More than a year after the Seminole Tribe started offering online sports betting, a new lawsuit alleges that voter approval was needed to allow such gambling.

Protect the Constitution LLC filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Leon County circuit court, alleging a state deal that allowed online sports betting violates a 2018 constitutional amendment that required voter approval of “casino gambling.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis reached the deal, known as a compact, with the Seminole Tribe in 2021. The deal, which was ratified by the Legislature, allowed the tribe to accept mobile sports bets placed anywhere in the state, with the wagers run through servers on tribal land. Such gambling started in late 2023.

“Today, online sports betting occurs throughout the state of Florida,” the lawsuit said. “But no citizens’ initiative has ever been held to provide authorization. And the people of Florida have never been allowed to exercise their constitutional right to decide whether sports betting should be authorized throughout the state.”

The lawsuit identified Protect the Constitution as a Delaware company and said each of its members “offers products in the state of Florida and has suffered harm, including reduced revenue, as a result of the legislation purporting to authorize ‘casino gambling’ throughout the state.” Filed by Jacksonville attorney W. Bradley Russell, the lawsuit did not name Protect the Constitution’s members.

The lawsuit comes after the pari-mutuel companies West Flagler Associates and Bonita-Fort Myers Corp. filed unsuccessful challenges in state and federal courts to sports betting. In a state-court case, the companies asked the Florida Supreme Court to strike down the part of the gambling deal that allowed sports betting, arguing it violated the 2018 constitutional amendment.

But the Supreme Court in March 2024 rejected the companies’ petition for what is known as a “writ of quo warranto,” which means “by what authority” in Latin. The Supreme Court decision did not address the merits of the lawsuit but said “quo warranto is not and has never been, the proper vehicle to obtain a declaration as to the substantive constitutionality of an enacted law. For that reason, we deny the petition because the relief that petitioners seek is beyond what the writ of quo warranto provides.”

The new lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction through the more-normal process of going to circuit court. It names as defendants the state, the Florida Gaming Control Commission and the commission’s members.

At least part of the dispute about whether sports betting needed voter approval centers on the bets running through servers on tribal property. The 2018 constitutional amendment included an exception for gambling that takes place on tribal lands.

The amendment said “nothing herein shall be construed to limit the ability of the state or Native American tribes to negotiate gaming compacts pursuant to the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the conduct of casino gambling on tribal lands, or to affect any existing gambling on tribal lands pursuant to compacts executed by the state and Native American tribes pursuant to IGRA.” The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, plays a key role in tribal gambling issues across the country.

The gambling compact, along with giving the Seminole Tribe control of sports betting, allowed it to offer craps and roulette at its casinos.

The tribe pledged to pay the state a minimum of $2.5 billion over the first five years and possibly billions of dollars more throughout the pact. A report released in February by the state Revenue Estimating Conference projected that the state will receive $809.1 million during the current fiscal year in Indian gambling money.

The report said, in part, “all signs point to legal sports betting activity running much stronger than contemplated in the prior forecast (projections issued in August). Conversely, slot machine and table game activity are running slightly weaker than previously thought.”

The Maggi Tax & Financial Show