the court to grant an injunction to bar the commission from granting a license until the case has been resolved.
• August 20, 2019. Arkansas Racing Commission Opens New Window for Casino Applicants. Arkansas Online. (Added August 20, 2019)
  • The Arkansas Racing Commission on Monday opened a 90-day window for accepting fresh applications for a casino license in Pope County.
  • Meanwhile, a circuit judge approved the Pope County prosecutor’s request to have a special prosecutor handle a complaint filed against county officials alleging they violated the state Freedom of Information Act in the Quorum Court’s surprise endorsement last week of Cherokee Nation Businesses for the casino license.
  • Pope County prosecutor Jeff Phillips said Monday that he has requested that a special prosecutor be assigned to review the case because it would be a conflict of interest for him to do so. Phillips was previously Pope County’s civil attorney before being elected to his current office. “I think on its face, there’s an appearance of impropriety for me to be sitting in judgment of a group that signed my paycheck,” Phillips said. “I can be fair and impartial, but it has the appearance of impropriety.” Fifth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Bill Pearson approved the request and sent it to the Office of the Prosecutor Coordinator in Little Rock to assign a new prosecutor.
• August 19, 2019. For Quapaws, Arkansas Casino Bid Goes Smoothly. Arkansas Online. (Added August 20, 2019)
  • Unlike in Pope County, the road to a new casino in Pine Bluff has been a relatively smooth journey, with only one gaming entity vying for Jefferson County’s attention.
  • In Pope County, five gaming entities — at least two of which have offered multimillion-dollar enticements — have competed for the coveted license, which still has yet to be awarded. Lawsuits have been filed over the endorsement issue.
• August 19, 2019. Racing Commission Reopens Applications for Pope County Casino.” Arkansas Times. (Added August 19, 2019)
  • In keeping with its decision last week, the Arkansas Racing Commission today officially reopened applications to operate a casino in Pope County.
  • At least two lawsuits complicate the issue. One is by a Mississippi casino operator contending its letters of approval in 2018 by the then-Pope County judge and Russellville mayor make it a legitimate applicant. Another is a lawsuit seeking to force a local referendum required by a 2018 county ordinance before the Quorum Court may adopt a resolution in support of a casino. The Mississippi operators have a request for an injunction to stop the Racing Commission from moving forward. The lawsuit is before Circuit Judge Tim Fox.
  • The suit seeking to enforce the county ordinance is before Pulaski Circuit Judge Mary McGowan. It’s a refiled version of a suit originally filed in Pope County before the Quorum Court actually approved a resolution in support of the Cherokees without mentioning the voter ordinance. The new suit was filed Friday. It names the Racing Commission as defendant and seeks a declaratory judgment that Quorum Court approval of a pro-Cherokee resolution is void because of failure to follow required local ordinance.

Statement by Pope County Justice of the Peace Caleb Moore at the August 13, 2019 special Pope County Quorum Court meeting.

(transcription by Mike Goad from this video recording )

For over a year now, this casino issue has been front and center in Pope County.

To say that it has been divisive and controversial is an understatement.

But how did we get to this point today and how did the court come to the conclusion that we could not have a vote.

I would briefly like to walk you through the timeline and through the process over the last several months to explain how we ended up here today.

At the end of January, I walked into Judge Cross’s office and expressed my desire to start exploring a way Pope County could have a local vote on this casino issue.

He agreed that, since a majority of the voters wanted a local vote, that we should strive to do just that.

His office then calls the Secretary of State’s office to inquire how we could proceed. The reply that that we could not…The reply was that we could not hold a vote on this issue since it was already in the state constitution.

Not satisfied with that answer, a call was made to the State Election Commission. The same answer was given, that we could not hold a vote on this issue. Baffled by the response, but not ready to give up, we continued to search for a way to get this issue back out to the voters.

Sometime in March, we came up with the idea that we might be able to do an economic development plan by using upfront money from an operator. This money would be earmarked for certain county projects and a percentage would go to each municipality. As we started working on the details, we realized that, if this showed up on the ballot, that it could be very confusing. The length of this ordinance would be close to a page long.

One of the phrases that we have repeatedly heard is that people were confused during last November’s vote on both Amendment 100 and Local Ordinance 2018-0-42.

Since this could be confusing on a ballot as well as questions if there were legal or not, we decided that the economic development plan would not be suitable solution for a local vote.

We then realized that maybe the answer had been in front of us the entire time. We could retitle Local Ordinance 2018-0-42 and put it back out for a vote.

