New Jersey Allowance for Casinos in Two Additional Counties, Public Question 1 (2016)

New Jersey Public Question 1
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Gambling
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

2016 measures
November 8
Public Question 1 d
Public Question 2 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The New Jersey Allowance for Casinos in Two Additional Counties Amendment, also known as Public Question 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in New Jersey as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported allowing the state legislature to pass laws allowing for two additional northern counties to each have one new casino, thereby ending four decades of casinos only being permitted in Atlantic City.

A no vote opposed this amendment to establish additional casinos in New Jersey.

Voters in Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island also voted on expanding the number of gambling facilities in their states in 2016.

Election results

Public Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		2,400,081	77.24%
Yes		707,064	22.76%

Election results from New Jersey Department of State

Overview

Status of casinos in New Jersey

The casino industry in New Jersey has been limited to Atlantic City since casinos were legalized there in 1976. After competition in surrounding areas led to multiple years of dwindling revenue, lawmakers drafted a ballot proposal that would have established two casinos in northern New Jersey in an attempt to save the state's economic prowess in the regional gambling market.

Amendment design

Question 1 would have authorized two new casinos in northern New Jersey. Both would have needed to be located at least 72 miles away from Atlantic City. Those who held casino licenses in Atlantic City would have had six months to draft proposals for two casinos in the northern area of the state. Each casino proposal would have had to include an investment of at least $1 billion. If the state failed to receive proposals under those guidelines within six months, individuals outside of Atlantic City would have been permitted to submit proposals. Some of the tax revenue generated by the new casinos would have been earmarked for helping Atlantic City recover, stabilize, and improve its economy. For the first 17 fiscal years following the new casinos' openings, Atlantic City could have received up to $200 million per year. After 17 years, the revenue allocated to Atlantic City would have begun to diminish. It would have been $42 million or less after 26 years.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

Supporters of Question 1 organized as the Our Turn NJ campaign. Opponents formed two groups, Trenton's Bad Bet and the No North Jersey Casinos Coalition. Supporters raised $9.5 million, while opponents received $14.6 million. The top donor to the "No" campaign was Genting New York LLC, which contributed $9.11 million. The top three opposition donors were all based in New York. The two donors to the "Yes" campaign were Paul Fireman's WA Residential Urban Renewal Co. and Jeff Gural's New Meadowlands Racetrack LLC. Both ceased funding the campaign in late September, as internal polling showed a steep climb to victory for them. Prior to the election, polls showed strong opposition to the measure, with the last poll indicating that 71 percent of respondents were against Question 1.

Fireman and Gural cited the amendment's "lack of details" as one reason that polls showed a majority of the public souring on Question 1. Rep. Ralph Caputo (D-28) introduced Concurrent Resolution 206 to provide more details and express the legislature's intent in regards to casino locations, licenses, taxes, and revenue allocation should voters approve Question 1. Fireman and Gural had developed plans for casinos in northern New Jersey.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The question on the ballot was as follows:

“

Do you approve amending the Constitution to permit casino gambling in two additional counties in this State? At present, casino gambling is allowed only in Atlantic City in Atlantic County. Only one casino in each of the two counties would be permitted. Each casino is to be located in a town that is at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. The amendment would allow certain persons to apply first for a casino license.

”

Interpretive statement

The interpretive statement was as follows:

“

At present, casino gambling is allowed only in Atlantic City in Atlantic County. This amendment would allow the Legislature to pass laws to permit casino gambling to take place in two other counties in this State. Only one casino in each of the two counties would be permitted. Each casino is to be located in a town that is at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. The amendment would allow certain persons to apply first for a casino license. The laws passed by the Legislature would provide for the location and type of casinos and the licensing and taxing of the operation and equipment. The amendment provides that the State’s share of revenue from the operation of the two casinos and of the casinos in Atlantic City would be used for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents. It would also be used for the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of Atlantic City and other purposes as provided by law. Lesser portions would be used to aid the thoroughbred and standardbred horsemen in this State and each town and county in which a casino is located.

”

Amendment summary

The amendment summary was as follows:

