Code breakers

At a press conference Thursday called to expose one more surprise hidden within the slot-machine referendum, Terrence Garmey, who heads the No Dice coalition against Question 3, said he was “suggesting” the 16-page legislation underlying the one-sentence ballot item was “written in code.”

The only flaw in Mr. Garmey’s statement is that it merely suggests the promoters of this scheme have wrapped a truly bad and self-serving idea in intentionally deceptive language. Read the ballot question. Read the legislation. Feel free to assert.

No Dice had already solved most of this cryptogram. The bill would not, as the ballot question says, allow video gaming terminals at “certain” harness racing tracks; it would, through cleverly worded restrictions written in the law but not on the ballot, allow them at only one – Scarborough Downs. “Video gaming terminal” is, of course, a pseudonym for the slot machine and, although the bill prohibits calling a building packed with 1,500 slot machines a casino, a casino is exactly what it would be. The promise of proceeds going to property-tax relief is as empty as a luckless gambler’s wallet and, given the bill’s carefully designed avoidance of state financial oversight that no other casino-hosting state would find even remotely acceptable, determining exactly what the proceeds are will be a crap shoot. When it comes to the straight-face test, this petition-initiated bill – written by the very people who would profit from it – didn’t even show up to take it.

And now, thanks to a sharp reading of the bill by No Dice, comes this: the bill would not just allow Scarborough Downs to open a casino at its track, but at any location in the state in which it is licensed to offer off-track betting. The blurb voters will see on their ballot says the slots will be at “racetracks.” The blurb, however, is not what will become law and buried within the dense language of the 16-pages that will, it says the slots could be “at locations for which it is licensed to accept pari-mutuel wagers.” That’s “locations,” in the plural.

Such locations are called off-track betting parlors. Maine now has five licensed OTBs operating in restaurants, hotels and lounges. One quick contractual agreement with Scarborough Downs and they’re casinos, each fully equipped with 1,500 slots. And nothing prevents Scarborough Downs from getting licenses to open more OTBs and then more casinos. Voters who have been ambivalent about this referendum, who figured any problems casino gambling might bring to Scarborough would be Scarborough’s problems now have reason wonder what Question 3 will bring to their town.

In addition to announcing its latest success in code-breaking Thursday, No Dice asked the Secretary State and the Attorney General to review the ballot wording and to rewrite the question so voters will understand they are voting on a law that could result in the proliferation of casinos throughout the state, all controlled by a monopoly protected by statute. Both offices declined to do so, saying that it is too late to revise the ballot and that it is the obligation of opponents of the proposal to get their message out.

It is troubling that neither office saw in itself an obligation to ensure that brief ballot questions accurately describe the attached longer legislation, or at least that the ballot questions do not intentionally mislead. It is far more troubling, however, that Scarborough Downs and its allies – including a couple of former legislators who should know better – would deliberately try to foist upon the state legislation of such intentional trickery. Casino gambling is an important issue that needs debate. It should not need deciphering.