Although the New Hampshire House defeated a two-casino Senate bill by a 173-172 vote on April 30, the possibility remains of bringing the measure back for another vote, although little time remains before the end of the session.
The House could reconsider the bill at its May 7 session.
The bill would allow a total of 5,000 slots and 240 gaming tables between two casinos. The previous month the House killed a bill that would have allowed 5,000 slots at a single casino.
The downgrade of the state’s bond outlook from stable to negative by Standard and Poor’s apparently persuaded many in the House to change their previous votes on the issue. The House has consistently rejected all casino bills over the years. Last week’s vote followed a recommendation by the House Ways and Means Committee that the bill be rejected.
The S&P downgrade followed the removal of the Medicaid Enhance Tax by a superior court. The tax has been a significant revenue source for the state. S&P said that the state was in a “thin financial position,” following the court ruling. The tax funnels about $184 million into the state coffers annually.
State Rep. Richard Ames, one of those in the House supporting casinos, commented before the vote, “We have serious fiscal issues developing right before our eyes. We can take steps to deal with it today or we can walk away and leave fiscal chaos for the next legislature and key programs we care about.”
Another supporter, Rep. Thomas Schamberg, agreed: “Circumstances have changed, and we need to be mindful of what is lost and what is at stake if we don’t move toward budget adjustments right now.”
However, anti-gaming advocates, such as Casino Free New Hampshire and Granite State Coalition Against Expanded Gambling called casino taxes, “unreliable, unsustainable and unpredictable.”
They issued a joint statement that read: “The New Hampshire House has rejected slot machines and casinos every time it has voted on them for the last 30 years. Why is that? Quite simply because this is a decision that we can never reverse. If New Hampshire opens the door to casino gambling, it will change something that makes our small state very special. New Hampshire will not be the same good place to work, to raise a family and to visit that it is today.”
Governor Maggie Hassan has consistently supported a single casino for the state. She argues that the Granite State ought to capture gaming revenues that are spent by residents when they visit casinos in other states. She is especially concerned about losing money to Massachusetts when it opens its three casinos and a slots parlor.
The casino bill would infuse $80 million from a license fee for the larger casino and $40 million for the smaller casino, and a total of $139 million in annual payments to the state. Local government would be paid $25 million in revenue sharing.
Meanwhile, Republican gubernatorial candidate Andrew Hemingway has proposed allowing charitable gaming organizations to deploy as many as 150 slots apiece, and split revenues with the state and municipalities.
Hemingway, who opposes the Senate bill said last week that he prefers that the eight existing charitable gaming facilities operate slot machines. Another 50 slots would be allowed in other locations, although managed by the charitable operations. That would allow a total of 1,600 slots in the state.
The candidate estimated that the state would benefit by about $87 million annually. He prefers this alternative because it would be less visible and create fewer social costs and calls it a “free market approach.”
One of the charitable gaming operators, Anthony Fusco of Ocean Gaming Casino, likes the idea. Last week he said, quoted by Nashua Patch, “This proposal is 100 percent helpful to everybody,” he said, “as we try to help each other. It helps the state, it helps the charities, and it also helps the gaming operators.”
Other charitable gaming operators responded positively to the idea.
New Hampshire is a state that has long opposed a personal income tax or sales tax, so it must turn to other revenue sources if it wants to avoid cutting the budget this year.
“This looks to me like the only game in town,” remarked Rep. Ken Weyler last week.
However House Finance Chairman Mary Jane Wallner cautioned against overreacting to the court’s decision regarding the Medicaid tax. “This is not the time to push the panic button. This is the time to solve the tax issue with a thoughtful, measured approach,” she said, quoted by Businessweek.