We already believed that this ordinance was unconstitutional, but we thought we could still use it, if only as a poll, for the court and the county judge to see where the people were on this issue.

So we called for a special meeting on June 11th to discuss… to discuss this with the public and get their thoughts on it. There were two things that the court took away from this… that meeting.

One, no one on either side of this issue championed a vote. Most people said that it was a waste of county money and didn’t see a point.

The second take away was when Mr. Story, the author of the local ordinance, told us what the intent of the local ordinance was. It was for the Quorum Court to vet and choose an operator and then put that operator up for a vote. No one on the Court or the County Judge had ever heard that explanation. If that truly was the intent of the ordinance then we knew that was impossible for us to comply with. In no way is that option legal or even remotely a good answer to how to conduct this issue.

After the meeting, the court was more confused on the intent of the local ordinance and came to the conclusion that we could not use this as an option.

The historic flooding took place and for a while we could not direct our attention on this problem.

When we picked it back up in late June and July, we decided to hire outside counsel, with guidance from Clay McCall, to help draft an ordinance that would be both legal and simple.

We quickly found out that most law firms were either conflicted or would not touch this problem. Most said that it was legally not possible.

After months of tirelessly trying to find a solution to this problem, we came to the conclusion that there is no legal way to have a vote on this issue.

So the responsibility fell back on the Court and County Judge to make a decision.

I ask the citizens of the county to understand and take under consideration two things when judging our actions today.

One, this court has worked on this complicated issue for countless hours, brainstorming and searching for answers. This has been our second full time job. We have not taken this responsibility lightly and without doing our due diligence. We have met with every operator multiple times and researched in detail what each of them could offer this community.

Secondly, we did not ask for this responsibility. We were not given a playbook on how to maneuver this complicated issue. No one from the State Government has reached out to us asking if they could help give us counsel.

We have been on an island for over a year, simply working hard to find us a good solution for everyone, of which there is not one.

We are only doing what we feel is best for this county right now, considering how this could play out in courts, and the racing commission in the near future.

Gentlemen, I want to commend all of us and the County Judge for the way we have conducted ourselves through this convoluted and complicated process.

There were times we wanted to lash out at people in their comments and there were times that we wanted to throw in the towel. But I believe that we have handled ourselves in a very professional manner and have done our jobs as well as we could have.

I want to ask you now to think of this vote in a different way. A vote for this resolution is not a pro-casino stance, but a pro-choice stance.

Since the beginning of this casino issue, this Court has been told what to do.

Last summer, we were told that Pope County would be on a statewide ballot to have a casino and we would be one of the governmental bodies to decide this issue.

We were then told by a local ordinance, which we did not create, that we couldn’t do anything unless we had a vote of the people.

Then we were told who the operator was going to be last December by a County Judge who didn’t ask for our advice and didn’t allow us to help negotiate the deal.

For months after that, we have been told by special interest groups on both sides what we should and shouldn’t do and, now, we could be told again by the Racing Commission and the courts in Pulaski County who our operator is going to be.

Quite frankly, I am tired of people telling this Court what to do.

By voting in favor of this resolution, we can send a loud message to the Racing Commission, the powers that be in Little Rock, and the Courts, that, if Pope County is to have a casino, then we will choose who it will be and we will negotiate the terms of that agreement.

If Terry Green and Gulfside are granted their appeal by the Racing Commission, or they win their lawsuit, then they will have the right to build whatever they want, with as little money as they want, without any negotiating or contract signed by this Quorum Court or County Judge.

Terry, himself, has already stated that, if he has to fight this in court, that he will not build what his proposal is today.

My actions are motivated to help ensure that Gulfside does not have a foothold in Pope County.

The conclusion that I’ve come to today has come with great difficulty and adversity.

At times, the stress and the weight of this decision has been overwhelming. I have had nights that sleep has escaped me, precious time taken away from my family, and, yes, I have shed a tear or two.

But, if we are to have a casino in this county, it makes my decision easier knowing that we have found the right partner both short term and long term.

Cherokee Nation Business has impressed all of us with their conduct through this process and also their willingness to put community first.

They have met the requirements of having the very best products and, most importantly, being great community partners.

Between Judge Cross and the Court, we have negotiated a great deal for this county that will benefit us for years to come.

Regardless of the way you vote tonight, know that I hold each of you in the highest regards and have nothing but admiration and respect for this governmental body.

