Have proponents of a pair of gambling initiatives run out of time to get them on the November ballot? Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning thinks they likely have.

Bruning said Thursday the initiatives likely would not make the ballot, even if a judge ruled in favor of gambling proponents.

Alan Peterson, an attorney for the proponents, disagreed.

Bruning’s and Peterson’s remarks came after Peterson and attorney W. Scott Davis asked a judge  to overrule Secretary of State John Gale’s decison to keep the initiatives off the November ballot.

Peterson, in oral arguments,  told Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers that Gale did not properly compare the initiatives’ wording with wording in gambling proposals from the 2004 ballot.

Had Gale done so, Peterson argued, he would have concluded the 2006 initiatives were substantially different from the ones in 2004, and allowed them on the upcoming ballot.

Dale Comer, an assistant Nebraska Attorney General, countered that Gale correctly found the 2004 and 2006 initiatives were the same in “essential substance.”

Thus, Comer said, Gale was right in deciding that inclusion of the recent initiatives on this year’s ballot would violate the state constitutional prohibition against resubmitting similar initiatives within three years.

Gale said last month the 2006 initiatives violated the resubmission rule. Bruning also said in an earlier opinion the initiatives violated the rule.

One of the measures proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow one casino in each of Nebraska’s three congressional districts. The other proposed a state law that would require most of the gambling proceeds to go to K-12 schools.

Flowers did not say how soon she would rule, but Holley Hatt, a spokeswoman for Bruning, said the office expected a decision “in a couple of weeks.”

Bruning, in comments after the hearing Thursday, said that might be too late for the initiative’s supporters.

If Flowers rules in the state’s favor, the measures certainly will not be on the ballot, he said.

And if the judge rules in favor of the gambling proponents, the state would appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, automatically staying Flower’s ruling, Bruning said.

That would not give the counties enough time to verify the roughly 160,000 signatures collected by gambling petitioners for Gale to certify and place the initiatives on the ballot, he said.

“If we win (with Flowers) we win, if we lose we win,” he said. “It’s highly doubtful that this will be on the ballot.”

Peterson disagreed. “No it isn’t (too late),” he said, declining to elaborate.

The secretary of state’s office said Thursday Gale would need the verified signatures by Sept. 15. An office spokesperson said the Gale could extend the deadline, set by state law, if the dispute was still in the courts, however.

Peterson and Davis are representing Greg Lemon, president of the Committee for Better Schools and More Jobs in Nebraska, in his lawsuit challenging Gale’s decision. The committee is backed by Boyd Gaming of Las Vegas.

In the oral arguments Thursday, Peterson said Gale “picked and chose” similarities between the 2004 and 2006 initiatives, but ignored their substantial differences.

For example, the 2004 proposed amendment did not authorize casino gambling, but only would have created a process for legalizing and regulating games of chance, he said.

The “three casinos” initiative, on the other hand, actually authorized casinos in Nebraska, Peterson said.

“You only get there (to Gale’s decison), your honor, if you ignore a ton of stuff,” he said.

Davis noted the 2004 initiative set no limit on the number of gaming operations. Also, he said the earlier initiative called for local control of the operations, while the “three casinos” proposal called for state control.

Comer said line-by-line comparisons between the 2004 and 2006 initiatives were unnecessary.

“The constitution does not require a line-by-line comparison,” he said.

“We think you look at the plain language of it … What is the objective meant to be accomplished.”

Comer agreed the 2004 initiative Peterson referred to did not specify casinos, but nevertheless contained wording about “all forms of games of chance.

“In Nebraska, that’s been casinos,” he said.

Comer responded to an earlier argument from Peterson that Gale had compared “apples and oranges” in reaching his decision.

“We’re dealing with different types of apples here,” Comer said. “The essential substance is the same. They’re both apples.”

Reach Clarence Mabin at cmabin@journalstar.com or 473-7234.