Ohio Casino Measure, Issue 6 (2008)

Voting on Gambling
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

The Ohio Casino Measure, Issue 6, was a proposed constitutional amendment to authorize the building of one privately owned $600,000,000 resort/casino near Wilmington, Ohio, between Columbus and Cincinnati. If voters had approved the measure, it would have authorized the first casino in Ohio. This measure appeared on the ballot on the November 4, 2008 ballot where it was defeated.

A total of $62.2 million was spent on the campaigns for and against Issue 6, more than doubling the previous record for the most-expensive campaign in Ohio history. Casino supporters spent $12.97 per "yes" vote while opponents spent $10.90 for each "no" vote.

Arno Political Consultants sent a total of 812,978 signatures to The Ohio SOS's office. The signatures were certified at 62% validity.

Indictments

Three circulators involved in a fraud ring have been indicted on criminal charges. Joe Copija, Roderice Cortez Lacy and Deborah Ramirez, who all live in California, are thought to have circulated illegal petitions in support of the Ohio Issue 6 for the November 2008 general election. They are accused of breaking Ohio residency requirements and paying in-staters to sign off on their own work.

The state of Ohio now allowed out-of-state circulators to petition in Ohio.

Election results

Issue 6 (2008)
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		3,352,931	62.85%
Yes		1,981,490	37.15%

Election results via: Ohio Secretary of State 2008 Election Results

Background

The proposed casino would have been a 97-acre complex off Interstate 71 near Wilmington with up to 5,000 slot machines and 120 table games. As envisioned, the casino complex would have been larger than any single casino in Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis or Minneapolis.

The campaign over the casino measure was fierce and expensive. The total amount spent, pro and con, exceeded $50 million by late October, making it one of the most expensive ballot issue campaigns in the country. Lawsuits and legal complaints were also not in short supply.

October's lawsuit duel

Lawsuit against "No on 6"

On October 24, supporters of Issue 6 filed a lawsuit in the Franklin County court of common pleas, naming the "No on 6" campaign and Penn National Gaming, Inc.(the major donor to "No on 6") as defendants. The lawsuit charges that the television advertising campaign of the "No on 6" forces contains false and defamatory statements.

The lawsuit came after a decision reached on October 23 by a panel of the Ohio Elections Commission to the effect that there is probable cause to believe that the advertising run by the "No on 6" campaign includes some false statements. The 3-person election panel voted 2-1 in reaching this decision; the next step is for the full seven-member Commission to consider the charges.

The statements in the "No on 6" ads that are controversial are:

• The claim that under Issue 6, there is "no set tax" that owners of the proposed casino would have to pay;
• The claim that if Issue 6 passes, it would take hundreds of millions of dollars in profits out of the state every year.

The "No on 6" side says it believes it will prevail in the hearing before the full commission. It says that the claim it is making in advertising that hundreds of millions of dollars in profits will leave Ohio if Issue 6 passes is based on the fact that the group that would own the new casino, Lakes Entertainment, is located in Minnesota, so most of the eventual profits from the casino would, in that sense, go out of state. The "Yes on 6" side contends, in opposition, that "the phrase, 'taking millions of dollars a year out of Ohio,' is absolutely false."

Lawsuit against pro-6 campaign

On October 24, Penn National Gaming, Inc. said that it will soon file two lawsuits. One is against MyOhioNow PAC, the main supporters of Issue 6, and three individuals who are key leaders in the pro-Issue 6 campaign. This lawsuit says that certain television advertising supported by the defendants is false and defamatory.

A second lawsuit will be filed by Penn National against MyOhioNow for, as a press release says, "continuing to try to deceive the voters of Ohio by perpetuating in its press statements the blatantly false and misleading claim that the proposed casino 'must pay a 30% gross gaming win tax.'".

Supporters

Clinton County, site of proposed casino

My Ohio Now is sponsoring the initiative. The group is run by Dr. Bradford Pressman and Rick A. Lertzman. Lakes Entertainment Inc. and their Chief Executive, Lyle Berman, joined the effort in May 2008.

Arguments in favor of Issue 6

Notable arguments made in favor of passing Issue 6 included:

• It would bring 5,000 jobs to Ohio. As the economy is declining, proponents of Issue 6 are making this a main focus of their campaign.

• The casino would generate $800 million a year in revenue, with $240 million to be split among Ohio counties based on population.

