Massachusetts Question 3, Casino Repeal Initiative (2014)
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
The Affordable Casino Repeal Initiative, Question 3 was on the November 2014 statewide ballot in Massachusetts as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated. The measure would have repealed a 2011 law allowing resort casinos to operate within the state.[1]
Based on the wording of the measure, a yes vote on Question 3 meant no casinos in the state, and a no vote would have upheld the law facilitating the licensing of up to three resort-style casinos.[2]
On June 18, 2014, the group Repeal the Casino Deal submitted approximately 26,000 signatures to local registrars for certification.[3] The measure was certified for the 2014 ballot on July 2, 2014.[4]
Election results
Below are the official, certified election results:
| Massachusetts Question 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No | 1,271,404 | 60.05% | ||
| Yes | 845,880 | 39.95% | ||
Election results via: Massachusetts Secretary of State
Text of measure
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[5]
| “ | This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races.
The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races. A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming. [6] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure was as follows:[5]
| “ | Be it enacted by the people and their authority:
SECTION 1. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out clause Tenth and inserting in place thereof the following clause: “Tenth, ’Illegal gaming,‘ a banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles or dominoes, or an electronic, electrical or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding: (i) a lottery game conducted by the state lottery commission, under sections 24, 24A and 27 of chapter 10; (ii) pari-mutuel wagering on horse races under chapters 128A and 128C; (iii) a game of bingo conducted under chapter 271; and (iv) charitable gaming under said chapter 271.” SECTION 2. Chapter 23K of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following section 72 following section 71: “Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter or any general or special law to the contrary, no illegal gaming as defined in section 7 of chapter 4 shall be conducted or permitted in this commonwealth and the commission is hereby prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request therefor.” SECTION 3. The several provisions of this Act are independent and severable and the invalidity, if any, of any part or feature thereof shall not affect or render the remainder of the Act invalid or inoperative. [6] |
” |
Background
In 2011, Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed the Expanded Gaming Act into law. The law was intended to bring jobs and additional revenue to the state by establishing three "destination resort casinos" located in "three geographically diverse regions across the state," with the three geographic regions broken down in the bill as follows:[7]
- Region A: Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex, Norfolk and Worcester counties
- Region B: Hampshire, Hampden, Franklin and Berkshire counties
- Region C: Bristol, Plymouth, Nantucket, Dukes and Barnstable counties
Additionally, one "single slots facility" was to be placed in one location within the state.
Support
The measure was sponsored by the group Repeal The Casino Deal.[8]
Arguments
The supporting group, Repeal the Casino Deal, encouraged voters to approve Question 3 for the following reasons:[9]
- Casinos were legalized when Massachusetts was desperate for jobs. Times have changed. Jobs are coming back.
- Casinos don’t offer good, stable jobs for local families.
- Casinos aren’t an economic engine. Just ask Atlantic City, Las Vegas and Detroit.
Repeal the Casino Deal published a report detailing myths versus facts. The following is an excerpt from the report:[9]
| “ |
MYTH: Massachusetts is desperate for jobs, and casinos are our only option to get people back to work. FACTS: Massachusetts has recovered from the recession far better than states with casinos - just look at the numbers. Our unemployment rate was just 5.5 percent in June, far below Rhode Island’s nation’s worst (7.9 percent) and other casino states like New Jersey (6.6 %), Connecticut (6.7 %) and Nevada (7.7 %). Our resilient Commonwealth has already added 131,000 jobs since the 2011 casino law passed and will continue to add 45,000 to 50,000 jobs each year through 2017 in vibrant industries such as finance, tech, health care and higher education. MYTH: Casinos would offer good, stable jobs for Massachusetts families. FACTS: In Revere, the minimum living wage for a single mother with one child is $49,843. About half of the jobs that Mohegan Sun could offer to Revere families pay below that living wage. By the industry’s own estimates, casinos will bring no more than 8,689 jobs here, most not created until 2017 and many temporary, part-time/entry-level positions with a 40 percent turn-over rate. That number includes laid-off casino workers coming from Atlantic City and Connecticut who will be more attractive hires because they require no training. MYTH: A successful repeal would mean slashing construction jobs. FACTS: Construction cranes pepper skylines across the Commonwealth. As we’ve bounced back from the recession, we’ve seen construction workers return to jobs on major public and private contracts. State job experts predict we will see a net increase of about 15,042 construction jobs by the close of 2015. MYTH: Casinos are strong economic engines that will carry our communities. FACTS: We know casinos here won’t be true global destinations like Las Vegas or Macau. Smaller venues like Reno and Atlantic City are desperately trying to rebrand - to cast themselves as hubs for industries where Massachusetts is already a leader, such as high tech. We don’t need a crystal ball to see what the future would be like with casinos; look no further than Connecticut, Rhode Island and Detroit to see the truth of the Federal Reserve’s analysis – casinos come with “little secondary economic impact."[6] |
