National Racing Compact
Model Legislation

Interstate Compact on Licensure of Participants in Live Racing
With Pari-Mutuel Wagering

Introduction

This interstate compact is proposed to simplify the licensing process for participants in live racing with pari-mutuel wagering in the participating states (the "compacting states" or "party states") and to establish uniform requirements among the party states for the licensing of participants in those states. It is not intended to govern the licensure requirements for non-racing employees at racetracks or employees at separate satellite wagering facilities in the party states.

Federal Constitutional Authority for Interstate Compacts

A state’s authority to enter into a compact with another state is contained in the "Compact Clause" of the United States Constitution, which provides that “[n]o state Shall without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a Foreign Power.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3; see 3 Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 64.04 (Singer 5th ed. 1992 Rev.) (“Sutherland)”). Although the Compact Clause specifically refers to the need for congressional consent for states to enter into a compact or other multistate agreement, the United States Supreme Court has held that this consent is necessary only in situations where the compact or interstate agreement may affect the political balance of the states within the federal system. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 518 (1893). See also, Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 472 U.S. 159, 175-76 (1985); New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363, 369-70 (1976); United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 459-71 (1978). Thus, compacts that increase the political power of states and that may encroach upon the supremacy of the United States require congressional consent, see Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. at 518, but compacts among states that do not implicate these principles fall outside the scope of the Compact Clause and do not require congressional consent. See Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981). An agreement between states to change boundaries that would result in an increase of political power to a state, for example, would require congressional consent, whereas a compact regarding the use of another state’s waterways for the transportation of goods would not. See Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. at 518.

Because it will not affect the balance of power among states or encroach upon the powers of the federal government, this proposed compact will not require congressional consent.

State Constitutional and Legislative Authority for Interstate Compacts

Interstate compacts are enacted into state law pursuant to a state’s general law-making power and according to its normal legislative procedures. See 1A Sutherland §§ 32.03, 32.05 (Singer 5th ed. 1993). Specific procedures to adopt compacts are not typically found in state constitutions. As a result, states forming a compact simply adopt interstate compacts in the same manner by which ordinary legislation is adopted, or, again by ordinary legislation, state legislatures authorize the adoption of a compact by delegating that authority to an executive branch official, generally the governor. See id. at § 32.03. Accordingly, state constitutional limitations on legislative power that restrict a legislature’s actions when adopting ordinary legislation also apply to the adoption of interstate compacts. Id. at § 32.05.

Legislative Precedence of Interstate Compacts Over Ordinary State and Local Legislation

Both compacts that require congressional consent and those that do not are considered superior to ordinary state statutes. See 2 Sutherland § 36.07 (Singer 5th ed. 1993). The granting of congressional consent for an interstate compact transforms that compact into a law of the United States. New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767, 811 (1998); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981). Accordingly, such compacts take precedence over state and local laws, and state statutes that conflict with an interstate compact approved by Congress are therefore inoperative. 2 Sutherland § 36.07 (Singer 5th ed. 1993). As a practical matter, compacts that do not require congressional consent also take precedence over ordinary state statutes because of the limits that are placed on the power of a compacting state to repeal or amend a compact without the consent of the other compacting states. See 1A id. at § 32.08 (Singer 5th ed. 1993), and 2 id. at § 36.07 (Singer 5th ed. 1993). Whereas ordinary state statutes may, of course, be repealed or amended through a state’s normal legislative process, a compact may not be unilaterally repealed or amended by a compacting state unless the compact provides otherwise. See id.

ARTICLE I

PURPOSES

SECTION 1. Purposes.

The purposes of this compact are to:
  • 1. Establish uniform requirements among the party states for the licensing of participants in live racing with pari-mutuel wagering, and ensure that all such participants who are licensed pursuant to this compact meet a uniform minimum standard of honesty and integrity.
  • 2. Facilitate the growth of the pari-mutuel racing industry in each party state and nationwide by simplifying the process for licensing participants in live racing, and reduce the duplicative and costly process of separate licensing by the regulatory agency in each state that conducts live racing with pari-mutuel wagering.
  • 3. Authorize the [agency of this state that has regulatory authority over the conduct of live racing with pari-mutuel wagering] to participate in this compact.
  • 4. Provide for participation in this compact by officials of the party states, and permit those officials, through the compact committee established by this compact, to enter into contracts with governmental agencies and non-governmental persons to carry out the purposes of this compact.
  • 5. Establish the compact committee created by this compact as an interstate governmental entity duly authorized to request and receive criminal history record information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other state and local law enforcement agencies.
Comment

The purposes of this compact are self-explanatory. As noted in the Introduction, this compact applies only to the licensing of participants in live racing with pari-mutuel wagering. It is not intended to govern the licensing of non-racing employees at a pari-mutuel racetrack, or of employees at separate satellite wagering facilities in a party state.