I pray and hope that, together, we may move on from this issue tonight and finally allow this county to heal from this divisive issue.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your diligent work and, more importantly, your friendship.

Racing Commission reopens applications for Pope County casino

Arkansas Times, August 19, 2019 by Max Brantley

Announcement by the Racing Commission:

The Arkansas Racing Commission shall resume accepting applications for casino gaming licenses in Pope County on Monday, August 19, 2019, pursuant to the terms of Amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution and the Casino Gaming Rules adopted by the Commission.

All applications for casino gaming licenses must be submitted… by 5:00 PM CST on Monday, November 18, 2019….

From the article:

At least two lawsuits complicate the issue. One is by a Mississippi casino operator contending its letters of approval in 2018 by the then-Pope County judge and Russellville mayor make it a legitimate applicant. Another is a lawsuit seeking to force a local referendum required by a 2018 county ordinance before the Quorum Court may adopt a resolution in support of a casino.

The suit seeking to enforce the county ordinance is before Pulaski Circuit Judge Mary McGowan. It’s a refiled version of a suit originally filed in Pope County before the Quorum Court actually approved a resolution in support of the Cherokees without mentioning the voter ordinance. The new suit was filed Friday. It names the Racing Commission as defendant and seeks a declaratory judgment that Quorum Court approval of a pro-Cherokee resolution is void because of failure to follow required local ordinance.

Arkansas Racing Commission opens new window for casino applicants

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, August 20, 2019, by Jeannie Roberts

• 90-day window
• four days after Gulfside filed a lawsuit against the commission for refusing to reconsider its denial of their application for the operating license.
• a circuit judge approved the Pope County prosecutor’s request to have a special prosecutor handle a complaint filed against county officials alleging they violated the state Freedom of Information Act in the Quorum Court’s surprise endorsement last week of Cherokee Nation Businesses for the casino license.

Sand has started flowing through the 90-day hourglass…

Material is from Facebook posts published in August 2019

It’s not a letter, it’s a resolution.

(Not that it matters, but I don’t think a lot of people understood that, on August 13, 2019, the quorum court passed a resolution of support for CNB.  It wasn’t until 3 months later that letters of support were provided by Judge Cross. This post was written in August 2019. [MpG 3-8-20])

Amendment 100 requires casino applicants to provide a letter of support from the County Judge or a resolution of support from the County Quorum Court.  If the casino will be inside the city limits, then a letter of support is also required from the Mayor.

Ben Cross did not provide a letter of support for the casino. As the presiding but non-voting county official, he signed a resolution on August 13, 2019 that a majority of the Pope County Quorum Court passed supporting Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC.

Now Therefore Be it Resolved that the Pope County Quorum Court grants and expresses its support for a casino application to be submitted by the Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC/Legends Resort and Casino, LLC to build and operate the Legends Resort and Casino in Pope County, Arkansas.

The Pope County Majority (PCM Facebook group is rather large.  There are some of us who are on it quite a lot. Others, though, only see posts in their Facebook  feed.  Some don’t look at Facebook very often.  We also have had a lot of new people join us.  Heck, we’re all new here – this group has only been going since the middle of June.

We see some of the same questions asked again and again.  They may be new to the person asking, but, well, often we’ve seen them before and tried to answer them before.

This site and page isn’t part of Pope County Majority.  My intent is that it complement what has been going on with the group.  I hope that group members will use it and that they will provide feedback if I get something wrong.

Comments: I have comment turned off intentionally.  All of my online dialog about the casino is on PCM.  I don’t want the added distraction of moderating comments here.

Work in progress:  I hope to be adding and editing this as I can, when I see new material and when I get PCM feedback on needed editing.

Questions and Answers

Why don’t the letters supporting Gulfside count?

Amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution stipulates:

The Arkansas Racing Commission shall require all casino applicants for a casino license in Pope County and Jefferson County to submit either a letter of support from the county judge or a resolution from the quorum court in the county where the proposed casino is to be located and, if the proposed casino is to be located within a city or town, shall also require all casino applicants to include a letter of support from the mayor in the city or town where the applicant is proposing the casino to be located.

Amendment 100 also required:

Not later than June 1, 2019, the Arkansas Racing Commission shall begin accepting applications for casino licenses

The application period was from May 1 through May 31.

Applicants are required a supporting document with their application.  Gulfside submitted their application on May 20, 2019.  At that time, Judge Gibson and Mayor Horton had been out of office well over four months.  They were not the county judge nor the city mayor at the time of application.

