This year, like most other election days, there are gaming-industry issues on state ballots across the country. Some of these (Massachusetts, California and Colorado) have received considerable press coverage while others (Nebraska and Tennessee) have not.
Here are the seven:
• California: Proposition 48: Ratifying two gaming compacts and exempts execution of the compacts and intergovernmental agreements from the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Colorado: Amendment 68: Allowing limited gaming at horse racetracks in the Denver suburbs.
• Massachusetts: Question 3: Repealing the 2011 law allowing resort casinos.
• Nebraska: Amendment 1: Allowing wagering or gambling on live, delayed or replayed horse races at licensed racetracks. The measure was ruled invalid by the Nebraska Supreme Court, but remains on the ballot
• Rhode Island: Question 1: Allowing the Newport Grand slot parlor to install table games. (Note: Question 2 on the ballot is related, but only Question 1 is in the contest.)
• South Dakota: Amendment Q: Allowing Deadwood casinos to add craps, roulette and keno.
• Tennessee: Amendment 4: Allowing lotteries that benefit veteran’s organizations.
• Kansas: An amendment would permit raffles by non-profit organizations that may lead to more gaming by these groups.
Massachusetts
The vote to reconsider casinos in the Bay State is probably the most visible—and important—vote on Tuesday.
Voters in Massachusetts November 4 will decide whether the Bay State will go forward with the three casino resorts and one slots parlor, two of which have already been licensed, or ban casino gaming. The state’s 2011 gaming expansion act is on Tuesday’s ballot as Question 3.
The most recent polls indicate that voters support retaining casinos by 53 percent, compared to 38 percent who want to repeal the law.
Some voters are puzzled by the ballot measure, since voting yes on Question 3 means that you are actually voting to reject casinos, while voting no means that you support the current gaming expansion law and its casinos.
Some TV reporters have gone onto the streets to quiz voters about whether they understand the ballot question. Many respondents indicated at least a moderate level of confusion about whether no means no or actually means yes. However, further questioning disclosed that those who are invested in the election generally know which way to vote.
Foes of Question 3 say that gaming will generate thousands of jobs and create economic activity while pouring money into the state’s tax coffers. Supporters of Question 3 are skeptical about jobs claims and say they are more than overbalanced by societal ills generated by problem gaming.
If Question 3 passes that will mean the end of several casino projects that are already in the works.
One of these is the Wynn Everett Casino, a $1.6 billion casino resort proposed for 30 acres of a former Monsanto chemical plant overlooking the Mystic River. It would generate an estimated 4,000 building jobs, and 4,000 permanent positions. The license was awarded last month by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, with Wynn’s design proposal trumping that proposed by Suffolk Downs and its partner the Mohegan Sun for a casino resort next to the 75-year old racetrack in Revere, next door to Boston.
Also granted a license is the state’s one allowed slots parlor, the $225 million Plainridge Park Casino that is already halfway through construction by Penn National Gaming Inc. It has already created about 1,000 construction jobs and is projected to create 500 permanent jobs. Penn has already spent an estimated $100 million on the project and says it is confident that Question 3 will be defeated.
The MGM Springfield, although licensed, has not begun building due to MGM’s caution in wanting to see the outcome of the election. It also obtained an agreement from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission that it would not pay its $85 million licensing fee until after the election. The $800 million casino resort with a 25-story hotel and entertainment venue would be built in downtown Springfield, in the South End employing 2,000 construction jobs and ultimately employing 3,000 permanent workers. MGM triumphed over three competitors, including Penn National, the Mohegan Sun and Hard Rock.
The Southeastern gaming zone remains uncertain, since the commission initially delayed the licensing process in part to accommodate the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s efforts to put land into trust in Taunton, and then opened up the bidding to commercial developers. Those interested include KG Urban Enterprises, Foxwoods and the Claremont Co. Even if Question 3 passes the Mashpees might still be able to build a casino if they are allowed to put the Taunton land into trust. The tribe wants to build a $500 million casino resort that would employ 1,000 building workers and 3,500 permanent workers.
This final weekend before the election activists for both persuasions are hitting the streets and knocking on doors in an effort to field the strongest ground game.
In Springfield construction workers and union employees have begun canvassing the neighborhoods. They are allied with the Coalition to Protect Mass. Jobs, which is the opposing group to Repeal the Casino Deal.
The workers will emphasize that the city’s unemployment rate is over 10 percent, one of the highest in the state. MGM has committed to creating 2,000 construction jobs and hiring minorities, women and veterans—as well as to aim at 35 percent Springfield residents.
