Print
Sep 11, 2008 6:53 am US/Eastern
Judges Rule Slots Ballot Language Is Misleading
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) ―
A proposed ballot question on slot machines is misleading because it suggests that slots revenue will only be used for education, a three-judge panel ruled Wednesday.
But slots opponents said the judges' proposed remedy -- adding a single word to the ballot language -- did not go far enough, and they planned to appeal to Maryland's highest court.
"Voters are still confronted with a bait-and-switch scheme," said Irwin R. Kramer, an attorney for slots opponents. "The slots package simply won't perform as advertised."
The ballot question indicates that slots would be used "for the purpose of raising revenue for education" when, in fact, slots revenue would go to a variety of recipients, including slots operators, the horse racing industry and the state lottery agency.
Those recipients are outlined in legislation that would take effect if the referendum passes. The judges ordered that the state amend the ballot language by inserting the word "primary," so that it says slots would be used "for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education."
"We are gratified that the Circuit Court confirmed the deceptive and misleading nature of the proposed ballot question," Kramer said. "The trial court's remedy helps to some degree, but does not go far enough."
Kramer said he would appeal Thursday to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
"That's a shame," said assistant attorney general Austin C. Schlick, who argued for the state. He said slots opponents were trying to prevent voters from having their say on the issue and that "their arguments have no merit."
Schlick said the attorney general's office and Secretary of State John P. McDonough, who wrote the ballot language, have agreed change the language to comply with the judges' ruling, even though Schlick argued in court that inserting the word "primary" could potentially make the ballot question more confusing.
"There is no single way to draft a ballot question," he said. "The secretary of state's language, we believe, was reasonable and appropriate. We think that the court's insertion is lawful and appropriate, and we can now move forward knowing what the ballot language will be."
The referendum would authorize up to 15,000 slot machines at five locations. A poll released this week by Annapolis-based Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies showed that 49 percent of likely voters indicated they would support the referendum, while 43 percent said they opposed it. Eight percent were undecided.
In January, respondents to a Gonzales poll supported slots by a wider margin, 54 percent to 38 percent. Outrage over the ballot language has energized slots opponents.
The secretary of state is a former racing industry lobbyist, which has further outraged the anti-slots contingent. Lawmakers decided to punt the slots issue to voters during a special session last fall. In the same session they also approved $1.4 billion in tax increases to address looming budget deficits.
Efforts to authorize slots without a constitutional amendment had failed several years running. But details about who gets the money from slots were left to a different piece of legislation that also passed during the special session.
That bill says 48.5 percent of slots revenue would go to education, while slot machine operators would get 33 percent. Another 7 percent would go to horse racing purses; 2.5 percent would be set aside for horse racing track renewal; 5.5 percent would go to local governments; 2 percent would go to lottery administrative costs; and 1.5 percent would be allocated to a fund for minority and women-owned businesses.
Fred Puddester, chairman of a pro-slots group called For Maryland For Our Future, said the slots opponents should give up their fight and noted that the state is facing a fiscal crisis that slots could help solve.
"The anti-slots activists are wasting taxpayers' dollars by continuing their frivolous lawsuit," Puddester said. State budget analysts have estimated that annual slots revenue could ultimately reach more than $600 million, but opponents dispute that figure and say the revenue would not offset the social ills that accompany expanded gambling.
(© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
WJZ.COM's Most Popular Slideshows