Under current law, casino gambling is permitted only in Atlantic City in Atlantic County. This concurrent resolution proposes an amendment to the State Constitution to allow the Legislature to pass laws to permit the establishment and operation, under regulation and control by the State, of casinos in two other counties of this State. No more than two casinos would be permitted and only one casino in each of the two counties would be permitted. Also, each casino is to be located in a municipality that is at least 72 miles from Atlantic City. The eligibility for each initial license to establish a new casino would be limited to persons whose majority equity owners: a) are holders of a New Jersey casino license that were operating a casino which was conducting gambling as of the date of passage by the Legislature of this concurrent resolution; or b) were principal owners of a holder of a New Jersey casino license that was operating a casino which was conducting gambling as of the date of passage, if that principal owner or subsidiary also holds a valid license to own and operate a casino in another jurisdiction with licensing standards similar to those in New Jersey. A principal owner would mean any person who, directly or indirectly, owns 50 percent or more of a holder of a New Jersey casino license that was operating a casino which was conducting gambling as of the date of passage. If a person described above does not apply for a license within 180 days following the date on which the licensing entity indicates that applications are being accepted, or applies but fails to meet certain progress requirements that will be prescribed by law toward the establishment and operation of a gambling house or casino, any person may apply for that license in accordance with law. An applicant for a license to establish a casino would be approved only if the applicant commits to and makes an investment of at least $1 billion in the acquisition, construction, and development of the facility in which the casino is located prior to the commencement of gambling operations. The law would determine the location and type of such casinos and of the gambling games which may be conducted. The law would also determine the tax rate to be levied upon the gross gaming revenues derived from the gambling operations. In the first State fiscal year in which State revenues are derived from the new casinos, those State revenues would be credited to a special account to be used for the same purposes as State revenues from Atlantic City casinos are currently applied. In the second State fiscal year in which State revenues from the new casinos are derived and thereafter, the State revenues derived from the new casinos and from the Atlantic City casinos would be credited to a special New Jersey Investment Fund. Two percent of the amount so credited in each State fiscal year first would be dedicated as State aid, with each half of the two percent allocated to the locality in which each of the two gambling establishments are located and operating. Locality would mean the host municipality, county, or both. Then, the proposed amendment would dedicate for each State fiscal year the remaining revenues in the investment fund for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City, for the same purposes as the State revenues from Atlantic City casinos are currently applied, for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents, and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide. The proposed amendment specifies the percentages dedicated for those purposes for the first 15 State fiscal years. Commencing in the 17th State fiscal year and for the next subsequent nine State fiscal years, the percentages dedicated for those purposes would change over the course of 10 State fiscal years, and then would remain at those levels for each State fiscal year thereafter. Notwithstanding the dedications, the total amount dedicated in each state fiscal year for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City would not exceed one third of the total credited to the investment fund in each State fiscal year. Of the percentage of revenues dedicated from the investment fund for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide, not less than two percentage points in each State fiscal year would be dedicated for programs designed to aid the thoroughbred and standardbred horsemen in this State.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article IV, Section VII of the New Jersey Constitution

If approved by voters, Question 1 would have amended paragraph 2 of Section VII of Article IV of the New Jersey Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

2. No gambling of any kind shall be authorized by the Legislature unless the specific kind, restrictions and control thereof have been heretofore submitted to, and authorized by a majority of the votes cast by, the people at a special election or shall hereafter be submitted to, and authorized by a majority of the votes cast thereon by, the legally qualified voters of the State voting at a general election, except that, without any such submission or authorization:

A. It shall be lawful for bona fide veterans, charitable, educational, religious or fraternal organizations, civic and service clubs, senior citizen associations or clubs, volunteer fire companies and first-aid or rescue squads to conduct, under such restrictions and control as shall from time to time be prescribed by the Legislature by law, games of chance of, and restricted to, the selling of rights to participate, the awarding of prizes, in the specific kind of game of chance sometimes known as bingo or lotto, played with cards bearing numbers or other designations, 5 or more in one line, the holder covering numbers as objects, similarly numbered, are drawn from a receptacle and the game being won by the person who first covers a previously designated arrangement of numbers on such a card, when the entire net proceeds of such games of chance are to be devoted to educational, charitable, patriotic, religious or public-spirited uses, and in the case of bona fide veterans' organizations and senior citizen associations or clubs to the support of such organizations, in any municipality, in which a majority of the qualified voters, voting thereon, at a general or special election as the submission thereof shall be prescribed by the Legislature by law, shall authorize the conduct of such games of chance therein;

B. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize, by law, bona fide veterans, charitable, educational, religious or fraternal organizations, civic and service clubs, senior citizen associations or clubs, volunteer fire companies and first-aid or rescue squads to conduct games of chance of, and restricted to, the selling of rights to participate, and the awarding of prizes, in the specific kinds of games of chance sometimes known as raffles, conducted by the drawing for prizes or by the allotment of prizes by chance, when the entire net proceeds of such games of chance are to be devoted to educational, charitable, patriotic, religious or public-spirited uses, and in the case of bona fide veterans' organizations and senior citizen associations or clubs to the support of such organizations, in any municipality, in which such law shall be adopted by a majority of the qualified voters, voting thereon, at a general or special election as the submission thereof shall be prescribed by law and for the Legislature, from time to time, to restrict and control, by law, the conduct of such games of chance;

C. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize the conduct of State lotteries restricted to the selling of rights to participate therein and the awarding of prizes by drawings when the entire net proceeds of any such lottery shall be for State institutions and State aid for education; provided, however, that it shall not be competent for the Legislature to borrow, appropriate or use, under any pretense whatsoever, lottery net proceeds for the confinement, housing, supervision or treatment of, or education programs for, adult criminal offenders or juveniles adjudged delinquent or for the construction, staffing, support, maintenance or operation of an adult or juvenile correctional facility or institution;

D. (1) It shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law the establishment and operation, under regulation and control by the State, of gambling houses or casinos within the boundaries, as heretofore established, of the city of Atlantic City, county of Atlantic, and to license and tax such operations and equipment used in connection therewith. Any law authorizing the establishment and operation of such gambling establishments shall provide for the State revenues derived therefrom to be applied solely for the purpose of providing funding for reductions in property taxes, rental, telephone, gas, electric, and municipal utilities charges of eligible senior citizens and disabled residents of the State, and for additional or expanded health services or benefits or transportation services or benefits to eligible senior citizens and disabled residents, in accordance with such formulae as the Legislature shall by law provide. The type and number of such casinos or gambling houses and of the gambling games which may be conducted in any such establishment shall be determined by or pursuant to the terms of the law authorizing the establishment and operation thereof.

(2) It shall also be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law wagering at casinos or gambling houses in Atlantic City on the results of any professional, college, or amateur sport or athletic event, except that wagering shall not be permitted on a college sport or athletic event that takes place in New Jersey or on a sport or athletic event in which any New Jersey college team participates regardless of where the event takes place.

(3)(a) It shall also be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law the establishment and operation, under regulation and control by the State, of no more than two gambling houses or casinos, each one to be located in different counties of this State, and to license and tax such operations and equipment used in connection therewith. The boundaries of each municipality in which each gambling house or casino is located shall be partially or completely outside a 72 mile radius calculated from the outermost boundary, as heretofore established, of the city of Atlantic City in the county of Atlantic.

(b)(i) Any law authorizing the establishment and operation of such gambling establishments shall provide that, commencing in the second State fiscal year in which State revenues are derived under part (3) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph and thereafter, State revenues derived under part (1) and part (3) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph shall be credited to a special New Jersey Investment Fund. The revenues credited to the investment fund in each state fiscal year shall be applied solely as follows.

Two percent of the amount so credited in each State fiscal year first shall be dedicated as State aid with each half of the two percent allocated to the locality in which each of the two gambling establishments is located and operating. Locality shall mean the host municipality, county, or both.

Then, there shall be the following incremental allocations for each State fiscal year. The remaining revenues credited to the investment fund in each State fiscal year up to $150,000,000 shall be dedicated 50 percent for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City, and 50 percent for the following purposes: 60 percent for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to be used for those purposes, and 40 percent for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide.

Then, remaining revenues credited to the investment fund in each State fiscal year up to an additional $150,000,000 shall be dedicated 40 percent for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City, and 60 percent for the following purposes: 60 percent for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to be used for those purposes, and 40 percent for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for Programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide.

Then, remaining revenues credited to the investment fund in each State fiscal year up to an additional $150,000,000 shall be dedicated 30 percent for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City, and 70 percent for the following purpose: 60 percent for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to be used for those purposes, and 40 percent for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide.,

Then, remaining additional revenues credited to the investment fund in each State fiscal year shall be dedicated 20 percent for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City, and 80 percent for the following purposes: 60 percent for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to be used for those purposes, and 40 percent for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide.

Commencing in the 17th State fiscal year and for the next subsequent nine State fiscal years, the percentages dedicated above for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City shall decrease by, and the percentage dedicated above for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph, fo State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents, and for such other purposes as the Legislature shall by law provide shall increase by, the same number of percentage points from the prior State fiscal year percentage, to achieve a final dedication of 10 percent/90 percent, 8 percent/92 percent, 6 percent/94 percent, and 4 percent/96 percent, respectively, for each of the four incremental allocations of the remaining revenues credited to the investment fund, and shall remain at those levels for each State fiscal year thereafter.

Of the percentage of revenues from the investment fund dedicated for State aid to each county and municipality in the State for programs and property tax relief for senior citizens and disabled residents and for such other purposes as the legislature shall by law provide, not less than two percentage points in each State fiscal year shall be dedicated for the purposes of programs designed to aid the thoroughbred and standardbred horsemen in this State.

Notwithstanding the dedications above, the total amount dedicated in each State fiscal year for the purposes of the recovery, stabilization, or improvement of the city of Atlantic City shall not exceed one third of the total revenues credited to the investment fund in each State fiscal year. Any amounts allocated pursuant to the dedications in (b) (ii) in excess of this limitation shall be reallocated for the purpose specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph.