Less than a week before the election MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis met with the editorial board of the Republican and declared, “Voters recognize that Springfield will benefit from casino gambling after 25 years of economic stagnation,” adding, “There is a recognition that Springfield needs something different.” That opinion is not so hard to sell in the city, which has already approved the casino resort in a vote last year. He added that the average salary at the casino, including benefits, would be about $45,000.
The American Gaming Association joined in the ad campaign last week with an online 30-second ad that cites a study by Oxford Economics that claims that gaming supports 1.7 million jobs and creates $38 billion in taxes at all levels. Because the ad does not actually advocate voting against Question 3, it does not require the association to file a campaign disclosure.
Opponents claim that the job claims are overblown and that the jobs will be low paying. Repeal has apparently started to run out of funds and has asked volunteers to make cash contributions to put its message out on the airwaves.
Faith leaders in the state gathered last week to rally anti-casino forces, with representatives from Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths at the Greek Cultural Center. Steve Abdow, who put together the gathering, called the turnout “Really gratifying.”
Abdow is a lay canon for the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts who has organized the state’s religious groups against casinos.
He declared, “The government of Massachusetts is promoting an industry, that has addiction at its core for its main product as a means of revenue generation. The government is actually promoting a policy that it should be protecting citizens from. Its policy is creating gambling addicts.”
He read a statement from the Bay State’s Catholic bishops saying that, “The government is actually promoting a policy that it should be protecting citize
ns from.”
In an editorial endorsing Question 3, the Boston Globe last week argued that casinos would bring gambling addiction, crime and harm local businesses. “Gambling is also an industry with a rich heritage of corruption; inviting it into Massachusetts always meant accepting that risk. There is, finally, a danger in state government becoming too reliant on gambling revenues. Once the state is counting on successful casinos to pay its bills, the pressure to promote them will rise; its incentive to regulate them will wane,” wrote the Globe. The editorial also asserts that four casinos are too many for the Bay State.
Rhode Island
Voters in Rhode Island and the city of Newport will be deciding Question 1, which asks whether the slots parlor Newport Grand can add 70 table games to the 1,097 slots that it hosts and Question 2, which would amend the state constitution so that a casino could not move to another city without the permission of the voters of the city that it is leaving.
This election is something of a rematch from a similar initiative two years ago, which failed. The state’s voters will get to decide if table games are allowed at the casino, but the voters of Newport will have the final say as to whether it is allowed in their town. Last time the state’s voters approved of the measure but city voters turned it down.
The ballot only lists the question once; Newport votes and statewide votes will be differentiated in the vote tabulation. This is controversial and has prompted three residents of the city to sue on grounds that the procedure is unconstitutional.
The slots parlor insists that it needs the addition of table games such as blackjack and roulette to be competitive with other gaming venues in the region, and especially the casino resorts in neighboring Massachusetts if voters do not end up banning them on November 4.
The state hosts two slots parlors, Newport Grand and Twin River Casino. The Newport has seen revenues decline for several years. New investors are in the wings to buy the struggling casino and spend $40 million to revive it with the addition of eateries, a spa and an entertainment complex, but only if the voters approve table games.
Question 1 would also increase the city’s share of slots revenue from 1.01 percent to 1.45 percent with a guarantee that the city would receive $1.5 million annually for six years and then $1 million a year in succeeding years. The state would get 18 percent of the table games revenue. The city would see none of that revenue.
The requirements demonstrate a certain level of distrust that some quarters have for the Newport Grand, in that they require permission to leave Newport, and also would ban the casino from removing any slots to free up room for tables. State officials say this was included to prevent the Newport Grand from following the example of the Twin River Casino, which removed some machines. This resulted in the casino paying less to the state.
California
Proposition 48 in California addresses the state tribal gaming compact of one tribe, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, but it has statewide and national implications because it focuses the angst of those who oppose “off-reservation” casinos and the much derided “reservation shopping,” because it is the first such to be approved in the Golden State.
The Wiyot tribe of Humboldt County would get a share of revenue from the North Fork casino in exchange for not building its own casino.
It would also open up the possibility of more tribal casinos near urban areas, something that the state’s voters were specifically told would not happen when they approved of tribal gaming in 2000. “Enough is enough!” California’s senior U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein declared recently to the Los Angeles Times, saying that approving Prop. 48 would “open the floodgates to countless more mega-casinos in local communities across the state.”
According to Cheryl Schmit of Stand Up for California, a casino watchdog group that qualified Prop. 48 for the ballot in order to fight the compact, “Prop 48 is bad for California’s environment and it doesn’t provide any additional funding for California’s school districts or our state’s general fund. Our campaign has done significant opinion research and we have seen that when voters are informed about the negative impacts of Prop 48, they overwhelmingly oppose it and vote No. We are confident that, with our financial edge and a message that clearly works, our side will prevail in November.”
