By Henri E. Cauvin and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 11, 2008

The ballot language for the proposed Maryland slots amendment is misleading and must be modified before Election Day, a panel of circuit court judges in Anne Arundel County ruled today.

The three judges ordered a one-word change in language, drafted by the secretary of state, that said the purpose of authorizing slots is to raise revenue for public schools. The judges said the text must state that education is the "primary" purpose -- a change intended to acknowledge that slots revenue would benefit not only schools.

As much as one-third of the revenue would go to private gambling interests, and a lesser portion would benefit the horse racing industry. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has backed slots as a needed source of revenue, but many have struggled with the proposal, as evidenced by the decision this week of Democratic Party leaders in Prince George's County not to take a formal position on the issue.

State officials have been waiting to print ballots for the Nov. 4 election until the court case is resolved, and they probably will have to continue to wait. The lawyer who challenged the language of the slots question said that the judges -- Ronald A. Silkworth, William C. Mulford II and Philip T. Caroom -- did not go far enough in their decision and that he would appeal.

"Voters are still confronted with a bait-and-switch scheme in which they are asked to help schoolchildren but will receive a slots package that simply won't perform as advertised," said the attorney, Irwin R. Kramer, who represents the organizations Stop Slots MD 2008 and NOcasiNO Maryland as well as other opponents of the amendment.

At issue was a portion of the proposed ballot language that said the amendment "authorizes the state to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, pre-kindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions."

When lawmakers voted last year to put the slots question to voters, they also passed separate legislation that determined how slots revenue would be allocated, with shares earmarked for the horse racing industry, the state lottery, small businesses and other purposes.

Defending the proposed text during oral arguments yesterday, the state attorney general's office said the language did not have to take into account the other legislation and need only be a condensed version of the proposed constitutional amendment.

But two of the judges, Caroom and Mulford, repeatedly challenged Austin C. Schlick, head of litigation for the attorney general.

"If you read this, this is wonderful, children get money," Mulford said at one point. "But is that really what happens?"

The full text of the proposed amendment as passed by the General Assembly includes the word "primary," as does an official summary prepared by the state's Department of Legislative Services. After the ruling, the state said it would not contest the court's order that the word be included in the ballot language.

"We think the big issue is still the referendum goes forward, and the court agreed that it can and it should," Schlick said. "The court thought that the bill language could be improved, and we think that the language put forward by the court is reasonable."

In Prince George's, meanwhile, a deeply divided County Democratic Central Committee voted Tuesday night to offer county party members no guidance about how to vote on the slots question.

Opposition to the measure runs deep in the county, where many influential church leaders are against the proposal. Some opponents also argue that gambling harms residents of low-income neighborhoods, such as some Prince George's communities inside the Capital Beltway.

But urging residents to vote "no" would have represented a repudiation by the local party of O'Malley and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert). Both support slots as a way to raise revenue, and Miller's district includes part of Prince George's.

A proposal to tell voters to oppose slots died in an 11 to 12 vote. No committee members spoke in support of the measure.

Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), a prominent opponent of slots, urged the committee to publicly state its opposition to the ballot question.

"We need you, because all the powers that be say you gotta have this," he told committee members. "Mike Miller says, you gotta have this. He's said it for years. He's wrong."

Del. Gerron S. Levi (D-Prince George's) also addressed the committee, urging it to oppose slots.

The local party's recommendations are included on sample ballots handed out at the polls on Election Day, considered an important way to sway voters in the overwhelmingly Democratic county.