If in any State fiscal year the allocations of revenue pursuant to the dedications in (b)(ii) for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph are less than the amount of State revenues derived under and for the purposes specified in part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph in State fiscal year 2015, the amounts allocated to all other purposes shall be proportionately reduced by an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount of State revenues derived under and for the purposes specified in part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph in State fiscal year 2015 and the amount allocated pursuant to the dedications in (b)(ii) for the purposes specified under part (1) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph.

(c) The eligibility for each initial license to establish a gambling house or casino under part (3) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph shall be limited to persons whose majority equity owners: a) are holders of a New Jersey casino license that were operating a casino which was conducting gambling as of the date of passage by the Legislature of the concurrent resolution that proposed the amendment that added part (3) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to this Constitution; or b) were principal owners of a holder of a New Jersey casino license that was operating a casino which was conducting gambling as of the date of passage by the Legislature of the concurrent resolution that proposed the amendment that added part (3) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to this Constitution, if that principal owner or subsidiary also holds a valid license to own and operate a casino in another jurisdiction with licensing standards similar to those in New Jersey. A principal owner shall mean any person who, directly or indirectly, owns 50 percent or more of a holder of a New Jersey casino license that was operating a casino which was conducting gambling as of the date of passage by the Legislature of the concurrent resolution that proposed the amendment that added part (3) of subparagraph D. of this paragraph to this Constitution.

(d) If a person described under (c) above does not apply for a license within 180 days following the date on which the licensing entity indicates that applications are being accepted, or does apply but fails to meet certain progress requirements that shall be prescribed by law, within the time periods that shall be prescribed by law, toward the establishment and operation of a gambling house or casino, any person may apply for that license in accordance with law.

(e) An application for a license to establish a gambling house or casino shall be approved only if the applicant commits to and makes an investment of at least $1,000,000,000 in the acquisition, construction, and development of the facility, which amount shall be ascertained as provided by law, in which the gambling house or casino is located prior to the commencement of gambling operations in that facility.

(f) The location and type of such casinos or gambling houses, and of the gambling games which may be conducted in any such establishment, shall be determined by or pursuant to the terms of the law authorizing the establishment and operation thereof.

E. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize, by law, (1) the simultaneous transmission by picture of running and harness horse races conducted at racetracks located within or outside of this State, or both, to gambling houses or casinos in the city of Atlantic City and (2) the specific kind, restrictions and control of wagering at those gambling establishments on the results of those races. The State's share of revenues derived therefrom shall be applied for services to benefit eligible senior citizens as shall be provided by law; and

F. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize, by law, the specific kind, restrictions and control of wagering on the results of live or simulcast running and harness horse races conducted within or outside of this State. The State's share of revenues derived therefrom shall be used for such purposes as shall be provided by law.

It shall also be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law wagering at current or former running and harness horse racetracks in this State on the results of any professional, college, or amateur sport or athletic event, except that wagering shall not be permitted on a college sport or athletic event that takes place in New Jersey or on a sport or athletic event in which any New Jersey college team participates regardless of where the event takes place.

Concurrent Resolution 206

On September 19, 2016, Rep. Ralph Caputo (D-28) and Rep. Sheila Oliver (D-34), along with 17 co-sponsors, introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution 206 (ACR 206), which was designed to express the legislature's intentions regarding new casinos should voters approve Question 1. As a concurrent resolution, ACR 206 was non-binding and does not enact any laws. The resolution was not been passed in either legislative chamber prior to the election on November 8, 2016.

ACR 206 stated that new casinos in north New Jersey would have needed to be located near "appropriate infrastructure" and in a location minimizing "the impacts on residents and neighbors." A panel of qualified state residents would provide input on selecting new casino license-holders. The criteria for selecting license-holders would have been based on the proposal's financial, administrative, and cultural advantages, including permanent job creation, direct and indirect economic activity, and innovative complementary uses. Taxes on the revenues of the new casinos would have been "considerably higher" than the tax rate applied to Atlantic City revenues and tiered based on how much each developer invests in their casino.

State tax revenue from the new casinos that would have been allocated Atlantic City would have been specifically utilized for job placement programs for displaced workers of casinos in the city, promoting the city as a destination resort, grants and loans to promote non-gambling development, programs designed to encourage horse businesses, and improvements to transportation infrastructure. Tax revenue would have also been provided to counties for public spaces and transportation infrastructure improvements and to senior citizens in the form of property tax reductions.

Support

Our Turn New Jersey led the campaign in support of Public Question 1.

