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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Election results)
m (Text replace - "{{AOrtiz}}" to "{{submit a link}}")
(36 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
  referred  = [http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/entity_summary.asp?TYPE=PAC&ID=5263&LIMIT=&YEAR=2010 Green Jobs for ME PAC]|
 
  referred  = [http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/entity_summary.asp?TYPE=PAC&ID=5263&LIMIT=&YEAR=2010 Green Jobs for ME PAC]|
 
  topic = [[:Category:Certified, gambling, 2011|Gambling]]|
 
  topic = [[:Category:Certified, gambling, 2011|Gambling]]|
  status = On the ballot|
+
  status = Defeated {{defeated}}|
}}{{tnr}}The '''Maine Slot Machine Facility Question''' will appear on the [[Maine 2011 ballot measures|November 8, 2011]] ballot in the state of [[Maine]] as an {{iissfull}}.  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.<ref name=petitions> [http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/pets02/pets02-1.htm ''Maine Secretary of State'', "Citizen Initiative Petitions Currently Approved for Circulation", Retrieved January 3, 2011]</ref> 
+
}}{{tnr}}The '''Maine Slot Machine Facility Question''' appeared on the [[Maine 2011 ballot measures|November 8, 2011]] ballot in the state of [[Maine]] as an {{iissfull}} where it was '''defeated.'''{{defeated}}
  
Supporters claimed before the [[BC2011#January|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 [[Dates of 2011 state legislative sessions|2011 legislative session]] that would establish a casino when [[#Legislative review|lawmakers review the measure.]]<ref> [http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/963718 ''Sun Journal'', "With signatures in hand, casino backers urge legislators to adopt plan", December 31, 2010]</ref>
+
The measure dealt with establishing a slot machine facility in the state, and appeared before voters due to the initiative's proponents collecting enough signatures in order to gain ballot access.<ref name=petitions> [http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/pets02/pets02-1.htm ''Maine Secretary of State'', "Citizen Initiative Petitions Currently Approved for Circulation", Retrieved January 3, 2011]</ref> 
 +
 
 +
Supporters claimed before the [[BC2011#January|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 [[Dates of 2011 state legislative sessions|2011 legislative session]] that would establish a casino when [[#Legislative review|lawmakers review the measure.]] This did not happen.<ref> [http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/963718 ''Sun Journal'', "With signatures in hand, casino backers urge legislators to adopt plan", December 31, 2010]</ref>
 +
==Aftermath==
 +
 
 +
On [[BC2012#January|January 25, 2012]], the Maine Ethics Commission launched an investigation regarding campaign financing for the measure. The commission began the investigation to find out who spent more than $400,000 towards the effort to pass the measure, and who also spent almost that much on advertising.
 +
 
 +
Dennis Bailey, of the group that was against the measure, CasinosNO!, complained about an agreement he came across between the Lewiston financial partners of the casino and a group called M-Five. The agreement required M-Five to "develop, plan, manage and pay for any campaign eforts" of the ballot measure. However, according to Bailey: "M-Five doesn't show up on their campaign finance. It's a group called GT Source, a Georgia casino company, whose president is also an officer with M-Five."
 +
 
 +
The investigation stemmed from this complaint by Bailey.<ref> [http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/19971/Default.aspx ''MPBN'', "Maine Ethics Commission Authorizes Casino Funding Probe", January 25, 2012]</ref>
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
:: ''See also: [[2011 ballot measure election results]]''
+
:: ''See also: [[2011 ballot measure election results]]''<ref> Results do not add up to 100% due to blank ballots.</ref>
 
{{Short outcome
 
{{Short outcome
 
| title = Maine Question 3
 
| title = Maine Question 3
| yes =  
+
| yes = 143,127
| yespct =  
+
| yespct = 36.2
| no =  
+
| no = 248,467
| nopct =  
+
| nopct = 62.7
| image =  
+
| image = {{defeated}}
 
| unresolved =  
 
| unresolved =  
 
}}
 
}}
 
+
[[Category:Defeated, 2011]]
Results via [http://www.pressherald.com/election2011/results.html The Portland Press Herald]
+
Results via official results from the [[Maine Secretary of State]]'s office.
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
 
===Ballot language===
 
===Ballot language===
The language that voters will see on the ballot reads:<ref> [http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/proposed2011questions.html ''Maine Elections Division'', "Proposed Initiative Questions", Retrieved July 15, 2011]</ref>
+
The language that voters saw on the ballot read:<ref> [http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/proposed2011questions.html ''Maine Elections Division'', "Proposed Initiative Questions", Retrieved July 15, 2011]</ref>
  
 
:''"Do you want to allow a casino with table games and slot machines in Lewiston?"''
 
