The crushing twin defeats of racino in southern Maine could be attributed to many factors, from an engorged sense of nimbyism to an improved understanding of how badly the state would fare under the proposal. But whatever their source, the votes in Saco and Westbrook should guide to the Legislature toward more tightly regulating this form of gambling.

After both approving the statewide racino question on the ballot in November Saco and Westbrook defeated the measure locally, with the “no” side this week receiving 62 percent and 59 percent respectively. The last two months have been an especially informative time for the public – it has learned that racino isn’t primarily about saving harness racing and that Maine itself wouldn’t be the primary beneficiary. It has also learned that illusion and deception are not restricted to the actual gambling part of the operation.

CasinosNo!, the best known opponent of gambling in Maine, campaigned effectively against the racino idea as well as expertly advising local groups. Its work undoubtedly made the difference in the outcome. CasinosNo! had concentrated on defeating a casino plan for Sanford last fall, which it did handily, and failed to pay enough attention to racino. But its message that racinos were a bad deal for Maine was clear this time.

The Legislature’s job now is to divine the will of the voters. Do they narrowly support racinos for Maine, as they did last November, or do the test cases of Westbrook and Saco suggest that when given more information about them voters will strongly reject having them nearby? Without another statewide vote, there’s no way to tell, so lawmakers should act conservatively by keeping the regulations as tight as possible and certainly maintaining the Dec. 31, 2003, deadline for a host community to approve a racino.

Five separate votes in Maine and this isn’t nearly the end of racino – in Bangor, it is just the beginning. The Harness Racing Commission will be busy with it this month and the Legislature will spend a lot of time debating further amendments to the fall referendum question. The more information that can be made public about this industry, the better. Just as long as it doesn’t lead to yet another vote.