This appeal combines two related cases dealing with a provision of state law that restricts the intertrack wagering allowed at pari-mutuels in areas of the state where three or more horse tracks are located within 25 miles of each other. Gulfstream Park challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing it was too vague and improperly carved out one area of the state. Gulfstream also argued it was deprived of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. The trial judge agreed with Gulfstream that the law was a special enactment and the First District Court of Appeal upheld that finding. Both sides appealed the issue to this Court