:''"Do you want to allow a casino with table games and slot machines in Lewiston?"''
  
 
===Title===
 
===Title===
The title of the measure reads:<ref name=petitions/>
+
The title of the measure read:<ref name=petitions/>
  
 
: ''An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility.''
 
: ''An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility.''
 
===Summary===
 
===Summary===
  
The summary of the measure reads as follows:<ref> [http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/IB000101.asp ''Maine Legislature'', "An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility", Retrieved April 11, 2011]</ref>
+
The summary of the measure read as follows:<ref> [http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/IB000101.asp ''Maine Legislature'', "An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility", Retrieved April 11, 2011]</ref>
  
 
:''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.''
 
:''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.''
Line 48: Line 57:
 
:''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.''
 
:''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===
 
===Fiscal note===
The fiscal note of the '''referendum cost''' reads as follows:
+
The [[fiscal impact statement|fiscal note]] of the '''referendum cost''' read 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 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.''
Line 57: Line 66:
 
===Supporters===
 
===Supporters===
  
* The Lewiston City Council is supporting the measure. At a city council meeting held on [[BC2011#October|October 4, 2011]], the council voted 5-1 vote to endorse it.<ref> http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/687a6057699145fd8f1515d658a8ceda/ME--Lewiston-Casino/ ''The Republic'', "Lewiston, Maine, council throws support behind casino referendum", October 5, 2011]</ref>
+
* The Lewiston City Council supported the measure. At a city council meeting held on [[BC2011#October|October 4, 2011]], the council voted 5-1 to endorse it.<ref> http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/687a6057699145fd8f1515d658a8ceda/ME--Lewiston-Casino/ ''The Republic'', "Lewiston, Maine, council throws support behind casino referendum", October 5, 2011]</ref>
  
 
* The Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council threw support behind the measure.<ref name=lew> [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q9KT300.htm ''Business Week'', "Maine: Casino referendum supporters make case", October 10, 2011]</ref>
 
* The Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council threw support behind the measure.<ref name=lew> [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q9KT300.htm ''Business Week'', "Maine: Casino referendum supporters make case", October 10, 2011]</ref>
Line 63: Line 72:
 
* Lewiston Mayor Larry Gilbert stated his support saying: "Where else in Maine have we seen job creation such as this?"<ref name=lew/>
 
* Lewiston Mayor Larry Gilbert stated his support saying: "Where else in Maine have we seen job creation such as this?"<ref name=lew/>
 
===Arguments===
 
===Arguments===
* Developers in Maine argue that the proposed measure and new facility could create an estimated 800 construction jobs and 500 full-time jobs.<ref name="WLBZ2">[http://www.wlbz2.com/news/article/173276/3/Campaign-to-expand-gambling-kicks-off ''WLBZ2'',"Campaign to expand gambling kicks off," September 19, 2011]</ref>
+
* Developers in Maine argued that the proposed measure and new facility could have created an estimated 800 construction jobs and 500 full-time jobs.<ref name="WLBZ2">[http://www.wlbz2.com/news/article/173276/3/Campaign-to-expand-gambling-kicks-off ''WLBZ2'',"Campaign to expand gambling kicks off," September 19, 2011]</ref>
  
 
:"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.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>
 
:"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.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>
  
* 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.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>
+
* The Passamaquoddy Tribe argued that the unemployment rates in Washington county and on the reservation continued to increase at the time and that the proposed measure would have helped attract more jobs.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>
  
 
===Donors===
 
===Donors===
Line 81: Line 90:
 
{{Gambling2011map}}
 
{{Gambling2011map}}
  
* The main group in opposition to Question 3 is '''"No More Casinos Maine"''' and '''CasinosNo!'''.  
+
* The main group in opposition to Question 3 was '''"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.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>  
+
* The campaign group argued that people needed to step back and see if (previously) current casinos and gambling in the state were effective in attracting more revenue and jobs. The expansion, said Matthew Boucher, a member of the campaign group, was happening too fast.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>  
  
 
* [[Tyler Clark|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.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>
 
* [[Tyler Clark|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.<ref name="WLBZ2"/>
Line 89: Line 98:
 
* 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."<ref name=lew/>
 
* 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."<ref name=lew/>
  
: 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.”<ref name=campus> [http://mainecampus.com/2011/10/24/slots-support-scholarships/ ''Maine Campus'', "Slots support scholarships", October 24, 2011]</ref>
+
: Bailey stated at the time that campaigns supporting the measure promised more tax revenues than the state could 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.”<ref name=campus> [http://mainecampus.com/2011/10/24/slots-support-scholarships/ ''Maine Campus'', "Slots support scholarships", October 24, 2011]</ref>
  