Paul Fireman and Jeff Gural, two major financiers of the campaign, pulled their resources on September 22, 2016, citing lackluster polls. The duo said, "The current political climate in New Jersey and voters’ concerns about the lack of details relating to the effort have proved overwhelming." Fireman claimed legislators failed to act fast to establish tax rates, regulations, and locations for the proposed casinos, and thus sowed seeds of doubt among the electorate. Likewise, Gural expressed an understanding of voters' skepticism, stating, "You don’t know where the money’s going to go, you don’t know the tax rate. There are too many unknowns. And I think that if we could get clarity on that, I think it would almost guarantee passage." Rep. Ralph Caputo (D-28) responded, "Hopefully we can do something. It’s a little late in the game." Caputo proposed ACR 206 on September 19, with the aim of clarifying the legislature's intent in regards to selecting casino locations and license-holders, as well as determining casino taxes and revenue.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Chris Christie (R)
• Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D-3)
• Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-36)
• Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-37)
• Sen. Robert Gordon (D-38)
• Rep. Ronald Dancer (R-12)
• Rep. Wayne DeAngelo (D-14)
• Rep. Mila Jasey (D-27)
• Rep. John McKeon (D-27)
• Rep. Ralph Caputo (D-28)
• Rep. Cleopatra Tucker (D-28)
• Rep. Eliana Pintor-Marin (D-29)
• Rep. Grace Spencer (D-29)
• Rep. Angelica Jimenez (D-32)
• Rep. Vincent Prieto (D-32)
• Rep. Raj Mukherji (D-33)
• Rep. Thomas Giblin (D-34)
• Rep. Sheila Oliver (D-34)
• Rep. Marlene Caride (D-36)
• Rep. Gary Schaer (D-36)
• Rep. Gordon Johnson (D-37)
• Rep. Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-37)
• Rep. Timothy Eustace (D-38)
• Rep. Joseph Lagana (D-38)

Municipalities

• Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
• Upper Freehold Township Committee

Organizations

• New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Question 1:

• The amendment would increase revenue for helping seniors and those with disabilities.
• The amendment would create jobs and fuel economic growth in northern New Jersey.
• The amendment would help New Jersey capture money being spent at casinos in neighboring states.
• The amendment would dedicate tax revenue to revitalizing Atlantic City.

Our Turn New Jersey offered a response to opponents' claims that Question 1 would hurt the people of New Jersey and benefit special interests. The campaign argued:

“

Money generated through gaming revenue is constitutionally dedicated to go towards programs that help seniors and those with disabilities. This money cannot be spent for any other purpose. Since 1978, constitutionally dedicated gaming related tax revenue has provided $9.7 billion in funding for programs for seniors and those with disabilities. Funding for these programs (from gaming taxes) are at the lowest point since 1988 or 28 years ago. ... Since 2006, New Jersey has lost $1.8 billion that could have helped to fund programs like Meals on Wheels and the Property Tax Freeze for our seniors. Instead, taxpayers had to pick up the bill to maintain these critical programs. The benefits of increased funding for programs vital to seniors and those with disabilities can have a real impact. In 2015, The Advisory Commission that oversees the Casino Revenue Fund said $3 million in additional funding is needed to meet increasing demand by the elderly and those with disabilities. For just $6.90 per meal, additional funding could support nearly a half million additional weekend meals each year for elderly and disabled homebound residents throughout New Jersey. Transportation for seniors and those with disabilities is also in desperate need of funding. In 2015, some counties saw reductions in funding of over 90%. This program is critical to our seniors and those with disabilities. Funding for the Senior Property Tax Freeze has remained flat the last five years.

”

Jack B. Samuels, Professor of Marketing at Montclair State University, responded to criticisms of casinos in north New Jersey, saying:

“

1. Casinos in Northern New Jersey will not provide the final death to Atlantic City. Atlantic City will continue to fail regardless of Northern New Jersey Casinos because it is failing right now without them. The only thing that will turn around Atlantic City is a massive change in the tourism environment including strong investment in year round entertainment and sports betting if we can somehow get the authority to have it, or maybe it will become New Jersey's Marijuana Mecca. 2. Perhaps casinos in Northern New Jersey might be viewed as some people profiteering off of the industry. State casinos are generally not a good idea, so the best choice is commercial competition with the government insuring that the tax contributions are maximum to benefit the public at large. 3. Any social stigma of casinos is pretty much long gone. We are more interested in marijuana now as a social vice issue and that will probably become legal in more places than we can imagine as governments can't resist the revenues that it produces just like they did with casinos. ... 4. The main possible valid argument against the casinos is the not in my backyard one. We are going to end up with a big influx of tourism anyway in Northern New Jersey due to the Meadowlands Mall. Sites such as the Meadowlands and Jersey City would have little impacts on local living beyond the existing situation. Casinos supply extra revenues and act in synergy with things that are tourism magnets and as such go well with such attractions. Having the casino and the mall and the secondary projects that will occur would provide the biggest boost to the New Jersey economy in modern history.

”

Other arguments in support of the measure included:

• Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-3), a sponsor of the bill, argued, "This will give New Jersey the opportunity to expand the state's gaming market in ways that will benefit the entire state...It will provide substantial investments that will create jobs and fuel economic opportunity in North Jersey, generate resources to aid senior citizens and the disabled and raise funds to support the revitalization of the Atlantic City region."

• Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-20) said, "I think it’s a 100% chance it will make it to the ballot. It has bipartisan support. Anything that puts on a ballot the opportunity for New Jersey to recapture the revenues that are going out of state is a good thing."

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Our Turn New Jersey:

Our Turn NJ's "Support Our Economy and Take Back Our Jobs"

Our Turn NJ's "What Gaming Expansion Means to Our Seniors"

Our Turn NJ's "Our Jobs"

Opposition

Trenton's Bad Bet and the No North Jersey Casinos Coalition led the campaign in opposition to Question 1.

Opponents

Officials

• Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-1)
• Sen. Jim Whelan (D-2)
• Rep. Chris Brown (R-2)
• Rep. Vincent Mazzeo (D-2)
• Mayor Don Guardian (R), Atlantic City
• Mayor Suzanne Walters (R), Stone Harbor
• Mayor Jay Coffey, Oceanport
• Councilman Jesse O. Kurtz (R), Atlantic City

Organizations

• New York Gaming Association
• Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey
• Greater Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce
• Bridgetown Area Chamber of Commerce
• Camden County Regional Chamber of Commerce
• Cape May County Chamber of Commerce
• The Chamber of Commerce of Greater Cape May
• Greater Vineland Chamber of Commerce
• Lower Township Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Millville Chamber of Commerce
• Salem County Chamber of Commerce
• Atlantic City Metropolitan Business & Citizens Association
• Southern New Jersey Development Council
• Builders League of South Jersey
• Atlantic City and County Board of Realtors®
• Atlantic County Mayors Association
• Big Brothers Big Sisters of Atlantic & Cape May Counties
• Brigantine Democratic Club
• Rainbow International of South Jersey

Unions

• Teamsters, Local 331
• UNITE HERE, Local 54

Individuals

• Carl Icahn, businessman

Arguments

Trenton’s Bad Bet’s “Broken Promises"

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Question 1:

• The amendment would exacerbate unemployment and poverty in Atlantic City.
• The amendment would force families to move out of southern New Jersey.
• The amendment would help special interests, not average state residents.

Harry Hurley, a political columnist and President of Harry Hurley Consulting and Communications LLC, argued:

“

For decades the Atlantic City region escaped almost every recession and downturn that has affected most of the country. This has dramatically changed over the past eight years. The Atlantic City region currently has the highest unemployment rate and highest foreclosure rate in America. Imagine what this region would look like if this ballot question passes? Jim Wood and the MEET AC team have done a fantastic job bringing business to Atlantic City. But what if Atlantic City loses 4,000 or more hotel rooms to a second new wave of contraction? Many big events would not be able to come to Atlantic City, because there would not be enough hotel rooms left. Another major reason to defeat this question: If you want your children and grandchildren to be able to remain in southern New Jersey, you had better get on board with this movement. The loss of quality jobs will force tens of thousands of young adults and seniors to relocate. This battle is every bit as important as the successful ballot referendum of 1976, when casinos for Atlantic City only were passed. This will only happen if everyone unites and fully understands the magnitude of this moment of truth and demonstrates the sense of urgency required to defeat it.

”

Trenton’s Bad Bet’s “South Jersey"

Other arguments in opposition to the measure included:

• Mayor Don Guardian of Atlantic City argued, "People don't just come to Atlantic City for gambling. ... They come for the spas, the restaurants, the nightclubs. If you cut half the casinos out, you would lose half the tax revenue that's going to the state."
• The New York Gaming Association stated, "New casinos in northern New Jersey would present a significant threat to New York’s gaming industry, risking hundreds of millions of dollars in critical education revenue and jeopardizing thousands of family-sustaining jobs. ... New York must ensure that its successful casinos can continue to compete on a level playing field."
• Debra DiLorenzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey, contended, "If you vote for this, 23,000 to 30,000 families are going to be out of work. ... How does that help our state? That's a punch to the gut."
• Bob McDevitt, President of Local 54 of the UNITE HERE casino workers union, argued, "We're not asking for their stadiums, office parks, chemical plants or big pharma to be brought to south Jersey. ... We just want to be left alone. We've gone through a decade of crisis after crisis, from casino competition in neighboring states to the collapse of the economy to Superstorm Sandy to the casino closings in 2014 to the proposed state takeover. I don't know how many more of these we can stand."