” |
| —Repeal the Casino Deal | ||
According to support arguments listed in the state's voter guide:
| “ |
Massachusetts can do better than casinos. Just ask the "experts:"
Listen to the experts. Vote Yes: Stop the casino mess.[6] |
” |
| —Repeal The Casino Deal Committee[10] | ||
Campaign contributions
Total campaign cash  as of November 20, 2014 | |
 Support:
|
$728,012 |
 Opposition:
|
$15,364,043 |
As of November 20, 2014, two campaign organizations had received an aggregate total of $728,011 in contributions.[11]
PAC info:
| PAC/Ballot measure group | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Repeal the Casino Deal Committee | $726,875 | $691,164 |
| Yes on Three Massachusetts | $1,137 | $77 |
| Total | $728,012 | $691,241 |
Top contributors:
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Alan Lews | $270,000 |
| Amos Hostetter | $55,000 |
| Swanee Hunt | $35,000 |
| Linda Sallop | $25,000 |
Opposition
The official campaign opposing this measure was the Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs: Vote No on 3.[12]
Opponents
- Governor Deval Patrick (D)[13]
- Attorney General Martha Coakley (D)[14]
- Treasurer Steve Grossman(D)
- Jeffrey McCormick (I), 2014 gubernatorial candidate
- Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs[15]
- The Honorable Domenic Sarno, Mayor of Springfield[10]
Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs: "Vote No On 3" |
Arguments
According to opposition arguments listed in the state's voter guide:
| “ | A no vote will preserve the state's Expanded Gaming Law, generating thousands of construction and permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for our cities and towns. Every year Massachusetts residents spend close to $900,000,000 at casinos in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine adding millions to their state budgets.
The Law already has provided voters in several communities, including Springfield and Plainville, an opportunity to bring much needed jobs and economic activity to their communities through first-class development projects. At the same time, the Law has ensured that no community opposed to a casino within its borders will have one. To help further protect residents, the Law contains industry leading consumer safeguards and dedicated public health funding. Vote no on question 3 to create jobs, economic growth and much-needed new revenue in Massachusetts.[6] |
” |
| —The Honorable Domenic Sarno, Mayor of Springfield[10] | ||
Campaign contributions
As of November 20, 2014, two campaign organizations had received an aggregate total of more than $15.3 million in contributions.[11]
PAC info:
| PAC/Ballot measure group | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs (No on 3 Committee) | $15,082,648 | $14,311,701 |
| Everett United | $281,395 | $127,205 |
| Total | $15,364,043 | $14,438,906 |
Top contributors:
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Penn National Gaming Inc. | $6,662,327 |
| MGM Resorts International | $5,357,400 |
| Wynn Resorts | $3,000,045 |
Media editorial positions
Support
- The Boston Globe said,
| “ | The wording of the referendum question is frustrating, and widespread confusion over which side is represented by a no vote should cause a review of how ballot questions are presented to the public. Still, once voters work that out, the question becomes pretty clear. Supporters of casinos are correct: They create jobs, and three casino operators approved so far — Penn National in Plainville, Wynn Resorts in Everett, and MGM in Springfield — are among the strongest in the casino industry. But the last three years have shown that critics were right, too. Massachusetts took many risks, in terms of both quality of life and political integrity, to roll out the welcome mat for casinos. The heavy spending of the casino industry this election season is just a taste of what’s to come if casinos become embedded in the Commonwealth’s culture. It’s not worth the trade. Voters should repeal the casino legislation by voting yes on Question 3.[6] | ” |
| —Boston Globe[16] | ||
- The Daily Free Press said,
| “ | Yet, Massachusetts has functioned for years without casinos, and the truth is, the Commonwealth is doing just fine without them. Massachusetts recovered from the most recent economic recession faster than other states — without a casino — and continues to see economic growth.
And yes, casinos bring tourism, but this is Massachusetts, not Las Vegas. The Commonwealth, with its volatile weather and inconvenient locations, will never be the premier gambling destination of the East Coast. Do you know what else casinos bring? Crime, addiction and a whole range of seediness, something Massachusetts does not need. With that said, The Daily Free Press endorses a “Yes” vote to repeal the Expanded Gaming Law.[6] |
” |
| —Daily Free Press[17] | ||
Opposition
- The Boston Herald said,
| “ | Casinos are simply another form of economic development. They will mean jobs (about 10,000 permanent ones) and revenue (about $400 million a year for the state and localities). Just when all of that is within reach — and yes, in the case of Plainville, shovels already in the ground — is no time to turn back the clock.
We urge voters to vote “no” on Question 3.[6] |
” |
| —Boston Herald[18] | ||
- The Lowell Sun said,
| “ | Massachusetts residents spend almost $900 million annually at casinos in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine, according to state government figures. This is money that should be staying home, in the Bay State, and providing income for our own workers and their families.