• Ohioans who currently leave the state to gamble at casinos in other states, such as the Argosy Casino in Indiana, 30 miles from downtown Cincinnati, will instead stay in Ohio to gamble.

Donations to "Yes on 6"

The casino interests backing Ohio 6 put $26 million into the campaign to pass the measure, about $10 million less than was spent by their opponents.

Opposition

Historically, gambling initiatives have not fared well in Ohio. Voters have rejected similar measure three times, most recently in 2006.

The three main sources of opposition to Issue 6 are No on 6, Vote No Casinos, and UNITE Here, which is a union representing workers at casino-related industries.,

The "No on 6" group is primarily sponsored by Penn National Gaming, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based casino company that operates one casino in Indiana, less than 30 miles from downtown Cincinnati. Its motivation for opposing Issue 6 is seen as trying to eliminate a potential competitor.

The "Vote No Casinos" group has been described as "a cash-poor anti-gambling group"; this group's motivation for opposing Issue 6 is that it opposes gambling on moral and economic grounds. The theme of a new series of ads it will be running is "Gambling ruins lives." David Zanotti is the leader of this group. Zanotti is also the president of The American Policy Roundtable, which is regarded as having spearheaded successful opposition to prior casino initiatives in the state.

Arguments against Issue 6

Notable arguments made against Issue 6 include:

• It is a $1 billion give-away to a private casino company; if there is to be another casino, the state of Ohio could sell the right to open one for up to $1 billion.

• The proposal would give a monopoly on casino gambling to one company, and the casino would pay virtually nothing under the proposal to the state of Ohio for the privilege. Some states have charged in the hundreds of millions for extending a similar privilege to casinos.

• The claim that it would bring crime and cause families to lose money they need for basic household expenses.

• The wording of the initiative allows loopholes for more than one casino to be built in the state by Indian tribes. Opponents argue the measure would provide a boost to an Oklahoma-based Indian tribe that's been struggling for years to win federal approval to open one or more casinos in Ohio. If the Eastern Shawnee tribe succeeds, the wording of Issue 6 would allow the operators of the Clinton County casino to lower their tax rate from the 30 percent in the ballot measure to as little as zero.

• "It causes tremendous concern in the community and generates a tremendous need for social services that need to be provided."

• "If Indian casinos locate in Ohio and are taxed at the federal rate of zero, I think under terms of the amendment, the tax rate on the casino would drop to zero and the counties would get nothing," said D. Michael Grodhaus, attorney for the Vote No Casinos group.

• The UNITE Here union believes the new casino would be non-union and that the jobs would not pay as well as its supporters have been saying.

Donations to "No on 6"

Opponents of Ohio 6 put $36 million into the campaign to defeat the measure, about $10 million more than was spent by their opponents.

Most of the donations came from Penn National Gaming. In Maryland, Penn National Gaming is on the opposite side of the casino issue; there, the organization has donated $1,000,000 to the effort to pass the Maryland Casino Measure, Question 2.

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Month of Poll	Polling company	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
August 2008	Quinnipiac University Polling Institute	60%	35%	5%
September 2008	Columbus Dispatch	50%	41%	9%
September 2008	SurveyUSA	62%	31%	7%

The September poll conducted by the Columbus Dispatch was of about 2,300 Ohioans likely to vote; it was conducted from Sept. 24-Oct. 3.

Newspaper editorial positions

Editorial boards opposed

The Youngstown Vindicator is opposed to Issue 6, saying, "We remain convinced that regardless of the additional tax revenue promised by casino operators, the social costs of gambling are, in the end, higher. Casino gambling is the biggest redistribution of wealth scheme ever invented; it takes from the poor and gives to the rich."

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is opposed to Issue 6 saying, "[E]ven if the [tax] estimate is solid (foes say it can't be), that's just 5 cents a day per resident. If that's a windfall, ping-pong balls are hailstones... For Greater Clevelanders, Issue 6 may offer a marginal upside -- additional cash for Cuyahoga County's government. But it also offers a major downside -- geography. A casino 200 miles from Cleveland won't stanch the flow to Detroit and Erie of Greater Cleveland entertainment dollars. The Plain Dealer recommends a "no" vote on Issue 6."

The Zanesville Times Recorder is opposed, saying, "The only way to keep the house from winning your money is not to play. Any initiative written by gaming interests is a bad bet for Ohio."

