Fighting Words
The language of Maryland's slots referendum misrepresents the proposal.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

THE BALLOT language of a November referendum on Maryland slots is notable for what it does not say. There's no mention of how slots would generate what amounts to a $100 million subsidy for the horse racing industry. There's nothing about how gambling operators will capture a substantial chunk of the windfall. And there's little about where the machines would be located. There is, however, a detailed explanation of how slots would benefit education. It is troubling, then, that Maryland Secretary of State John P. McDonough, who drafted the language, worked previously as a lawyer and lobbyist for a Prince George's County racetrack that would capture some of the slots revenue. Mr. McDonough's background -- along with the suspect wording of the referendum, which was recently made public -- intensified questions about the fairness of the ballot language.

Slots opponents have seized on Mr. McDonough's perceived bias. Why, they ask, didn't Mr. McDonough recuse himself from drafting the ballot language? Mr. McDonough answers that the law provides no guidance on who would draft the language in his place. But there's no reason that Mr. McDonough couldn't have put his deputy secretary in charge.

Still, criticism of how Mr. McDonough worded the referendum is overblown. Mr. McDonough's job description, read narrowly, is to summarize the general assembly's legislation, and lawmakers chose to emphasize the connection between slots and education.

As the economy has soured, that connection has become tenuous. State officials estimated last year that slots would eventually generate $600 million or more annually, half of it for education. Now gambling revenue is down nationwide, and the $600 million estimate is suspect. It has become unclear whether slots would generate enough revenue to offset the increase in crime and gambling addiction. And it has always been unclear whether the state benefits when residents shift spending from clothing and food to slots.

Predictably, the ballot language has become a flash point in the slots debate. The referendum's opponents are considering whether to file a lawsuit challenging the wording. Fred Puddester, the head of a pro-slots group, responded by saying that a lawsuit would be "anti-democratic" and that voters should decide. Mr. Puddester is right that voters deserve their say, but the public also deserves a fair accounting of the facts. The referendum's language should provide a more complete and balanced picture.