Vote NO on Question 3 and preserve Massachusetts' casino gaming law and the new jobs, income, and tax revenue it will bring to our borders.[6] |
” |
| —Lowell Sun[19] | ||
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
| Massachusetts Question 3 (2014) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| The MassINC Polling Group 10/1/2014-10/4/2014 | 44.0% | 49.0% | 7.0% | +/-4.4 | 504 | ||||||||||||||
| UMass Amherst/WBZ Poll 9/18/2014-9/23/2014 | 42.0% | 48.0% | 10.0% | +/-4.4 | 708 | ||||||||||||||
| The MassINC Polling Group 9/16/2014-9/21/2014 | 41.0% | 51.0% | 8.0% | +/-4.4 | 502 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 42.33% | 49.33% | 8.33% | +/-4.4 | 571.33 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Path to the ballot
Supporters first had to submit the initiative, signed by ten voters, to the Massachusetts Attorney General by August 7, 2013. The attorney general then had to determine whether the measure met the legal requirements for circulation.[20] Attorney General Martha Coakley found the ballot question to be unconstitutional because the application fees paid by casinos for the prospective licenses represented a presumed contract. The measure’s supporters, however, appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.[13][21]
Supporters continued on with the ballot process, in spite of the pending judicial case. In order to qualify for the ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 68,911 valid signatures by November 20, 2013, and submit them to local registrars for certification. Then, these certified petitions were successfully filed with the secretary of state on the deadline of December 4, 2013, after which the secretary of state determined enough valid signatures had been collected. Repeal The Casino Deal submitted an estimated 73,000 signatures to the secretary of state.[22]
As of May 6, 2014, the Supreme Court had yet to rule on the case, so the ballot process continued. The Massachusetts General Court had until May 7, 2014, to either accept or reject the measure or take no action. No action was taken; therefore, the original supporters of the measure must collect an additional 11,485 signatures and submit them to local registrars for certification by June 18, 2014. These signatures then had to be filed with the secretary of state no later than July 2, 2014.[20][23][24]
On June 18, 2014, Repeal the Casino Deal submitted approximately 26,000 signatures to local registrars.[3] On June 24, 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the ballot question legal.[25] The measure was certified for the 2014 ballot on July 2, 2014.[4]
See also
- 2014 ballot measures
- Massachusetts 2014 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts
External links
Support
Opposition
- Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs
- Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs Facebook page
- Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs Twitter account
Footnotes
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Mass. gambling foes aim for a referendum," March 9, 2013
- ↑ MassLive, "Wording of ballot question repealing Massachusetts casino law could prove confusing in November," July 17, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Boston.com, "Anti-Casino Group Gathers Repeal Effort Signatures," June 17, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 New England Public Radio, "4 Ballot Questions Before Mass. Voters," July 3, 2014
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Massachusetts Secretary of State, "Question 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming," accessed September 17, 2014
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Massachusetts Gaming Commission, "Expanded Gaming Act: What You Need to Know," accessed September 30, 2014
- ↑ Repeal the Casino Deal, "Homepage," accessed October 21, 2014
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Repeal the Casino Deal, "Facts vs. Myth: Jobs and Casinos," accessed October 21, 2014
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Massachusetts Information for Voters: 2014 Ballot Questions, "Question 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming," accessed September 30, 2014
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 OCPF, "Question 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming," accessed December 7, 2014
- ↑ Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs, "Homepage," accessed September 30, 2014
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Worcester Telegram, "Repeal of casino law, capping eternal gas tax, among ballot questions," December 9, 2013
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Gubernatorial candidates reflect on casino law," December 4, 2013
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Casino law ad focuses on jobs," September 23, 2014
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Yes on Question 3: Pull the plug on flawed casino law," October 25, 2014
- ↑ Daily Free Press, "EDIT: Massachusetts Ballot Question 3," October 29, 2014
- ↑ Boston Herald, "Editorial: No on Question 3," October 16, 2014
- ↑ Lowell Sun, "Vote 'no' on Question 3," October 27, 2014
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 State Ballot Question Petitions, "CALENDAR FOR AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT," accessed December 3, 2013
- ↑ Office of the Attorney General, "Attorney General's Decision," accessed December 8, 2013
- ↑ South Coast Today, "Bottle bill expansion, limits to gas-tax on track for 2014 ballot," December 4, 2013
- ↑ Weymouth News, "State House News -- Initiative petition campaigns keep on pace for 2014 ballot," December 4, 2013
- ↑ Massachusetts Secretary of State, "State Ballot Question Petitions," accessed May 13, 2014
- ↑ Boston Globe, "SJC allows a casino repeal vote," June 24, 2014
 |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