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by Trenton's Bad Bet:

Trenton's Bad Bet's "Risky Bet"

Trenton's Bad Bet's "Pension"

Trenton's Bad Bet's "Einstein"

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for New Jersey ballot measures

One campaign committee, Our Turn NJ, was registered in support of Public Question 1, and one, Trenton's Bad Bet, was registered in opposition as of January 16, 2017.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$9,498,544.92	$0.00	$9,498,544.92	$8,572,506.09	$8,572,506.09
Oppose	$14,597,000.00	$0.00	$14,597,000.00	$14,477,891.63	$14,477,891.63
Total	$24,095,544.92	$0.00	$24,095,544.92	$23,050,397.72	$23,050,397.72

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Public Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Our Turn NJ	$9,498,544.92	$0.00	$9,498,544.92	$8,572,506.09	$8,572,506.09
Total	$9,498,544.92	$0.00	$9,498,544.92	$8,572,506.09	$8,572,506.09

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
New Meadowlands Racetrack LLC	$4,999,272.46	$0.00	$4,999,272.46
WA Residential Urban Renewal Co.	$4,999,272.46	$0.00	$4,999,272.46

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Public Question 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Trenton's Bad Bet	$14,597,000.00	$0.00	$14,597,000.00	$14,477,891.63	$14,477,891.63
Total	$14,597,000.00	$0.00	$14,597,000.00	$14,477,891.63	$14,477,891.63

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Genting New York LLC	$9,107,000.00	$0.00	$9,107,000.00
Empire Resorts, Inc.	$1,955,000.00	$0.00	$1,955,000.00
Yonkers Racing Corporation	$1,500,000.00	$0.00	$1,500,000.00
Jemb Resorts LLC	$1,235,000.00	$0.00	$1,235,000.00
Paulette Bailey	$760,000.00	$0.00	$760,000.00

Media editorials

Support

• The Bernardsville News said, "In the case of the North Jersey casino gaming referendum, those annoying anti-casino ads are being paid for largely by New York and Pennsylvania casino companies, including those owned by overseas interests, who are afraid that North Jersey gamblers will go to the Meadowlands instead of driving to their Pennsylvania slot halls or New York gambling sites."

Opposition

• Asbury Park Press said, "With Public Question 1, voters are being asked to place their bets without even knowing what cards they have been dealt. They should fold their hands on Nov. 8."
• Burlington County Times said, "There are no guarantees and many unknowns. The Burlington County Times urges you to vote “no” on Question No. 1."
• Jersey Journal said, "We needn't look any further than the obscene proliferation of 2-foot-by-3-foot pro-casino signs littering nearly every telephone pole in at least some Jersey City neighborhoods to envision the way casinos would treat us: like trash."
• The Star-Ledger said, "But we also encourage lawmakers and developers to take another crack at it... Voters aren't stupid. Until shown otherwise, they believe that Trenton can't deliver a sound strategy to reshape the gaming tableau, and their skepticism is justified."

Other opinions

• Gannett New Jersey, owner of the Asbury Park Press, The Home News Tribune, Courier News, and The Daily Record, critiqued the amendment for lacking details, stating:

“

Beyond the vaguely worded public question, voters don’t have much to go on. In essence, they are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. … We have long supported allowing casinos in North Jersey. Intense gaming competition from neighboring states not only has hurt Atlantic City but deprived the state of badly needed tax revenue. But unless more of the key details about the ballot question are answered, voter skepticism could lead to its defeat on Nov. 8.

”

Asbury Park Press

The Asbury Park Press came out in opposition to Question 1 on October 21, 2016. However, the paper's editorial board wrote an editorial on December 15, 2015, titled, "North Jersey casinos overdue." The paper wrote, "Expanding gambling — and gambling revenue — in other parts of the state outside Atlantic City is long overdue, and represents a reasonable adaptation to the modern environment in which Atlantic City’s eastern monopoly on legalized gambling is a distant memory. The demise of so many of the city’s casinos only reinforces the need for change." The October 21, 2016, editorial stated:

“

We have long supported the idea of ending Atlantic City’s monopoly on casino gambling in New Jersey, arguing among other things that the competition for the gaming dollar from neighboring states was depriving the state of badly needed tax revenue. We still feel that way. But the ballot question that will be presented to voters on Nov. 8, which would allow two casinos to be built in North Jersey, leaves too many unanswered questions to warrant support.

”

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• A Monmouth University Poll found respondents split on Question 1, with 48 percent in support and 48 percent against, in May 2016. Support and opposition varied by region, with northern state residents more supportive of the plan than central or southern state residents.
• In June 2016, Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind found opposition growing and support shrinking since the Monmouth University Poll in May. Opposition was approximately 50 percent.
• A September 2016 Rutgers-Eagleton Poll showed support at 35 percent, with 33 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans supporting Question 1.
• In late September 2016, Stockton University found a 41 percentage point gap between respondents opposing and respondents supporting Question 1. Supporter was 27 percent and opposition was 68 percent.
• In mid-October 2016, Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind surveyed 848 registered voters on Question 1. Opposition was at 70 percent. The top two reasons that voters opposed the amendment were perceptions that the "state has enough casinos" and expansion would hurt Atlantic City.
• Stockton University surveyed 678 likely voters between October 27 and November 2, 2016, on Question 1. Opposition among respondents was 71 percent, the highest recorded in a poll.

