In Florida, Amendment 3 would give voters exclusive rights to approve gambling expansion in the state. The proposed constitutional amendment requires 60 percent approval to pass. Currently any changes in gaming require a local referendum and legislative approval. Amendment 3 would require a statewide vote on any gaming changes.
Attorney, former Gulfstream Park owner and parimutuel expert David Romanik opposes Amendment 3. He said gambling issues should be decided by a county referendum, which has been required since parimutuel wagering was legalized. “We have a policy in this state of local decisions being made locally. This amendment is completely contrary to that. This says everyone in the state gets to decide whether someone in Pensacola gets to have a casino. How does that affect anyone other than those who live in Pensacola?”
Romanik added the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Disney Worldwide are the main financial backers of Amendment 3, having given a total of $35.78 million, or 95 percent of all contributions, to the Voters in Charge political committee through October 1, according to state campaign records. He added the Seminole Tribe and Disney would surely oppose any future expansion of gambling and have the financial capabilities to make it hard to get 60 percent approval statewide.
“Probably the thing that rankles me most about all of this is that the Seminoles have seven casinos in five different counties, and they never had to do one referendum. In Glades County near Okeechobee, which has never had even a parimutuel referendum, they have slot machines, poker and blackjack, all done with the legislature saying, ‘Go ahead and do it,'” Romanik said.
Thoroughbred racetracks also could be cut out of offering sports wagering or historical racing if the amendment passes, Romanik added. The proposal specifically excludes any parimutuel wagering—horse and dog racing and jai alai—from the definition of expanded “casino gaming.” However, the definition of all other Class III gaming does include sports wagering, and Amendment 3 also specifically says “instant or historical racing” is expanded gaming that would require statewide approval.
Magic City Casino Chief Operating Officer Scott Savin also opposes Amendment 3. “To basically give up ever having sports wagering at the parimutuels in Florida and hand it over to the Seminoles is short-sighted and, quite frankly, foolish. Sports wagering is not the financial panacea some people believe, but it does bring people to facilities. Imagine the number of people that will be at Gulfstream Park and Tampa Bay Downs during college football season on a Saturday or for professional football on Sundays,” he said.
On the other side of the issue, the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association supports Amendment 3. FHBPA Executive Director Glen Berman said, “The biggest threat to Thoroughbred racing in Florida is decoupling. With every gambling expansion bill, we have been up in Tallahassee telling them to leave us alone. If Amendment 3 passes, then we are good for the time being. There is an argument that if they tried to adopt decoupling after the amendment passed, that would remove a restriction from the casinos in South Florida, which would be an expansion of gaming and not be allowed. It is likely to end the decoupling issue for the near future. We’re trying to protect horseracing and are good with the status quo.”
The Florida Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association also supports the amendment. President Joe Pennacchio said, “We have been under the pressure of decoupling for the last eight years, and we are fighting to survive every year. This will take it out of the hands of legislators who, since the minute the casinos got started, have been trying to get rid of us.”