Supporters of the tribe point out that its existing 80-acre reservation in the foothills of the Sierras is so isolated that it would never support a casino. The proposed location on California state highway 99 near the city of Madera and 30 miles from Fresno would be more likely to actually produce revenues for the tribe. That site is 42 miles from its reservation. With the new location on 305 acres approved the tribe partnered with Station Casinos Inc., which will get 30 percent of the profits during its management contract for a $350 million casino with 2,000 slots.
The tribe’s affairs director, Charles Banks-Altekruse, thinks the senator is jumping to conclusions when she talks about the proposition opening “floodgates.” The proposition, he points out, was actually put on the ballot by people wanting to stop a tribal compact that was negotiated with Governor Jerry Brown and approved by the legislature and given blessings by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It does not by itself make it easier for other tribes to do the same thing.
Governor Brown says the North Fork’s circumstances are “exceptional,” and won’t set a precedent. He adds that the tribe has historical ties with Madera and that the local city and county governments approve of the casino.
California voters amended the state constitution in 1998 and 2000 to allow tribal gaming on reservations. So far 66 casinos have been approved, making California at $7 billion the largest gaming market in the country. It accounts for one quarter of all Indian gaming revenue.
However, what has made the election such a high stakes affair in California is that several of the gaming tribes whose casino businesses would be impacted by the Madera casino have chipped in large contributions to fight Prop. 48, as have some tribes that are alarmed that other isolated tribes might be able to do the same thing.
The neighboring tribes include Table Mountain Rancheria, which is 25 miles from Madera, the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and Brigade Capital Management, an investment partner with the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, which operates near Madera.
One of the tribes that isn’t a neighbor but is concerned about “reservation shopping” is the Pechanga tribe of Southern California, whose chairman Mark Macarro told the Times, “It goes against the promises we made [in 2000] to limit gaming to our own tribal lands.” He added, “If this is successful, you’ll see more of this happening, more leapfrogging over tribes into more populous regions. It’s important to stick to the promises we made. The people trusted us.” His tribe has contributed $1 million to the No on Prop. 48 campaign.
The total of $14 million donated by the opponents of Prop. 48 hugely overmatches the $400,000 supporters of the proposition have raised. North Fork’s Vice Chairman Maryann McGovran told the Las Vegas Review-Journal “Hopefully, the more they spend, the more the voters will see through their motives.”
McGovran says that the land into trust process really isn’t the “reservation shopping” that opponents have painted it. The land was actually land that the
tribe once occupied, and which could have been “restored.” “We wanted to do an open and transparent process,” she said. “We have the land. This is no longer a land issue.”
She says that the idea of submitting a state tribal gaming compact to an initiative is unfair, and implies that it will be challenged in court. She told the Sierra Star, “Only 10 states in the nation even have the referendum process, and we feel our compact going on a state ballot is wrong for three reasons. One, it’s not fair to our tribe and the local community and governments who have already approved the compact — two, no other tribe has ever been subject to this referendum process — and three, this referendum process is not addressed at all in the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act of 1988.”
She and other tribal leaders point out that the casino can still be built whether or not Prop. 48 passes, because the proposition only addresses the compact itself. Without the compact the tribe could still deploy Class II games.
Tribes in San Diego, including one that wants to mimic what the North Fork has done, are watching this election with high interest. San Diego is a big potential market, and some tribes would like the opportunity to expand closer to that city. San Diego County has the highest number of gaming tribes in the state or the nation: 18.
The Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians have since 2004 been pushing a plan to do an off-reservation casino in Barstow, in the Mojave Desert, which is more than 100 miles from their Warner Springs reservation. The city of Barstow supports the plan. The federal government rejected that plan in 2008, but that was under the Bush administration. The Obama administration has been looser and appears to be moving the project forward. Earlier this year the Bureau of Indian Affairs published an environmental impact report on the proposal, a first step towards putting the land into trust.
Pala Casino, in North San Diego County, opposes Prop. 48 and has contributed to fight it. Its spokesman, Doug Elmets told the San Diego Union Tribune, “It would result in an explosion of urban gaming.” He added. “It would go against the tribes that have played by the rules for nearly a generation. Prop. 48 is not just about North Fork building a casino in Madera. It is a strong message that Californians are fine with gaming in major metropolitan areas in California.”
Will Micklin, administrator of the Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians and executive director of the California Association of Tribal Governments, supports Prop. 48. He told the Union-Tribune, “Tribes throughout California support these compacts. They provide the state with much-needed revenues and provide smaller, non-gaming tribes funding to help Native people become self-reliant.”