 
===Donors===
 
===Donors===
The following are contributions that have been made toward the campaign against the measure:  
+
The following were contributions that were made toward the campaign against the measure:  
  
 
{|class="infobox" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1"  style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" style="width:20%;"
 
{|class="infobox" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1"  style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" style="width:20%;"
  
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''Total campaign cash''' [[File:Invest.png|21px]]
+
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''Total campaign cash''' [[File:Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png|21px]]
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 147: Line 156:
 
===Legislative review===
 
===Legislative review===
 
: ''See also: [[Laws governing the initiative process in Maine#Legislative response|Maine Legislature's response to certified initiatives]]
 
: ''See also: [[Laws governing the initiative process in Maine#Legislative response|Maine Legislature's response to certified initiatives]]
Since the number of signatures have been verified, and because the measure is an {{iissfull}}, the measure will go to the [[Maine Legislature|state legislature]] for review. If legislators don't vote to adopt a similar law, it will remain on the November 2011 ballot.  
+
Since the number of signatures were verified, and because the measure was an {{iissfull}}, the measure went to the [[Maine Legislature|state legislature]] for review.  
  
The initiative is scheduled to be reviewed by the [[Maine Legislature|state legislature]] as the [[Maine Secretary of State]] found that supporters had collected enough signatures.  Signatures were certified by the [[BC2011#February|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."<ref> [http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/981641 ''Sun Journal'', "Lewiston slot machine measure going to Legislature", February 5, 2011]</ref>
+
The initiative was scheduled to be reviewed by the [[Maine Legislature|state legislature]] as the [[Maine Secretary of State]] found that supporters had collected enough signatures.  Signatures were certified by the [[BC2011#February|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."<ref> [http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/981641 ''Sun Journal'', "Lewiston slot machine measure going to Legislature", February 5, 2011]</ref>
  
The measure took one step closer to becoming law in early June 2011, which would skip public vote on the issues during the [[2011 ballot measures|2011 general election]].<ref> [http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/162012/2/Rally-at-the-State-House-in-support-of-racinos ''WCSH6.com'', "Rally at the State House in support of racinos", June 8, 2011]</ref>  
+
The measure took one step closer to becoming law in early June 2011, which would have skipped public vote on the issues during the [[2011 ballot measures|2011 general election]].<ref> [http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/162012/2/Rally-at-the-State-House-in-support-of-racinos ''WCSH6.com'', "Rally at the State House in support of racinos", June 8, 2011]</ref>  
  
On [[BC2011#June|June 6, 2011]], the [[Maine House of Representatives]] approved both initiatives, sending them to the [[Maine State Senate]] for a similar vote. Then on [[BC2011#June|June 9, 2011]], the [[Maine State Senate]] voted against the measure.  It will now remain on the ballot.<ref> [http://www.pressherald.com/news/senate-splits-on-citizen-initiated-gaming-proposals_2011-06-10.html ''Press-Herald'', "Senate splits on citizen-initiated gaming proposals", June 10, 2011]</ref>
+
On [[BC2011#June|June 6, 2011]], the [[Maine House of Representatives]] approved the initiative, sending it to the [[Maine State Senate]] for a similar vote. Then on [[BC2011#June|June 9, 2011]], the [[Maine State Senate]] voted against the measure.  It remained on the ballot.<ref> [http://www.pressherald.com/news/senate-splits-on-citizen-initiated-gaming-proposals_2011-06-10.html ''Press-Herald'', "Senate splits on citizen-initiated gaming proposals", June 10, 2011]</ref>
  
 
==Timeline==
 
==Timeline==
Line 162: Line 171:
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
{{AOrtiz}}
+
{{submit a link}}
 
{{colbegin|2}}
 
{{colbegin|2}}
 
* [[2011 ballot measures]]
 
* [[2011 ballot measures]]

Revision as of 14:31, 20 February 2013

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
Topic:Gambling
Status:Defeated Defeatedd
The Maine Slot Machine Facility Question appeared on the November 8, 2011 ballot in the state of Maine as an indirect initiated state statute where it was defeated.Defeatedd

The measure dealt with establishing a slot machine facility in the state, and appeared 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. This did not happen.[2]

Aftermath

On January 25, 2012, the Maine Ethics Commission launched an investigation regarding campaign financing for the measure. The commission began the investigation to find out who spent more than $400,000 towards the effort to pass the measure, and who also spent almost that much on advertising.

Dennis Bailey, of the group that was against the measure, CasinosNO!, complained about an agreement he came across between the Lewiston financial partners of the casino and a group called M-Five. The agreement required M-Five to "develop, plan, manage and pay for any campaign eforts" of the ballot measure. However, according to Bailey: "M-Five doesn't show up on their campaign finance. It's a group called GT Source, a Georgia casino company, whose president is also an officer with M-Five."

