Miller rips slots suit, charges hypocrisy

Opponents want ballot to specify all funding recipients

Friday, Sept. 5, 2008

The suit claims the language is misleading and biased.

Miller said groups opposed to slot machine gambling have sought for years to put the issue to referendum, rather than letting the General Assembly take action.

‘‘We gave them their wish and now [they’re] saying ‘Why are you amending the constitution?’ Of course, that’s the only way of getting a referendum,” said Miller, a vocal slots proponent.

Voters will decide on Election Day in November whether to approve putting 15,000 slot machines at five locations in Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester counties and Baltimore city.

Opponents have blasted the proposed ballot language drafted last week by Secretary of State John P. McDonough, saying it’s crafted to deceive voters into believing slots revenue will go solely toward education.

‘‘My concern is simply that this referendum question does not pass the smell test,” said Aaron W. Meisner, chairman of Stop Slots Maryland, who is one of several plaintiffs in the lawsuit. ‘‘... We would be doing ourselves and our supporters a tremendous disservice if we did not explore every potential avenue in terms of assuring the voters are faced with a fair and reasonable ballot question.”

McDonough, who has taken heat from slots opponents because he is a former lobbyist for Rosecroft Raceway in Prince George’s County, said he closely followed legislative mandates in writing the referendum and does not believe the language favors either side of the debate.

The state attorney general’s office will issue a response by Thursday, spokeswoman Shanetta Paskel said.

The legal squabbling threatens to put extra pressure on state elections officials who must print millions of absentee and contingency ballots and program 1,900 voting machines to be ready before Election Day. The first wave of ballots for military and overseas voters should be ready to deliver by the third week of September to provide ample time for receipt, said Donna Duncan, the state board’s election management director.

‘‘There’s a lot of challenges for anything that would create a delay in the process,” deputy elections administrator Ross K. Goldstein said.

Miller predicted that the suit is a last-gasp effort to prevent slots from being legalized and will be unsuccessful.

‘‘Hopefully a fair-minded judge will reach a fair decision and recognize this is a very important decision for Marylanders and an issue that the voters, if you polled them, want to have an opportunity to voice their opinion on,” he said.

The lawsuit boils down to truth in voting, said Owings Mills attorney Irwin R. Kramer, the plaintiff’s counsel who earlier this year represented a Carroll County businessman and several Republican lawmakers who sought to invalidate the product of last year’s special session on procedural constitutional violations.

‘‘If we’re going to put it to a popular vote, we have to be honest about what we put on the label,” he said, adding that the current language will manipulate voters into supporting slots solely to help fund schools. ‘‘That makes it look very enticing to voters, because who’s going to vote against our kids? ... Judges who take a look at this in an objective, honest way ought be troubled about what our state is trying to tell the voter.”

Last week, the state elections board declined a separate anti-slots group’s request to reject the proposed wording, consider alternate language or seek an attorney general’s opinion.

‘‘I’m sure the public is tired of people just kicking the can here,” said Scott Arceneaux, senior adviser for Marylanders United to Stop Slots. ‘‘I can’t believe that the entire executive branch is incapable of writing a fair and impartial ballot.”

Arceneaux said his group does not plan on joining the lawsuit filed by Kramer on behalf of Meisner and his group, NOcasiNO Maryland, and its co-chairman, Barbara Knickelbein, and Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil). But he did not completely rule out being a part of the legal action once all other avenues have been exhausted.

The different approaches by the leading anti-slots organizations will not undermine the opposition’s effectiveness, Arceneaux said.

‘‘There’s a lot of reasons to oppose slots and a lot of people that oppose slots don’t agree,” he said. ‘‘We all have different reasons here, so we want to get them all out on the table. They’ve got reasons to oppose this, we do, and we’re going to keep this going at all barrels.”

Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot (D), a vocal slots opponent, also does not plan to join the lawsuit, said his chief of staff, David S. Weaver.

‘‘We don’t accept the idea that nobody in government can provide relief for slots opponents,” he said. ‘‘The system is broke if the only way to right a wrong is to file a lawsuit.”

Slots proponents characterized the lawsuit as ‘‘anti-democratic” and a frivolous attempt to block voters from settling the issue of slots.

‘‘This has obviously been in front of the citizens of Maryland for more than a decade, going back to when Peter Franchot was sponsoring constitutional amendments for slots,” said Frederick W. Puddester, chairman of the For Maryland For Our Future, which was formed to support the referendum. ‘‘To come here at the 11th hour now to try to stop the vote is anti-democratic. Let the voters decide.”

Arceneaux said his group does not want to stop the referendum from taking place, but will exhaust all avenues to modify the language.

‘‘What’s going to be on the ballot has to be about trust and people ought to know what they’re voting on,” he said.

The substitute wording proposed by Arceneaux and rejected by the state elections board adds that the horse racing industry, lottery operations and slots licensees will also benefit from gaming revenues. The current language only mentions education as a recipient of gambling proceeds.

‘‘We feel it doesn’t give either side an advantage, but it does give a much fuller picture of what voters are voting on in November,” he said.

He said he plans to make another appeal to McDonough within a few days.

The League of Women Voters of Maryland also jumped into the fray on Monday. In a letter to the Baltimore Sun, the nonpartisan group said the wording was neither balanced nor complete, with the potential to be misleading.

‘‘Our General Assembly decided to allow Maryland voters to decide whether slots revenue is an appropriate way to fund a variety of programs, including public education,” League President Lu Pierson wrote in the letter. ‘‘Our legislators may have intended that the purpose of the slots referendum would be to raise revenue for public education. But legislation they passed clearly states that public education is not the only beneficiary of funds the slots would raise.”