The slots gamble

Click here to view an interactive graphic description of where revenue earned from slot machines would go.

In the 1950s, Southern Maryland was the Las Vegas of the east. The region gave rise to dozens of casinos, which powered their rural economies and brought celebrities such as Frank Sinatra to the area.

But beginning in 1963, slots were slowly banned in the state. They were seen as immoral and tied to public corruption and organized crime. The Washington Post's editorial board thanked the state legislature for rescuing "the state from the grip of an evil that every other state, except Nevada, banished long ago."

Tomorrow, voters will go the polls to decide whether to re-legalize slots in the state and join the ranks of dozens of others - including nearby Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and West Virginia - that use revenue from slot machines to fund their governments.

To supporters, the legalization of 15,000 slot machines is the only practical way to solve the state's crippling long-term budget problem. To opponents, legalizing them would be immoral, creating a regressive tax on the poor, increasing crime and addiction and leading to the state losing money in the long run.

Solving the state's budget problems is crucial to the health of the university, which is asking for $2 billion more from the state over the next 10 years and needs state funds to keep programs running and tuition down and improve aging infrastructure.

Both sides cite studies from analysts and academics and the experience of other states to prove their points, leading to a muddled picture of what would happen if slots were legalized.

"If you like slots and you're looking for a study that supports your viewpoint, I got one for you," Thomas Perez, the state's secretary of Licensing, Labor and Regulation and a slots supporter, said during a recent debate about the issue on the campus. "If you don't like slots and you're looking for a study that supports your viewpoint, I got one for you as well."

WILL THEY PASS?

The legalization of slots in the state appeared likely a few weeks ago, when a poll by the Post found 62 percent of voters supporting legalization, with only 36 percent opposed.

But a more recent poll done by Zogby and commissioned by Stop Slots Maryland found 44.6 percent of likely voters supporting slots and 47.5 percent opposing them.

Aaron Meisner, the chair of Stop Slots Maryland, pointed to a poll of Anne Arundel County residents by Anne Arundel Community College that found that only 52 percent support the measure.

"If Anne Arundel is at 52 percent, then there's no way Montgomery and Prince George's are at 62 percent," Meisner said, because of those area's large minority populations and traditional liberalism and opposition to slots.

LONG-STANDING

OPPOSITION

Montgomery and Prince George's counties have been the center of slots opposition in the state since re-legalizing them was first proposed by former Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) as a way to solve the state's budget problems.

Those problems began when the state legislature passed a $1 billion income tax cut in 1997 and then passed the Thornton education law, which required billions in additional funding for K-12 schools. The state has been grappling with billion-dollar deficits ever since.

While Ehrlich and State Senate President Thomas "Mike" Miller supported slots, Speaker of the state's House of Delegates Michael Busch opposed them. The gridlock was finally solved when the two legislative leaders agreed to hold the referendum last fall during a special session of the legislature.

CLOSING A GAP

The administration of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), a slots supporter, has said legalizing slots is the final piece of tackling the structural deficit, finishing the job started when the legislature raised several taxes and cut billions in spending last fall. Slots, they claim, are the only politically possible way to close the gap because there is no appetite for higher taxes or spending cuts.

"I couldn't get three members of the General Assembly to vote for a tax increase right now," O'Malley said during a press conference last month.

But even with revenue from slots, Department of Legislative Services is still projecting deficits around $1 billion for the next few years. But slots supporters say the larger deficit, which is mainly due to the economic downturn, is a reason to legalize slots.

"We need every nickel of the money," said Frederick Puddester, the chair of For Maryland, For Our Future, an umbrella pro-slots group, said.

For Maryland, For Our Future claims Marylanders are already spending money on slot machine gambling in nearby states, and legalizing slots is a way to capture money that would otherwise go to West Virginia's roads and Pennsylvania's schools.

THE LONG ARM OF ADDICTION

Anti-slots activists have not proposed alternate ways of raising revenue, but say slots aren't the right way to do it because they prey on the poor and minorities, who are more likely to gamble.

"Do we look for a way to fund government that preys on people? Do we use addiction to fund government revenues?" Meisner asked.

Slots opponents also cite a study done by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, which was funded by a national anti-gambling group. The study says revenue estimates from DLS are too optimistic because they assume all money spent by Marylanders on gambling in other states will stay here, and doesn't account for increased costs due to crime and addiction. According to the study, slots will raise between $333 and $667 million a year for education, but will cost the state between $228 and $628 million.