Missouri Sports Betting Ballot Initiative Survives Legal Challenge

Missouri residents will be able to decide on the fate of legal sports betting in the state this November. 

A Cole County Circuit Court has ruled against a lawsuit challenging a sports betting ballot initiative. That means voters will get to decide on the future of legal sports betting in the state. A lack of evidence was cited when the Judge ruled against the legal challenge.

“Lawsuits seeking to remove an initiative petition from the ballot after it has been certified as sufficient by the Secretary are highly disfavored,” Judge Daniel Green wrote in his judgment. “The parties have not identified any case in the history of Missouri where a Plaintiff has succeeded in removing an initiative from the ballot through a certification challenge.”

The ruling is a major win for Winning for Missouri Education (WME), which was behind the ballot initiative. The group comprises representatives from the Show-Me State’s pro sports teams, and its funding comes from FanDuel and DraftKings.

“Today’s ruling, while expected, is nevertheless a big victory for Missourians, who overwhelmingly want to join the 38 other states that allow sports betting so that we can provide tens of millions in permanent, dedicated funding each year to our public school,” WME spokesman Jack Cardetti said. “For too many years, Missourians have watched as fans cross state lines to place sport bets, which deprives our Missouri public schools of much-needed funding.”

Lawsuit Challenged Signature Gathering Effort

The legal challenge to the initiative came from a pair of political consultants. They argued that the Missouri Secretary of State’s office erred when they approved the signatures required to get the initiative on the November ballot.

The lawsuit claims that the office used outdated voting maps when confirming the signatures. Any ballot initiative requires a certain number of signatures from different districts, but the state recently redrew its maps. The challenge claimed that the office used the old maps, which should invalidate the signatures.

The court did not agree with this argument, citing a lack of evidence.