Oregon Job Growth Education And Communities Fund Act, Part I (2010)
|Not on Ballot|
| This measure did not or |
will not appear on a ballot
According to reports, the proposed casino would have been built on 33 acres at 223rd Avenue and Halsey Street. The complex would have included a 14-screen movie theater, a hall for concerts and conventions, a 290-room hotel, a 38-lane bowling center, and indoor and outdoor water parks. Supporters said 70% of the complex would have been non-gaming. Thirty-percent of the complex's tax revenue would have gone towards Multnomah County, while 2 percent would have gone towards a problem-gambling fund.
On petition deadline day, July 2, supporters announced they submitted an estimated 176,566 signatures, exceeding the state's minimum requirement of 110,358 signatures. On July 27, the secretary of state announced that the initiative failed to meet the state's requirements. Only 104,629 signatures were verified.
The proposed measure was Part I of a two part question. Part II, which also filed signatures on July 2, called for creating a gaming tax of 25% of gross revenues for education, state police, and local governments across the state. Part II is scheduled to appear on the November ballot.
Since the project required the approval of both initiatives (Initiative 76 (Part I) and 77 (Part II)) and only one was certified, in order to remove Initiative 77 from the ballot sponsors would have to go to court. According to reports, sponsors gave no indication if they planned to pursue that option. In response to the secretary of state's July 27 announcement, Matt Rossman, sponsor of the petition initiative, said that after speaking to the signature gathering firm, Democracy Resources, they believed the state office might have made a mistake and planned to pursue a lawsuit. Rossman said, "At this point, I think it’s safe to say that we will be filing a lawsuit to challenge the decision which will more than likely be filed tomorrow."
On August 23, 2010 initiative supporters dropped their lawsuit efforts. In the August announcement, supporters said a constitutional amendment wasn't necessary to build and operate a facility in Wood Village. Others disagree and argue that the constitution clearly bans non-tribal casinos.
Text of measure
Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends current constitutional prohibition on legislature to allow one privately owned casino if authorized by voters through initiative.
Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains the current constitutional prohibition stating that the legislature cannot authorize, and must prohibit, the operation of casinos in the State of Oregon.
Summary: Amends Oregon Constitution. Currently, the Oregon Constitution bars the legislature from authorizing, and requires the legislature to prohibit, the operation of any casino in the State of Oregon. That prohibition has its origin in the same constitutional amendment that authorized the creation of the Oregon State Lottery in 1984. Measure amends Article XV, section 4(12), of the Oregon Constitution by adding, to the current wording prohibiting all casinos, new wording that requires the state state legislature to allow the operation of one, but only one, privately owned casino somewhere within the state if voters authorize such as a casino by initiative. Measure provides that the legislature must continue to otherwise prohibit casinos from operating within the state. Measure does not affect the legality of tribal casinos.
The proposed initiative was primarily sponsored by Matthew K. Rossman and Bruce Studer. On May 7, supporters announced a financial partnership with Oregon Gaming & Entertainment Co., principals Studer & Rossman: an Oregon-based investment company; MGP Racing, principal Arthur McFadden: owner of Multnomah Greyhound Park; Navegante Group: A Las Vegas-based hospitality company specializing in casino development, consulting and management; Clairvest: A Canada-based investor in North American gaming-development companies; and, Innovation Capital: A Los Angeles-based gaming, leisure and hospitality investment banking firm.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Oregon signature requirements
Petitions for an initiated constitutional amendment required eight percent of 1,379,475, or 110,358 signatures. The deadline for filing signatures for the November 2, 2010 ballot was July 2, 2010. According to reports, on July 2 supporters filed approximately 176,566 signatures. At least 62.6% validity rating was required to qualify the measure for the ballot. The Secretary of State's office had 30 days to verify the names.
- See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation
A lawsuit was filed July 28, 2010 in Marion County Circuit Court by initiative supporters. According to reports, supporters argued that the state’s petition signature-counting methods were invalid and may have resulted in the rejection of valid signatures thus causing the initiative to fail to qualify for the ballot. However, according to state officials signatures included people who identified themselves as "Satan" and "Moe Szyslak," the bartender on the TV show "The Simpsons." Despite official counts, supporters said they checked the submitted signatures themselves and found a validity rating above the number required to qualify.