The 1999 version of the compact was limited to the licensing of participants in live horse racing. The 2000 version has been amended to include the licensing of participants in other forms of live racing with pari-mutuel wagering, such as dog racing. The compact does not authorize any particular state to conduct dog racing or any other form of racing with pari-mutuel wagering. It merely permits the compact committee to develop licensing standards for a multi-state license for dog racing and other forms of live racing with pari-mutuel wagering that could be used in those states that otherwise permit such racing. Thus, the compact does not conflict with any state law that prohibits dog racing or other forms of live racing with pari-mutuel wagering.

Uniformity in and greater simplicity in the licensing process for participants in live racing will help facilitate pari-mutuel racing in the party states and nationwide, and will reduce the costly nature of the current separate, duplicative licensing processes in the party states.

A key to simplifying the process will be for the compact committee created by this compact to be recognized as an interstate governmental entity duly authorized to request and receive criminal history record information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state and local law enforcement agencies.

ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS

SECTION 2. Definitions.

“Compact committee” means the organization of officials from the party states that is authorized and empowered by this compact to carry out the purposes of this compact.

“Official” means the appointed, elected, designated or otherwise duly selected representative of a racing commission or the equivalent thereof in a party state who represents that party state as a member of the compact committee.

“Participants in live racing” means participants in live racing with pari-mutuel wagering in the party states.

“Party state” means each state that has enacted this compact.

“State” means each of the several states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and each territory or possession of the United States.

Comment

The definitions are self-explanatory.

ARTICLE III

ENTRY INTO FORCE, ELIGIBLE PARTIES AND WITHDRAWAL

SECTION 3. Entry into force.

This compact shall come into force when enacted by any four (4) states. Thereafter, this compact shall become effective as to any other state upon both (i) that state’s enactment of this compact and (ii) the affirmative vote of a majority of the officials on the compact committee as provided in Section 8.

Comment

This compact shall become effective upon enactment by any four states and thereafter, as to any additional state, by both (i) enactment of the compact by that state and (ii) the affirmative vote of a majority of the officials on the compact committee as provided in Section 8. This latter requirement is included because of paragraph 1 of Section 7, which provides that the licensing criteria adopted by the compact committee with regard to requests for criminal history record information and the effect of a criminal record on the issuance of a license shall be comparable to the most restrictive licensing requirements in any party state. The requirement for an affirmative vote of a majority of the officials on the compact committee, as provided in Section 8, will ensure that the then-existing party states have an opportunity to vote on whether to accept a new party state that has more restrictive criminal record licensure requirements than the compact committee’s criteria since that fact will require the compact committee to revise its criteria to be comparable to the requirements of that new party state.

SECTION 4. States eligible to join compact.

Any state that has adopted or authorized live racing with pari-mutuel wagering shall be eligible to become party to this compact.

Comment

This section limits eligibility to become a member of the compact to states that have adopted or authorized live racing with pari-mutuel wagering.

SECTION 5. Withdrawal from compact and impact thereof on force and effect of compact.

Any party state may withdraw from this compact by enacting a statute repealing this compact, but no such withdrawal shall become effective until the head of the executive branch of the withdrawing state has given notice in writing of such withdrawal to the head of the executive branch of all other party states. If as a result of withdrawals participation in this compact decreases to less than three (3) party states, this compact no longer shall be in force and effect unless and until there are at least three (3) or more party states again participating in this compact.

Comment

As noted in the Introduction, a compacting state normally may not unilaterally repeal a compact. This compact, however, permits party states to withdraw from the compact by enacting a statute repealing the compact in that state and by giving notice of the withdrawal to the head of the executive branch of the other party states (which in the case of the 50 states will be the governor). If at any point fewer than three states remain, the compact no longer will be in force and effect unless and until at least three states once again enact the compact.

ARTICLE IV

COMPACT COMMITTEE

SECTION 6. Compact committee established.