The investigation stemmed from this complaint by Bailey.[3]

Election results

See also: 2011 ballot measure election results[4]
Maine Question 3
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No248,46762.7%
Yes 143,127 36.2%

Results via official results from the Maine Secretary of State's office.

Text of measure

Ballot language

The language that voters saw on the ballot read:[5]

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

Title

The title of the measure read:[1]

An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility.

Summary

The summary of the measure read as follows:[6]

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 read 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.

Support

Supporters

  • The Lewiston City Council supported the measure. At a city council meeting held on October 4, 2011, the council voted 5-1 to endorse it.[7]
  • The Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council threw support behind the measure.[8]
  • Lewiston Mayor Larry Gilbert stated his support saying: "Where else in Maine have we seen job creation such as this?"[8]

Arguments

  • Developers in Maine argued that the proposed measure and new facility could have created an estimated 800 construction jobs and 500 full-time jobs.[9]
"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.[9]
  • The Passamaquoddy Tribe argued that the unemployment rates in Washington county and on the reservation continued to increase at the time and that the proposed measure would have helped attract more jobs.[9]

Donors

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

Opposition

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

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
  • The main group in opposition to Question 3 was "No More Casinos Maine" and CasinosNo!.
  • The campaign group argued that people needed to step back and see if (previously) current casinos and gambling in the state were effective in attracting more revenue and jobs. The expansion, said Matthew Boucher, a member of the campaign group, was happening too fast.[9]
  • 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.[9]
  • 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."[8]
Bailey stated at the time that campaigns supporting the measure promised more tax revenues than the state could 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.”[10]

Donors

The following were contributions that were made toward the campaign against the measure:

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $41,654.95
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $107,415.00


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

Opposition

  • 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."[11]
  • The Portland Press Herald wrote in an editorial: "The allure of quick gambling money should not divert Lewiston from the real progress it has made, which has not only bettered that community, but made it a model for others. We urge a "no" vote on Question 3."[12]
  • The Sun Journal stated: "Massive portions of the revenue from this casino project would go to benefit many groups and agencies, and its creation would likely spawn a new round of development and growth for L-A. Vote “yes” on Question 3."[13]

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.[14],[15]

Voting on Gambling
Roulette.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

Circulation

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.[16]

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." [16][17]

Legislative review

See also: Maine Legislature's response to certified initiatives

Since the number of signatures were verified, and because the measure was an indirect initiated state statute, the measure went to the state legislature for review.

The initiative was 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."[18]

The measure took one step closer to becoming law in early June 2011, which would have skipped public vote on the issues during the 2011 general election.[19]

On June 6, 2011, the Maine House of Representatives approved the initiative, sending it to the Maine State Senate for a similar vote. Then on June 9, 2011, the Maine State Senate voted against the measure. It remained on the ballot.[20]

Timeline

Calendar.png

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

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

Additional reading

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Maine Secretary of State, "Citizen Initiative Petitions Currently Approved for Circulation", Retrieved January 3, 2011
  2. Sun Journal, "With signatures in hand, casino backers urge legislators to adopt plan", December 31, 2010
  3. MPBN, "Maine Ethics Commission Authorizes Casino Funding Probe", January 25, 2012
  4. Results do not add up to 100% due to blank ballots.
  5. Maine Elections Division, "Proposed Initiative Questions", Retrieved July 15, 2011
  6. Maine Legislature, "An Act Regarding Establishing a Slot Machine Facility", Retrieved April 11, 2011
  7. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/687a6057699145fd8f1515d658a8ceda/ME--Lewiston-Casino/ The Republic, "Lewiston, Maine, council throws support behind casino referendum", October 5, 2011]
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Business Week, "Maine: Casino referendum supporters make case", October 10, 2011
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 WLBZ2,"Campaign to expand gambling kicks off," September 19, 2011
  10. Maine Campus, "Slots support scholarships", October 24, 2011
  11. Bangor Daily News, "No on Question 3", October 23, 2011
  12. The Portland Press Herald, "Our View: Question 3, however, calls for a 'no' vote", October 23, 2011
  13. Sun Journal, "'Yes' is the ticket this Election Day", November 6, 2011
  14. Form used to apply for an initiative
  15. Form used to apply for a veto referendum
  16. 16.0 16.1 Sun Journal, "Lewiston casino effort notches 75,000 signatures", December 30, 2010
  17. The Maine Secretary of State's office was contacted by Ballotpedia to verify the signature verification deadline.
  18. Sun Journal, "Lewiston slot machine measure going to Legislature", February 5, 2011
  19. WCSH6.com, "Rally at the State House in support of racinos", June 8, 2011
  20. Press-Herald, "Senate splits on citizen-initiated gaming proposals", June 10, 2011