Christie's approach on sports betting is wrong and costing N.J. taxpayer millions | Opinion

Governor Chris Christie holds his 132nd Town Hall Meeting In Whippany

Gov. Chris Christie's legal fight to bring sports betting to New Jersey has cost state taxpayers millions in legal fees with litigation still unresolved.

(Aris Economopoulos/NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

By Gregory R. Bordelon

Earlier this month, it was revealed that a Louisiana law firm will likely receive approximately 20 percent of the $225 million proposed state settlement with Exxon Mobil -- $45 million. In terms of percentages, that's a lower contingency than the standard 33 percent to 40 percent in most civil litigation cases, but it is a sizable sum and one more example where state taxpayers are on the hook for the state's legal woes. This is in addition to another out of state law firm, this time in New York, getting $7.4 million to investigate the "Bridgegate" scandal.

These two sums may be fixed amounts, but the one matter that has the propensity to be dangerously open-ended is the state's seemingly never-ending judicial attempt to bring sports wagering to New Jersey. The matter has been through the federal district court twice and could be struck down a second time by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That appellate court heard oral arguments in mid-March and could render a decision soon. The first round saw the Christie administration try, in vain, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state then paid approximately $3 million to the D. C. law firm of Gibson, Dunn. While the possibility of presenting the fascinating constitutional argument lurking beneath the surface of the sports wagering case (on the division of power between the federal government and the states) to the Supreme Court is exciting, it is academic at this point. That argument has been placed so far on the back burner, legally speaking, that it would not come up again unless Gov. Chris Christie tries to pursue legalization in a third round. This seems inevitable, given that the district court ruled against the state twice and the Third Circuit seems poised to do the same, again. After a lengthy application for a rehearing before the Third Circuit, a likely request for the Supreme Court to hear Christie's second round of litigation and the eventual next round through the courts, the third chapter in the Christie sports wagering saga will be coming soon to a judicial forum near you.

Now, I have a professional confession to make. As an academic, I actually would like to see this case continue. As a researcher of constitutional law and federal-state relations, a decision by the Supreme Court on whether the federal law (the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 or "PASPA") violates the 10th Amendment prohibition on state commandeering would be nothing short of the shining city on the hill for me. However, I believe that college educators also have a duty to teach the next generation how the political process can solve problems and how the courts are not always the best forum. I'd sacrifice the teaching moments of modern constitutional doctrine if students interested in state politics and policy can see that stemming the tide of legal fees and bringing a close to this issue is much better practically speaking than letting a potential Christie III happen in the courts. Educators teach what could happen, in theory, but we must teach what should happen, in practice.

This case does not need to be resolved in a judicial forum. It is expensive, confusing and seemingly endless. There is a clear political solution to the sports wagering question, a solution that would stave the growing cost of legal fees in the sports wagering case, one that along with the Exxon Mobil case and the Fort Lee report is already at over $55 million going to lawyers. If Gov. Christie wants to presidentially showcase his talents before Iowa and New Hampshire, he should consider the political capital of going after sports wagering legislatively. On the matter of sports wagering, powerful state senator Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) has agreed with Gov. Christie on the need to pursue this to save Atlantic City. Further, there is bipartisan support from the New Jersey state delegation in Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd) and Frank Pallone (D-6th) in Congress to repeal PASPA.

This sort of political enthusiasm for sports wagering is low hanging fruit for Gov. Christie; it would appeal to his national aspirations and has more of a chance of bringing sports wagering to the state once and for all than what is going on in the federal courts right now. The polls show a majority of voters in the state want sports wagering to be here and stay here. Let the people's representatives be the government mechanism that makes it happen, not a protracted and expensive court battle.

Gregory R. Bordelon lectures in political science and is a pre-law advisor at Monmouth University.

Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @starledger. Find The Star-Ledger on Facebook.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.