Though it implicit in Amendment 100, in my view, the state clarified that in the Racing Commission’s Casino Rules and legislative action.

All letters of support or resolutions by the Quorum Court, required by these Rules and the Amendment, shall be dated and signed by the County Judge, Quorum Court members, or Mayor holding office at the time of the submission of an application for a casino gaming license. (page 11 of Casino Rules, AR Racing Commission)

A letter of support from the county judge or a resolution of support from the quorum court, and from the mayor, if appropriate, required under subsection (a) of this section shall be dated and signed by the county judge, quorum court, or mayor holding office at the time of the submission of an application for a casino license. (Casino Implementing Legislation, Act 371 of 2019)

When were the Racing Commission Casino Gaming Rules approved?

It’s not a letter, it’s a resolution.

Amendment 100 requires casino applicants to provide a letter of support from the County Judge or a resolution of support from the County Quorum Court.  If the casino will be inside the city limits, then a letter of support is also required from the Mayor.

Ben Cross did not provide a letter of support for the casino. As the presiding but non-voting county official, he signed a resolution on August 13, 2019 that a majority of the Pope County Quorum Court passed supporting Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC.

Now Therefore Be it Resolved that the Pope County Quorum Court grants and expresses its support for a casino application to be submitted by the Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC/Legends Resort and Casino, LLC to build and operate the Legends Resort and Casino in Pope County, Arkansas.

Why is the Arkansas Racing Commission casino application period open for 90 days?

At the August 15th, Racing Commission meeting, the racing commission attorney, Byron Freeland said. “The purpose for the 90 days was to give everyone a chance to get in front of the quorum court, the county judge, the mayor so we wouldn’t hear that we were shut out.” Freeland also said, “This would give everybody time to get in front of those bodies and determine if they can get a recommendation and submit an application.”

Can “the letter” be changed to someone else?

A new support document could be written, but it is highly unlikely.

Can Russellville endorse a different casino?

The County Judge or Quorum Court must supply a support document for any casino that wants to come into the county, even if it’s inside the city limits. If the applicant wants it to be inside city limits, then and only then is a letter from the mayor required. None of the applicants were interested in being inside the city limits.

What about the $50 million upfront money in the proposal?

The rumor reported in the media prior to the August 13th Quorum Court meeting was up to $50 million. The actual Economic Development Agreement has one-time fees totaling $38.8 million plus $2 million annually to a charitable foundation, $25,000 every two years to ATU Foundation for research, and an annual $100,000 to the Russellville Economic Alliance.

Can the Cherokees claim the Casino Land as a reservation?

While federal law has mechanisms for land outside of a reservation to be established as tribal land, this is prohibited for Legends Resort and Casino Arkansas.  Under the Economic Development agreement, Cherokee Nations Businesses, LLC, cannot make changes to the casino organization’s legal form,

(including changing the legal status of its wholly owned subsidiary as an Arkansas LLC), or any changes in the status of the Project site that would have the effect of eliminating or changing any of its responsibilities regarding the payment of taxes, assessments, levies, permit fees, or the like, to the State of Arkansas or any subdivision or agency thereof, or to Pope County or any of its subdivisions, municipalities or agencies thereof

What about dry county liquor restrictions?

Dry county regulations do not apply to Arkansas casinos for consumption at the casinos.

Casino licensees shall be permitted to sell intoxicating liquor or provide complimentary servings of intoxicating liquor, only for on-premises consumption at the casinos, during all hours in which the casino licensees conduct casino gaming. To that extent, casino licensees shall not be subject to Ark. Code Ann. § 3-3-211, which prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquor on Christmas Day, and Ark. Code Ann. § 3-9-201, et seq. and other applicable Arkansas law requiring the residents of a dry county or city to vote to approve the sale of intoxicating liquor. Casino licensees shall purchase all intoxicating liquor from a Wholesaler. Casino licensees shall be subject to all other applicable Arkansas laws involving the distribution and sale of intoxicating liquor that do not conflict with any provision of this Amendment

Racing Commission rules must be approved by the Legislative Review Committee. Any rules promulgated before that time are preliminary and NOT in effect until after approved and properly filed.

Arkansas Casino Gaming rules were approved by the Racing Commission on February 21, 2019.

The Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee’s Administrative Rule & Regulation Review Subcommittee approved the rules on February 25. The document then was required to be filed with the secretary of state’s office.

Racing Commission Casino Rules became effective 10 days after the date on which they were filed with the Secretary of State. Amendment 100 required that the rules be effective no later than March 12.