With less than a week to go before the election, the $14 million donated to defeat Prop. 48 is starting to make itself felt. Macarro is featured in one ad telling viewers, “More than a decade ago, we promised to limit casinos to existing tribal land. And you voted overwhelmingly to approve tribal gaming based on that promise.
“Now, Proposition 48 would allow a Nevada gambling company to use a rural tribe to build a casino on off-reservation land. Forty-eight would set a bad precedent, allowing off-reservation casinos. You trusted us to keep our word, and we honor that trust. That’s why tribes throughout California ask you to vote no on 48. Thank you.”
Supporters of Proposition 48 point out that the amendment to the state constitution that allowed Indian gaming didn’t address where the federal government might allow a tribe to put land into trust.
South Dakota
A recent telephone survey of 800 registered voters, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research for the Argus Leader and KELO-TV, indicated most South Dakotans do not want to change the state constitution to allow keno, craps and roulette to be offered at casinos in Deadwood or at the state’s tribal casinos.
The poll showed 56 percent of likely voters were against expanded gambling and 39 percent supported it; 5 percent were undecided. No more than 42 percent of any demographic group were in favor of changing the constitution to allow the games.
The poll had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points.
Kansas
Voters in Kansas will have the opportunity on Tuesday to approve a constitutional amendment that would allow nonprofit, religious, charitable, fraternal, educational or veterans organizations to operate raffles as fundraisers. Organizations conducting raffles would not be allowed to sell tickets through electronic gaming or vending machines, nor could they contract with professional lottery or raffle companies. If approved, the amendment would permit the legislature to authorize the licensing, conduct and regulation of charitable raffles by qualifying organizations.
The Kansas constitution originally banned lotteries and raffles. But in 1974, voters approved an amendment to allow charitable organizations to run bingo games, which are considered a type of lottery. In 1986 voters approved an amendment to allow parimutuel betting at dog and horse racetracks plus a state lottery. In 2007, lawmakers passed a bill to expand the definition of a “lottery” to include games of chance that are typically considered casino gaming. As a result, state-owned casinos currently operate in the Kansas City, Wichita and Dodge City areas.
Last year, Governor Sam Brownback vetoed legislation that would have allowed charitable groups to expand beyond bingo by offering other types of lotteries such as raffles. But in his veto message, Brownback said he would support allowing limited types of charitable raffles. He urged legislators to consider a constitutional amendment, which they approved this year—the ballot issue that voters will decide on Tuesday.
Tennessee
The vote in Tennessee is similar to Kansas and gives veterans groups the right to conduct raffles.
In 2004, the Tennessee Charitable Gaming Implementation Law was signed into law. It gave certain tax-exempt groups the right to hold one fund-raising raffle, or similar chance-based fund-raiser, each year without violating the state’s gambling laws.
The language of the 2004 law was specific so it didn’t include veterans group, which technically were not eligible. This new referendum would solve that problem.
Colorado
As the November 4 election approaches, the Yes on 68 group, supporters of a constitutional amendment to allow casino gambling at Arapahoe Park and two future horse racetracks, recently shifted its campaign from broadcast to on-the-ground efforts, in what might be seen as a sign of desperation.
Spokeswoman Monica McCafferty said, “We moved funds from TV to enhance the ground game and get-out-the-vote efforts, as the latter is where we have the most engaging conversations with voters. In no way are we conceding ground or making any concessions.” McCafferty would not specify how much of the advertising budget was been shifted, but she said some ads still would run on television and cable.
Missy Evenson, director of sales at KMGH-Channel 7, said the station will refund about $140,000 of airtime. She stated the campaign could receive more than $700,000 in refunds if it pulls ads from other area stations. “They were one of the first people in. They booked early and laid in a big base schedule a long time ago,” Evenson said.
McCafferty said proponents of the measure raised $18.3 million and spent $17.7 million as of October 14. Twin River Casino, the Rhode Island-based owner of Arapahoe Park, has provided the majority of the campaign’s funding. The amendment would add 2,500 slot machines
and 65 gaming tables at Arapahoe Park near Aurora, and permit racinos at future tracks in Mesa and Pueblo counties. Supporters argue the measure, known as Coloradans for Better Schools, would provide $114 million a year to for education.
Opponents include the No on 68 campaign, primarily funded by casinos in Black Hawk and Cripple Creek. Spokeswoman Michelle Ames pointed out not one area school district supports Amendment 68. Arapahoe County and Aurora officials also oppose it. Ames said promoting funding for schools is just a smokescreen to put a casino in a more populated area. “Coloradans don’t have an appetite for writing a single corporation into our constitution and expanding gaming,” she said.
In 2003, an unsuccessful ballot amendment sought to allow video lottery terminals at five Colorado dog and horse racetracks—four of which were owned by Wembley USA, which zealously promoted the measure.
