Gambling promoters are putting at least $13 million on the line to see if Ohio voters will welcome slot machines on Nov. 7, the third proposal since 1990 to expand gambling. Voters that year and in 1996 refused almost 2-to-1 to allow casino gambling in some Ohio cities. Backers are optimistic they will fare better this year. Despite the opposition of statewide officeholders and the two candidates for governor, they point to the money that’s left the state since casinos opened in Indiana and Michigan and slots debuted in West Virginia since the mid-1990s. Two other issues on the statewide ballot would regulate where people could smoke, and one would raise the state’s minimum wage by $1.70 to $6.85 an hour. A fifth issue would stop changes in Ohio’s workers’ compensation law from taking effect, but it was in a court battle to stay on the ballot. Passage of state Issue 3 would place up to 31,000 slot machines at Ohio’s seven horse-racing tracks and two free-standing parlors in downtown Cleveland. Its primary backers are the racetrack owners and the two Cleveland developers who would build the parlors. They estimate they would take in $1.5 billion each year. The rest of the money would go to college scholarships, local governments and gambling addiction services. Proponents say the gambling also would bring 17,000 permanent jobs and 20,000 construction jobs to the state. Opponents say passage of the issue would lead to deterioration of the neighborhoods surrounding the parlors and ruin the families of thousands of Ohioans who would become addicted to gambling. Backers say opponents are being hypocritical in trying to keep gambling in check while the state lottery – authorized by voters in 1973 – and charity bingo and casino games are permitted.
"A lot of the arguments have been from politicians who proposed Mega Millions (multi-state lottery). That was (Gov.) Bob Taft, yet he opposes our proposal," said Linda Siefkas, spokeswoman for Ohio Learn and Earn, the coalition of track owners and developers.
As with the lottery and the 1990 and 1996 proposals, the lure for voters is education. Issue 3 backers are promising $850 million a year in scholarships for Ohio high-schoolers who go to in-state colleges.
The Ohio Office of Budget and Management said the slots backers’ projections are too high. The office said the state could support only one-third as many machines, raising $324 million annually for scholarships.
Gambling revenues are unpredictable because of fluctuating employment rates, the economy and other outside factors, said David Zanotti, president of the conservative Ohio Roundtable who also fought the earlier gambling proposals.
"If you link gambling to vital services, you’re going to be disappointed," Zanotti said. "The problem still is the numbers."
Passage also would help others trying to expand gambling in Ohio, especially the Eastern Shawnee, an American Indian tribe that is negotiating land deals in several communities to build casinos if it ever should get state and federal approval to do so. By opening slots parlors, Ohio’s status as a state that permits gambling would be elevated above its current lottery-and-bingo category to one that permits casino-style games.
Siefkas argues that passage of Issue 3 wouldn’t give Indian tribes more flexibility to set up casinos – they could do it now if they had land and were recognized by the government, she said. Issue 3 simply expands the definition of what’s allowed in Ohio to include slot machines.
The backers say they’re ready to spend at least $13 million on the campaign. Zanotti said the opponents are shooting for $3 million, but noted that his side won twice before despite being badly outspent.
In 1996, would-be casino developers spent more than $8 million, while opponents spent just over $1 million.
Voters also will be asked to settle the contentious issue of smoking in public buildings. Issue 5 would ban smoking in nearly all buildings outside the home, while Issue 4 would exempt bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls and racetracks and would allow restaurants to set aside enclosed spaces for smokers. Those venues still would be allowed to ban smoking if they wished.
If voters approve both issues, the less restrictive issue would be prevail because it changes the Ohio Constitution, while Issue 5 simply changes state law.
The minimum wage increase and the slots proposal also would amend the constitution, meaning more ballot issues would be required to undo them.
Issue 2 would raise Ohio’s minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.85. Backers – largely unions – say the increase would give a lift to Ohio’s working poor. Opponents – mostly business groups – say it would place a burden on small business struggling to become profitable.