There is hereby created an interstate governmental entity to be known as the “compact committee,” which shall be comprised of one (1) official from the racing commission or its equivalent in each party state who shall be appointed, serve and be subject to removal in accordance with the laws of the party state he represents. Pursuant to the laws of his party state, each official shall have the assistance of his state’s racing commission or the equivalent thereof in considering issues related to licensing of participants in live racing and in fulfilling his responsibilities as the representative from his state to the compact committee. If an official is unable to perform any duty in connection with the powers and duties of the compact committee, the racing commission or equivalent thereof from his state shall designate an alternate who shall serve in his place and represent the party state as its official on the compact committee until that racing commission or equivalent thereof determines that the original representative official is able once again to perform his duties as that party state’s representative official on the compact committee. The designation of an alternate shall be communicated by the affected state’s racing commission or equivalent thereof to the compact committee as the committee’s bylaws may provide.

Comment

Section 6 creates the "compact committee," the interstate governmental entity that implements the compact. The compact committee is comprised of one representative from, and selected by, the racing commission or equivalent entity of each party state, according to the laws of that state if any such laws govern that selection. Provision also is made for the selection of an alternate representative if the original representative is unable to perform his duties as a member of the committee.

SECTION 7. Powers and duties of compact committee.

In order to carry out the purposes of this compact, the compact committee is hereby granted the power and duty to:
  • 1. Determine which categories of participants in live horse racing, including but not limited to owners, trainers, jockeys, grooms, mutuel clerks, racing officials, veterinarians, and farriers, and which categories of equivalent participants in dog racing and other forms of live racing with pari-mutuel wagering authorized in two or more of the party states, should be licensed by the committee, and establish the requirements for the initial licensure of applicants in each such category, the term of the license for each category, and the requirements for renewal of licenses in each category. Provided, however, that with regard to requests for criminal history record information on each applicant for a license, and with regard to the effect of a criminal record on the issuance or renewal of a license, the compact committee shall determine for each category of participants in live racing which licensure requirements for that category are, in its judgment, the most restrictive licensure requirements of any party state for that category and shall adopt licensure requirements for that category that are, in its judgment, comparable to those most restrictive requirements.
  • 2. Investigate applicants for a license from the compact committee and, as permitted by federal and state law, gather information on such applicants, including criminal history record information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and relevant state and local law enforcement agencies, and, where appropriate, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and law enforcement agencies of other countries, necessary to determine whether a license should be issued under the licensure requirements established by the committee as provided in paragraph 1 above. Only officials on, and employees of, the compact committee may receive and review such criminal history record information, and those officials and employees may use that information only for the purposes of this compact. No such official or employee may disclose or disseminate such information to any person or entity other than another official on or employee of the compact committee. The fingerprints of each applicant for a license from the compact committee shall be taken by the compact committee, its employees, or its designee and, pursuant to Public Law 92-544 or Public Law 100-413, shall be forwarded to a state identification bureau, or to an association of state officials regulating pari-mutuel wagering designated by the Attorney General of the United States, for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a criminal history record check. Such fingerprints may be submitted on a fingerprint card or by electronic or other means authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other receiving law enforcement agency.
  • 3. Issue licenses to, and renew the licenses of, participants in live racing listed in paragraph 1 of this section who are found by the committee to have met the licensure and renewal requirements established by the committee. The compact committee shall not have the power or authority to deny a license. If it determines that an applicant will not be eligible for the issuance or renewal of a compact committee license, the compact committee shall notify the applicant that it will not be able to process his application further. Such notification does not constitute and shall not be considered to be the denial of a license. Any such applicant shall have the right to present additional evidence to, and to be heard by, the compact committee, but the final decision on issuance or renewal of the license shall be made by the compact committee using the requirements established pursuant to paragraph 1 this section.
  • 4. Enter into contracts or agreements with governmental agencies and with non-governmental persons to provide personal services for its activities and such other services as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this compact.
  • 5. Create, appoint, and abolish those offices, employments, and positions, including an executive director, as it deems necessary for the purposes of this compact, prescribe their powers, duties and qualifications, hire persons to fill those offices, employments and positions, and provide for the removal, term, tenure, compensation, fringe benefits, retirement benefits and other conditions of employment of its officers, employees and other positions.
  • 6. Borrow, accept, or contract for the services of personnel from any state, the United States, or any other governmental agency, or from any person, firm, association, corporation or other entity.
  • 7. Acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property by gift, purchase, lease, license, or in other similar manner, in furtherance of the purposes of this compact.
  • 8. Charge a fee to each applicant for an initial license or renewal of a license.
  • 9. Receive other funds through gifts, grants and appropriations.

