Michigan proposal would give voters power over gaming

Tim Martin

Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 | 9:16 a.m.

LANSING, Mich. -- Voters will decide Nov. 2 how much power they should have over gambling expansion in Michigan.

The ballot measure known as Proposal 1 would require most types of gambling to be approved by voters statewide and in the city or township where the gambling would take place. Detroit's three existing casinos, which already were approved by voters, and Indian casinos, which aren't subject to state jurisdiction, would be exempt from the provision.

The measure would be retroactive to Jan. 1 and was put on the ballot after horse racing tracks pushed to add slot machines and video gaming to attract more customers.

Both chambers of the Legislature have passed very different versions of a bill that would allow the so-called "racinos." The House and Senate have not agreed on a compromise, and Senate leaders have said the issue will not come up again before the November election.

That may leave the future of racinos and other gambling expansion up to voters

"This measure does not open a single casino or close a single casino," said Roger Martin, spokesman for the pro-Proposal 1 group called "Let Voters Decide -- YES on 1." "It would simply allow those issues to be put to voters."

Supporters of Proposal 1 say that fits the state tradition. Voters approved Detroit's three casinos and the original Michigan Lottery, although they don't have jurisdiction over tribal gaming.

Anti-gambling groups have seized the chance to try and curtail expansion. With 17 Indian-run casinos and three casinos in Detroit, plus several horse racing tracks, Michigan may trail only Nevada and New Jersey in the number of gaming outlets.

But proposal opponents say the measure isn't about voters' rights at all. They say Proposal 1 is designed to give Detroit and Indian casinos a monopoly on gambling because it exempts them from voter approval.

"They've got theirs. Now they don't want anyone to compete with them," said James Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association. "I own hardware stores. Would I like to limit the Home Depots and Lowe's that are opening up? Sure. Do I think that would be legitimate? No way."

The proposal has produced some diverse alliances.

Byrum is the husband of House Minority Leader Dianne Byrum, a Democrat from Onondaga. He joins House Speaker Rick Johnson, a Republican from LeRoy, in opposing the proposal.

Anti-gambling groups have joined forces with casinos in support of the measure. Democratic Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick supports the proposal, as does Republican Dick Posthumus, a former lieutenant governor from the Kent County community of Alto.

One of the more contentious issues involves Proposal 1's possible affect on the Michigan Lottery. Opponents say the measure threatens the nearly $600 million provided by the lottery for public K-12 schools, a charge supporters deny.

Proposal 1 says voter approval would be needed for new state lottery games that include "table games" or "player operated mechanical or electronic devices" introduced after Jan. 1, 2004.

"It is difficult to imagine a broader term as applied to gaming devices," says an analysis of the proposal by Haslett-based Gaming Regulatory Consultants.

Proposal 1 opponents say it could derail games such as Fantasy 5, a number-picking game that debuted in September, and even the expansion of vending machines in grocery stores that dispense instant lottery tickets.

"It would be difficult for the lottery to remain competitive," said Kelly Rossman-McKinney, a spokeswoman for the opposition group called No Casino Monopolies. "They rely on new games to keep interest up."

Supporters of the proposal say it would not affect existing lottery games, or any future lottery game that is not casino-style. Proposal 1 supporters particularly resent charges made in opponents' advertising that implies taxes could be raised when lottery revenues fall short.

"Totally ridiculous," Posthumus said.

Rossman-McKinney said it could be up to the courts to decide what is and is not covered if the proposal passes.

"As with a lot of ballot proposals, a judge may ultimately decide," she said.

archive