Editorial: Go slow on lottery idea

Monday, Jan. 24, 2005 | 8:58 a.m.

With the regularity of a waterwheel, the Legislature keeps returning to the same wishing well -- a state lottery -- for money to close Nevada's gaps in education funding. In past legislative sessions attempts to institute a lottery have come up dry. The 2005 session might be different, however, as Democratic leaders are vowing to support a lottery bill.

This is in contrast with previous sessions, when bills presented by individual lawmakers received no support from the leadership and, consequently, went nowhere. But now two Democratic leaders, both of whom are probable candidates for governor, are supporting a lottery. Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, and Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, cite a revenue potential of as much as $50 million in the first year. They say the money would be directed toward specific education needs, such as textbooks.

Since state lotteries began in New Hampshire in 1964, they have steadily spread. Today 41 states and the District of Columbia have them. The Nevada Constitution now prohibits a lottery, but that could be changed if a lottery is approved at two legislative sessions and then at the ballot in a statewide election.

We hope the proposal for a lottery is analyzed in a balanced manner. It's true that lotteries infuse many state treasuries with millions of dollars. But there are questions that should be asked and answered.

Do we really want the state to staff and operate a gambling enterprise, one that would compete, albeit in a minor way, with Nevada's largest industry? It would require setting up a commission and hiring a perpetually increasing staff to buy the required technology, establish offices around the state, distribute video lottery terminals, set up and operate a Web site, collect the proceeds and make the payouts, guard against fraud, pay commissions to ticket sellers and engage in myriad other responsibilities.

Will the state engage in deceptive advertising, emphasizing the thrill and likelihood of winning when in actuality the odds are overwhelmingly against the players?

Where will the money actually go? To education, as promised, or somewhere else? Will the state reduce its education funding proportionate to the lottery proceeds as many other states have done despite their promises? How can the state guard against minors playing the lottery?

These are just some of the questions that have never been satisfactorily answered and which have led to this newspaper's opposition to a state lottery when it has been proposed in the past. We also have a more fundamental question: Doesn't Nevada have an obligation to guarantee, through taxes, that education receives enough funding, including for textbooks? Is it right to make the provision of textbooks conditional on fluctuating lottery proceeds? Should we gamble on education?

In any legislative debate on a lottery, we'd like to see legislators devote lengthy consideration to these kinds of questions before plunging ahead based on projections of millions in easy money.