    • Comment

    • Paragraph 1 of this section grants to the compact committee the authority to determine which categories of participants in live racing should be licensed and to establish the licensure requirements for applicants in each category, the term of the license for each category, and the requirements for renewal of licenses in each category. As provided in paragraph 2 of subsection A of Section 11, however, if the compact committee determines that a given category of participants in live racing does not need to be licensed, a party state still may decide to license that category of participants and may apply its own licensure requirements to that category.

      The need to ensure honesty and integrity in live racing with pari-mutuel wagering is a critical issue in each of the states that has authorized such racing. One important aspect of this issue is the effect a criminal record should have on the issuance of a license to an applicant. Not surprisingly, states have adopted different approaches to the effect a criminal record will have on the issuance of a license. A key issue for the proposed compact, therefore, is how to address the different criminal record criteria of the party states. Paragraph 1 of this section requires that, for each category of participants in live racing, the licensure requirements established by the compact committee with regard to requests for criminal history record information on applicants in that category, and with regard to the effect of a criminal record on the issuance of a license to an applicant, must be comparable to the most restrictive requirements of any party state for that category of participants. This approach will avoid a debate in a potential party state over whether that state should enact a compact that would require that state to accept a compact committee license that was issued using criminal record criteria less stringent than those in that state. It also is a workable approach. Most applicants do not have a criminal record. Those applicants, and other applicants who still are able to meet the criminal record licensure requirements of the compact committee, will, by definition, meet any less restrictive requirements of the party states. This means that, even using the most restrictive criminal record licensure requirements of the party states as the minimum compact committee requirements, the vast majority of applicants will be able to be licensed in all the party states. Furthermore, as provided in paragraph 3 of subsection A of Section 11, if an applicant does not meet the licensure requirements of the compact committee, a party state is still free to apply its less restrictive requirements and issue its own license to that applicant. As a result, the compact will dramatically reduce the burden both on the party states and on applicants who have no criminal record or otherwise can meet the criminal record requirements of the compact committee. A party state will have to deal separately only with those applicants seeking to participate in live racing in that state who do not meet the criminal record requirements for a compact committee license but might meet the requirements for a license in that party state.

      Determining which licensure requirements of any party state are “the most restrictive” and then adopting licensure requirements that are “comparable” to those most restrictive requirements may well be difficult decisions requiring the exercise of judgment. In order to avoid argument after the fact over whether the compact committee’s decisions were correct, paragraph 1 therefore also makes it clear that these decisions are to be made by the compact committee in the exercise of its judgment.

    • Paragraph 2 authorizes the compact committee to investigate applicants for a compact committee license and, as permitted by federal and state law, to gather information on applicants, including criminal history record information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state and local law enforcement agencies and, where appropriate, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and law enforcement agencies from other countries. To ensure that the confidentiality requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 534 and any comparable state law are satisfied and that criminal history record information is not disclosed or disseminated inappropriately, paragraph 2 restricts the receipt and review of such information to officials on the compact committee and compact committee employees, which subsection D of Section 9 makes clear are governmental employees. Such officials and employees may not disclose or disseminate criminal history record information to any other person or entity and may not use such information for any purpose other than the purposes of the compact. Paragraph 2 also requires that the fingerprints of each applicant must be taken by the compact committee, its employees, or its designee and, pursuant to Public Law 92-544 or Public Law 100-413, must be forwarded to a state identification bureau, or to an association of state officials regulating pari-mutuel wagering designated by the Attorney General of the United States (which currently includes only the Association of Racing Commissioners, International), for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a criminal history record check. Finally, paragraph 2 provides that fingerprints may be submitted on a fingerprint card or by electronic or other means authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other receiving law enforcement agency.

    • Paragraph 3 authorizes the compact committee to issue initial licenses to, and renew the licenses of, applicants who meet its licensure and renewal requirements. The compact expressly provides, however, that the compact committee does not have the power or authority to deny a license. Instead, if the committee decides that an applicant will not be eligible for the issuance or renewal of a compact committee license, it merely will notify the applicant that it will not be able to process his application further. Any such notification does not constitute the denial of a compact committee license and is not to be considered as such. This approach will avoid any stigma that might attach to an applicant later being required to indicate on a license or permit application in another state that he had been denied a license. While the fact that an applicant was denied a license or permit in another racing state may be relevant to a state that later was considering a license or permit application from that applicant, the same is not necessarily true of the compact committee=s license, the criteria for which, pursuant to paragraph 1 of this section, could well be the most restrictive in the Nation and are likely to be more restrictive than those for any one party state. Finally, paragraph 3 provides that any applicant who has been notified by the compact committee that it will not be able to process his application further shall have the right to present additional evidence to, and to be heard by, the compact committee. But the final decision whether to issue or renew the license shall be made by the compact committee using the requirements established pursuant to paragraph 1 of this section.

