Difference between revisions of "Maine Slot Machine Facility Initiative, Question 3 (2011)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 55: Line 55:
The following is information obtained from the opposing side of the measure:
* The main group in opposition to Question 3 is '''"No More Casinos Maine"''' and '''CasinosNo!'''.  
* The main group in opposition to Question 3 is '''"No More Casinos Maine"''' and '''CasinosNo!'''.  

Revision as of 10:02, 26 October 2011

Slot Machine Facility
Flag of Maine.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:State statute
State code:MRSA §1001, §1003, §1011...
Referred by:Green Jobs for ME PAC
Status:On the ballot
The Maine Slot Machine Facility Question will appear on the November 8, 2011 ballot in the state of Maine as an indirect initiated state statute. The measure deals with establishing a slot machine facility in the state, and will appear before voters due to the initiative's proponents collecting enough signatures in order to gain ballot access.[1]

Supporters claimed before the January 20, 2011 petition drive deadline that they had collected enough signatures, however, they stated they would rather that the Maine Legislature enact a law during 2011 legislative session that would establish a casino when lawmakers review the measure.[2]

Text of measure

Ballot language

The language that voters will see on the ballot reads:[3]

"Do you want to allow a casino with table games and slot machines in Lewiston?"


The title of the measure reads:[1]

An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility.


The summary of the measure reads as follows:[4]

This initiated bill authorizes the establishment of a slot machine facility in a municipality with a population of at least 30,000 in which slot machines were not in operation as of July 1, 2010 if the person who applies for a license to operate slot machines holds an option to purchase real property located in and owned by that municipality that was in effect on July 1, 2010 and approved by the voters of the municipality no later than July 1, 2010.
The initiated bill removes the existing limit on the total number of slot machines that may be registered in this State, 1,500 machines, and replaces it with a limit of 1,500 slot machines at each licensed slot machine facility.
The initiated bill provides for regulation of the slot machine facility authorized in the initiated bill by the Gambling Control Board.
The slot machine operator would be required to collect and distribute 1% of gross slot machine income to the Treasurer of State for deposit in the General Fund for the administrative expenses of the Gambling Control Board. The initiated bill also requires the slot machine operator to collect and distribute 40% of net slot machine income to the board for distribution to various entities, in specified percentages for a variety of purposes that are also specified in the bill.

Fiscal note

The fiscal note of the referendum cost reads as follows:

The Secretary of State's budget includes sufficient funds to accommodate one ballot of average length for the general election in November. If the number or size of the referendum questions requires production and delivery of a second ballot, an additional appropriation of $107,250 may be required.

The full "Preliminary Fiscal Impact Statement for Original Bill" can be read here.



  • The Lewiston City Council is supporting the measure. At a city council meeting held on October 4, 2011, the council voted 5-1 vote to endorse it.[5]
  • The Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council threw support behind the measure.[6]
  • Lewiston Mayor Larry Gilbert stated his support saying: "Where else in Maine have we seen job creation such as this?"[6]


  • Developers in Maine argue that the proposed measure and new facility could create an estimated 800 construction jobs and 500 full-time jobs.[7]
"We need jobs, we need investment dollars, and we need to treat every business opportunity the same," said Harold Clossey from the Sunrise County Economic Council.[7]
  • The Passamaquoddy Tribe argues that the unemployment rates in Washington county and on the reservation continue to increase and that the proposed measure may help attract more jobs.[7]


The following is information obtained from the opposing side of the measure:

  • The main group in opposition to Question 3 is "No More Casinos Maine" and CasinosNo!.
  • The campaign group argues that we need to step back and see if current casinos and gambling in the state are effective in attracting more revenue and jobs. The expansion, said Matthew Boucher, a member of the campaign group, is happening too fast.[7]
  • State Rep. Tyler Clark said, "If we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed with casinos, it could be harmful. It's important for people not to think that this is the magic bullet that will save us from a bad economy." Clark added that new casinos may steal competition away from existing gambling locations.[7]
Gambling on the ballot in 2011
NevadaUtahColorado 2011 ballot measuresNew MexicoArizonaMontanaCaliforniaOregonWashington 2011 ballot measuresIdahoOklahomaKansasNebraskaSouth DakotaNorth DakotaIowaMissouriArkansas 2011 ballot measuresLouisiana 2011 ballot measuresAlabamaGeorgiaFloridaSouth CarolinaIllinoisTennesseeNorth CarolinaIndianaOhio 2011 ballot measuresMaine 2011 ballot measuresVirginiaNew Jersey 2011 ballot measuresVermontVermontMarylandRhode IslandRhode IslandMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMichiganAlaskaHawaiiWyomingTexas 2011 ballot measuresMississippi 2011 ballot measuresMinnesotaWisconsinKentuckyWest VirginiaPennsylvaniaDelawareDelawareConnecticutConnecticutNew YorkNew HampshireNew HampshireCertified, gambling, 2011 Map.png
  • According to Dennis Bailey, executive director of the Casinos No!: "There isn't a town in America where a casino has improved a downtown or revived a downtown or brought business downtown. It doesn't work that way. In fact, it does the opposite. It drives business away."[6]
Bailey stated that campaigns supporting the measure are promising more tax revenues than the state can get: “[Tax revenues] are not allocated fairly, and the campaigns have confused the public,” Bailey said. “The problem is these campaign promises [that are made] when they’re trying to get a casino built. It’s a show game. They say the state will receive around 40 percent of the revenues, but in reality it’s something like 14 percent.”[8]

Campaign contributions


Donor Amount
Green Jobs for ME $41,654.95
Total $41,654.95


The following are contributions that have been made toward the campaign against the measure:

Donor Amount
Penobscot County for Table Games & Jobs $100,000.00
No More Casinos Maine $4,740.00
Casinos No! $2,675.00
Total $107,415.00

Media editorial positions

Endorsements of Maine ballot measures, 2011


  • The Bangor Daily News stated: "Lewiston officials would do better to build ties to the economic hub that is Greater Portland and persuade developers to save some, if not all of the Bates Mill through incentives. A Lewiston casino is one too many. Question 3 should be defeated."[9]

Path to the ballot

See also: Maine signature requirements

Initiative filing

See also: Beginning the initiative process in Maine

Any Maine registered voter may propose a citizen initiative or a people's veto referendum, according to state law. The voter must first submit a one-page notarized form entitled "Application for Citizen Initiative" or "Application for People's Veto Referendum" to the Secretary of State's office. The completed application must contain the names, addresses and signatures of 5 Maine registered voters, in addition to the applicant, who are designated to receive any notices related to the processing of the application. The Secretary of State must approve the ballot summary before the petition can be circulated for signatures.[10],[11]

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


See also: Signature requirements in Maine

In order to place the measure on the 2011 ballot, a minimum of 58,054 valid signatures were required by January 20, 2011. The number of signatures required by law represents 10% of the total votes cast for governor (excluding blanks) in the most recent election as established in Article 4, Part Third, Section 18, sub-section 2 of the Maine Constitution.[12]

Signature filing and verification

See also: Signature filing deadlines in Maine

The deadline for the Maine Secretary of State to verify signatures for this measure, according to the office, was February 4, 2011. The measure was only one of two Maine initiative efforts to file signatures by the January 20 deadline. Before signature submission, measure supporter Stavros Mendros stated about the signatures collected during the petition drive, "We figure we'll have 7,000 to 8,000 extra. I want to get them turned in now because I'd rather have them stored someplace safe. I want them in a nice secure location where they can start processing them." [12][13]

Legislative review

See also: Maine Legislature's response to certified initiatives

Since the number of signatures have been verified, and because the measure is an indirect initiated state statute, the measure will go to the state legislature for review. If legislators don't vote to adopt a similar law, it will remain on the November 2011 ballot.

The initiative is scheduled to be reviewed by the state legislature as the Maine Secretary of State found that supporters had collected enough signatures. Signatures were certified by the February 4, 2011 deadline. According to Stavros Mendros, organizer of the petition drive: "We're obviously delighted. We're ecstatic. We're ready to move forward with the next step."[14]

The measure took one step closer to becoming law in early June 2011, which would skip public vote on the issues during the 2011 general election.[15]

On June 6, 2011, the Maine House of Representatives approved both initiatives, sending them to the Maine State Senate for a similar vote. Then on June 9, 2011, the Maine State Senate voted against the measure. It will now remain on the ballot.[16]



The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure.

Event Date Developments
Deadline Jan. 20, 2011 The deadline to submit signatures in the state for the 2011 ballot.
Deadline Feb. 4, 2011 Secretary of state validated signatures, placing measure on the ballot.
Election Nov. 8, 2011 General election, where the measure will be presented to voters.

See also

Suggest a link

Additional reading