On August 23, 2010 initiative supporters dropped their lawsuit efforts. In their August announcement, supporters said a constitutional amendment wasn't necessary to build and operate a facility in Wood Village. Greg Chaimov, a Davis Wright Tremaine attorney working with the group, said the state's ban on non-tribal casinos "applies to the legislative assembly, not to the people. Ballot Measure 75 will become law if the people vote in favor on Nov. 2." Others disagree and argue that the constitution clearly bans non-tribal casinos. Additionally, opponents argue that the initiative process does not circumvent the law because it is an exercise of the legislative process and is thus subject to the same restrictions as the legislature.
The state constitution states, "The Legislative Assembly has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit, casinos from operation in the state of Oregon." Tribal casinos are not subject to the prohibition.
- Oregon casino initiative supporters move ahead without constitutional amendment
- Part I of the Oregon non-tribal casino initiative falls short, Part II makes the cut
- Six initiatives file signatures in Oregon
- Details of the Oregon Job Growth Education And Communities Fund Act, Part I
- Full text of proposed act
- March 4, 2010 letter from Attorney General of Oregon certifying a ballot title
- Willamette Week, "Casino Backers Drop Lawsuit Against Oregon. But Wait, There’s More," August 23, 2010
- Blue Oregon, "Shocker: Casino constitutional amendment fails to qualify," July 27, 2010
- The Gresham Outlook, "Talking is OK, but casino still a long shot," April 3, 2010
- Daily Journal of Commerce (Oregon),"Casino developers get signatures to proceed," July 2, 2010
- The Outlook Online, "Casino backers unveil vision," July 9, 2010
- The Oregonian, "Wood Village casino supporters gather enough signatures to place two measures on November ballot," July 6, 2010
- Associated Press, "Measure for 1st Ore. non-tribal casino falls short," July 27, 2010
- Willamette Week, "Bad News For Backers of Casino Proposal (UPDATED with comment from casino backer)," July 27, 2010
- The Oregon Politico, "Effort to legalize private casinos fails, but Multnomah County Casino makes the cut," July 27, 2010
- Statesman Journal, "Casino backers might go to court," July 28, 2010
- Oregon Public Broadcasting, "Casino Backers Say No Constitutional Amendment Needed," August 23, 2010
- Oregon Secretary of State, "Initiative 76 ballot title," March 4, 2010
- Oregon Secretary of State, "Oregon Job Growth Education And Communities Fund Act summary," accessed May 11, 2010
- The Oregonian, "Wood Village casino backers launch initiative signature drive," May 7, 2010
- Lake Oswego Review,'Casino developers announce backers," May 7, 2010
- DJC Oregon, "Casino secures funding, needs signatures," May 10, 2010
- Blue Oregon, "Signatures turned in for fall ballot measures," July 3, 2010
- The Statesman Journal, "Ballot proposals address marijuana, prisons, casino," July 3, 2010
- The Oregonian, "Six citizen initiatives may make Oregon's November ballot," July 2, 2010
- Portland Business Journal, "Wood Village casino supporters file signatures," July 2, 2010
- Portland Business Journal, "Wood Village casino effort hits major roadblock," July 27, 2010
- Statesman Journal, "Initiative to allow nontribal casinos fails to qualify for ballot," July 27, 2010
- Portland Business Journal, "Casino backers file lawsuit," July 29, 2010
- The Portland Tribune, "Casino fight might head to court," July 29, 2010
- Statesman Journal, "Casino backers might go to court," July 28, 2010
- Statesman Journal, "Casino backers drop lawsuit," August 24, 2010
- Portland Business Journal, "Casino supporters drop ballot lawsuit," August 23, 2010
- Portland Tribune, "Casino backers press ahead without Constitutional measure," August 23, 2010
- Blue Oregon, "M75: Wood Village Casino campaign moves forward," August 23, 2010
- The Register-Guard, "Casino campaign will go on," August 24, 2010
State of Oregon
List of Oregon ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | History of direct democracy | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process |
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Administrator of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Director of Fish and Wildlife | Commissioner of Labor and Industries | Commissioner of Public Utilities |