    • Paragraph 4 authorizes the compact committee to enter into contracts or agreements with governmental agencies or non-governmental persons to provide personal services for its activities and other services necessary to effectuate the purposes of the compact. Since the party states do not accept financial responsibility for the contracts of the compact committee, no requirement is included that contracts with the committee must contain certain provisions, that certain provisions are prohibited, or that the contracts must be reviewed by the Attorney General of each party state or other appropriate state official.

    • Paragraph 5 authorizes the compact committee to create offices and employment positions, to prescribe the qualifications for those offices and positions, to hire persons to fill them, and to establish the terms of their employment. Paragraph 6 authorizes the compact committee to borrow, accept or contract for personnel services from governmental and non-governmental entities. Paragraph 7 authorizes the committee to engage in real and personal property transactions.

    • Paragraphs 8 and 9 address funding. Paragraph 8 authorizes the compact committee to charge a fee for an initial license and any license renewal, and paragraph 9 authorizes the committee to receive other funding through gifts, grants and appropriations.
SECTION 8. Voting requirements.

  • A. Each official shall be entitled to one (1) vote on the compact committee.
  • B. All action taken by the compact committee with regard to the addition of party states as provided in Section 3, the licensure of participants in live racing, and the receipt and disbursement of funds shall require a majority vote of the total number of officials (or their alternates) on the committee. All other action by the compact committee shall require a majority vote of those officials (or their alternates) present and voting.
  • C. No action of the compact committee may be taken unless a quorum is present. A majority of the officials (or their alternates) on the compact committee shall constitute a quorum.
Comment

The proposed compact provides that each party state shall have one vote. It would be possible, of course, to adopt a system under which the compact committee would be authorized to adopt (perhaps by a two-thirds or other supermajority vote) weighted voting to give a greater voice to states that have a greater commitment to live racing. One of the major concerns with weighted voting, however, is that states might not be willing to enact the compact if they do not have an equal voice on the compact committee. Thus, in an effort to attract as many states as possible, the proposed compact adopts a one-state-one-vote approach.

A vote of a majority of the total number of officials (or their alternates) on the compact committee is required for certain particularly critical actions by the compact committee: the admission of new party states to the compact after four states have enacted the compact; decisions on licensure of participants in live racing; and decisions regarding the receipt or disbursement of funds. All other action of the committee requires a majority vote of the officials (or their alternates) present and voting.

Finally, a majority of the officials (or their alternates) on the compact committee constitutes a quorum, and no action by the committee may be taken unless a quorum is present. This quorum requirement is intended to ensure adequate participation by the party states before action is taken by the committee.

SECTION 9. Administration and management.

  • A. The compact committee shall elect annually from among its members a chairman, a vice-chairman, and a secretary/treasurer.
  • B. The compact committee shall adopt bylaws for the conduct of its business by a two-thirds vote of the total number of officials (or their alternates) on the committee at that time and shall have the power by the same vote to amend and rescind these bylaws. The committee shall publish its bylaws in convenient form and shall file a copy thereof and a copy of any amendments thereto with the secretary of state or equivalent agency of each of the party states.
  • C. The compact committee may delegate the day-to-day management and administration of its duties and responsibilities to an executive director and his support staff.
  • D. Employees of the compact committee shall be considered governmental employees.
Comment

This section provides for the annual election of officers of the compact committee and for the adoption and amendment or rescission of committee bylaws. It also authorizes the committee to delegate the day-to-day management and administration of its duties and responsibilities to an executive director and support staff. Finally, in order to ensure that criminal history record information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other state and local law enforcement agencies is received and reviewed only by governmental employees, subsection D makes it clear that employees of the compact committee are governmental, not private, employees.

SECTION 10. Immunity from liability for performance of official responsibilities and duties.

No official of a party state or employee of the compact committee shall be held personally liable for any good faith act or omission that occurs during the performance and within the scope of his responsibilities and duties under this compact.