The Toledo Blade is opposed, saying that a gambling casino monopoly should not be enshrined in Ohio's Constitution. "Ohio's economy cannot be rebuilt by taking advantage of human frailty, only by encouraging industries that create good jobs producing beneficial products. And its Constitution should not be cluttered with special-interest provisions."

The Chilliclothe Gazette is opposed, saying, "...the current ballot issue is too risky - one our state shouldn't take.

See also: Endorsements of Ohio ballot measures

Path to the ballot

On Tuesday, August 5, 2008, the group My Ohio Now delivered 800,000 signatures to Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The organization went well over the minimum number 402,275 petitioners and will likely have more than enough votes to put the measure on the ballot on November 4 ballot.

The organization released a statement:

"This has been an exciting opportunity to reach out to Ohio voters in all 88 counties. The response has been overwhelmingly favorable. We are very appreciative of the effort of hundreds of Ohioans who have helped us in this effort to place this issue on the November 4th ballot. Ohioans are excited for this positive economic news. The prospect of up to 5000 new jobs is a bright spot in a year in which we have faced so much financial adversity and challenges. We look forward to a positive and honest campaign to get the support of Ohio voters. We look towards our opposition to come from casinos in states that neighbor Ohio, as they have enjoyed the economic benefits from Ohioans for many years. When this issue passes, their free lunch will end," said Rick Lertzman, co-founder of MyOhioNow.com.

Arno Political Consultants is the petition drive management company collecting signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Opponents want issue off ballot

A newly formed opposition group is asking Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to keep the initiative off the ballot and filed a formal protest Monday. The No on Issue 6 Campaign -- which is backed by owners of the Argosy Casino in Lawrenceburg, Indiana -- seek to have the petition signatures gathered by the Ohio casino group invalidated and the issue removed from the ballot.

The Ohio voter filing the protest, Andy Bowers, is the treasurer for the anti- campaign, which opposes the creation of the $600 million casino project in Wilmington.

In his protest, Bowers alleges that MyOhioNow and the people it hired to do its signature-collecting failed to file the needed paperwork before beginning the collection of the first 1,000 signatures in late 2007, a requirement under Ohio law.

"The argument in the filing is that a step was missed and the entire process was invalid," said the anti-casino group spokesman Bob Tennenbaum.

Failing to file the paperwork before collecting signatures is a first-degree misdemeanor and all petitions gathered without the paperwork in place "shall be deemed invalid," according to state law.

Measure certified; protest fails

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office certified that MyOhioNow.com, the committee pitching the casino, submitted 480,003 valid signatures on their petition -- about 75,000 more than the minimum to qualify.

Brunner also tossed a protest by an anti-casino group, No on 6, that said that some petition circulators had failed to fill out necessary paperwork.

Brunner noted that the No on 6 group had months to question the petition circulation process but failed to do so.

The group also noted a poll from the Wilmington News Journal that said 63% of Ohioans favor the casino.

Other Ohio casino initiatives

• Ohio Casino Initiative (2009)

Ohio voters have rejected three previous ballot initiatives that tried to authorize casinos in the state, most recently in 2006:

• Ohio Casino Gambling (2006)
• Ohio Riverboat Gambling Initiative (1996)
• Ohio Casino in Lorain (1990).

See also

• Endorsements of Ohio ballot measures
• List of Ohio ballot measures
• 2008 ballot measures

External links

Basic information

• More information, plus arguments for and against this measure from The Ohio Ballot Board
• Text of measure
• Buckeye Institute policy brief, Ohio Casino Giveaway

Supporters

• Yes on Issue 6

Opponents

• No Issue 6
• Vote No Casinos, opposition group
• Record of donations to "No on 6"

Additional reading

• Casinos on ballot, August 28, 2008
• Pastors oppose two Ohio ballot issues
• Don't Vote No, Vote Hell No
• Large opposition campaign assails Ohio casino initiative
• No on 6, Yes on 5, Toledo Blade
• Ballot issues inspire closer look at strategies
• Business Wire: "Lakes Entertainment, Inc. Announces Status of Ohio Petition Drive", July 1, 2008
• iStockAnalyst: "Casino Vote Could Hit Home: Commissioners Say Approval Might Rejuvenate Local Effort", July 22, 2008
• Columbus Business First: "Casino opponents say loopholes open door for more", August 22, 2008
• The Columbus Dispatch: "Casino backers criticize foes, will debate them anyway", September 19, 2008
• Issue 6 on Casinos: Frequently Asked Questions