Comment

This section provides party state officials and compact committee employees with immunity from personal liability for good faith acts and omissions occurring during the performance and within the scope of their official responsibilities and duties under this compact. Personal liability could arise, however, from acts and omissions that were not in good faith or were outside the scope of an official’s or employee’s compact responsibilities and duties.

ARTICLE V

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PARTY STATE

SECTION 11. Rights and responsibilities of each party state.

  • A. By enacting this compact, each party state:
    • 1. Agrees (i) to accept the decisions of the compact committee regarding the issuance of compact committee licenses to participants in live racing pursuant to the committee’s licensure requirements, and (ii) to reimburse or otherwise pay the expenses of its official representative on the compact committee or his alternate.
    • 2. Agrees not to treat a notification to an applicant by the compact committee under paragraph 3 of Section 7 that the compact committee will not be able to process his application further as the denial of a license, or to penalize such an applicant in any other way based solely on such a decision by the compact committee.
    • 3. Reserves the right (i) to charge a fee for the use of a compact committee license in that state, (ii) to apply its own standards in determining whether, on the facts of a particular case, a compact committee license should be suspended or revoked, (iii) to apply its own standards in determining licensure eligibility, under the laws of that party state, for categories of participants in live racing that the compact committee determines not to license and for individual participants in live racing who do not meet the licensure requirements of the compact committee, and (iv) to establish its own licensure standards for the licensure of non-racing employees at pari-mutuel racetracks and employees at separate satellite wagering facilities. Any party state that suspends or revokes a compact committee license shall, through its racing commission or the equivalent thereof or otherwise, promptly notify the compact committee of that suspension or revocation.
  • B. No party state shall be held liable for the debts or other financial obligations incurred by the compact committee.
Comment

Under paragraph 1 of subsection A of this section, each party state agrees to accept the decision of the compact committee to issue its license to participants in live racing, and to be responsible for the expenses of its official representative to the compact committee or his alternate.

Paragraph 2 of subsection A provides that each party state agrees not to treat a notification by the compact committee to an applicant that the committee will not be able to proceed further with his application as the denial of a license, or to penalize such an applicant in any other way based solely on the committee’s decision. This provision is a companion provision to paragraph 3 of Section 7, which provides that the compact committee has the authority to issue and renew a license, but not to deny a license. As the Comment to Section 7 indicates, the reason for not authorizing the compact committee to deny a license is to avoid any stigma that might attach to an applicant later being required to indicate on a license or permit application in another state that he had been “denied” a license, especially since the compact committee’s licensure requirements, at least with regard to the effect of a past criminal record, could well be the most restrictive in the Nation and are likely to be more restrictive than those for any one party state. A party state may, of course, still deny its own license to an applicant using its own licensure criteria. All that paragraph 2 of subsection A provides is that, in deciding whether to grant or deny a person a license from that state, a party state may not treat a decision by the compact committee not to proceed further with an application as the denial of a license or to penalize an applicant in any other way based solely on such a decision by the compact committee.

Paragraph 3 of subsection A provides that, even though each party state agrees to accept the decision of the compact committee to issue its license to participants in live racing, each party state still reserves the right to charge a fee for the use of a compact committee license in that state, to apply its own standards in determining, on the facts of a particular case, whether a compact committee license should be suspended or revoked, and to apply its own licensure standards to categories of participants in live racing that the compact committee decides not to license and to individual participants who do not meet the committee’s licensure requirements. This is the companion provision to paragraph 1 of Section 7, which provides that the compact committee’s criminal record licensure requirements shall be comparable to the most restrictive requirements of any party state. Paragraph 3 also requires that a party state that suspends or revokes a compact committee license shall promptly notify the compact committee of that suspension or revocation. Finally, paragraph 3 also authorizes each party state to reserve the right to apply its own standards to the licensure of non-racing participants at its pari-mutuel racetracks and to employees at separate satellite wagering facilities in that party state.

Subsection B provides that no party state shall be responsible for the debts or other financial obligations of the compact committee.

ARTICLE VI

CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY

SECTION 12. Construction and severability.

This compact shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes. The provisions of this compact shall be severable, and, if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the Constitution of the United States or of any party state, or the applicability of this compact to any government, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If all or some portion of this compact is held to be contrary to the constitution of any party state, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining party states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

Comment

This section contains standard liberal construction and severability provisions. The only exception is the last sentence, which contains a special severability provision for situations in which all or some portion of the compact is held to be contrary to the constitution of a party state.