New Jersey Question 1 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Stockton University Poll 10/27/2016 - 11/2/2016	24.0%	71.0%	5.0%	+/-3.75	678
Fairleigh Dickinson University/PublicMind 10/12/2016 - 10/16/2016	24.0%	70.0%	6.0%	+/-3.6	848
Stockton University Poll 9/20/2016 - 9/21/2016	27.0%	68.0%	5.0%	+/-3.9	638
Rutgers-Eagleton Poll 9/6/2016 - 9/10/2016	35.0%	58.0%	7.0%	+/-3.8	735
Fairleigh Dickinson University/PublicMind 6/22/2016 - 6/26/2016	42.0%	50.0%	8.0%	+/-3.8	712
Monmouth University 5/23/2016 - 5/27/2016	48.0%	48.0%	4.0%	+/-3.7	806
AVERAGES	33.33%	60.83%	5.83%	+/-3.76	736.17
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.

• In February 2016, a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll asked residents about their support for permitting casinos outside Atlantic City. The poll was not specific to Question 1. It found 44 percent of respondents in favor of and 49 percent against adding new casinos beyond Atlantic City.

Support for Casinos Outside Atlantic City
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Rutgers-Eagleton Poll 2/18/2016 - 2/23/2016	44.0%	49.0%	7.0%	+/-3.9	801
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.

Casino proposals

Question 1 was not designed to authorize specific casino locations or plans. It would have only required that casinos be located in two different counties and at least 72 miles away from Atlantic City. The New Jersey Legislature would have decided further details at a later date. Both Jeff Gural and Paul Fireman, backers of Question 1, had discussed their proposals for north New Jersey casinos in the months and years leading up to the November 2016 vote.

Meadowlands Complex

An aerial view of the Meadowlands Complex in 2014.

Owner of the Meadowlands Racetrack, Jeff Gural, supported Question 1. Despite the amendment being designed to give a 180-day head start to Atlantic City casino license holders in applying to build north New Jersey casinos, Gural, who did not hold a license, laid out plans for a $1 billion casino. Gural said he would be open to working with an Atlantic City license holder to build a casino, also in partnership with Hard Rock International, at the Meadowlands Sports Complex.

In 2015, Gural and Hard Rock International chairman James Allen unveiled plans for a casino named Hard Rock Casino Meadowlands. The casino would have been situated next to MetLife Stadium, which is the home stadium for two NFL teams, the New York Giants and New York Jets. Hard Rock Casino Meadowlands would have featured horse racing, table games and slot machines, as well as a music venue. Gural said he expected the project, once complete, to create more than 10,000 jobs and generate $400 million in annual revenue. He even suggested that legislators tax his casino's revenue at a rate of 55 percent.

Jersey City

Paul Fireman, a former Reebok CEO, was also backing Question 1. In 2015, he set his sights on the shoreline of the New York Harbor in Jersey City. His resort and casino complex would have cost about $4.6 billion, feature a 90-story hotel, 14 restaurants, a 107,500-seat motor sports stadium, a theater, the largest Ferris wheel in the world, multiple pools and a casino. The resort would have had its own ferry service to and from New York City. Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop (D) said he was "excited" about the potential project, which he predicted would create "25,000 jobs and over $5 billion in investment."

Like Jeff Gural, Paul Fireman did not hold an Atlantic City casino license.

Background

Question 1 of 1976

An aerial view of Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 2007.

See also: New Jersey Public Question No. 1 (1976)

In 1974, New Jerseyans rejected the legislature’s proposal, which was on the ballot as Public Question 1, to authorize casinos in the state. Just two years later, with voter approval of a new Public Question 1, the Garden State become the second state in the nation, following Nevada, to sanction casinos. Unlike the 1974 proposal to authorize casinos statewide, the 1976 amendment permitted casinos in one location — Atlantic City. Proponents pitched the measure as a shot at economic renewal for a town with increasing unemployment and crime. In 1978, the city's first casino, the Resorts International Hotel, opened to the public. Caesar's Atlantic City and Bally's Atlantic City opened their doors in 1979.

Decline of Atlantic City

"Atlantic City's decline is the worst among the 372 metropolitan areas the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides seasonally adjusted data for," reported local economics professor Oliver Cooke in 2014. Between 2006 and 2014, Atlantic City's casino revenue fell $2.3 billion. Over 30 percent of the city's population was above the poverty line in 2014. The unemployment rate was 13 percent and 5,000 housing units were empty.

One explanation for Atlantic City's economic decline is the saturation of the mid-Atlantic and northeast casino market. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut started establishing casinos a couple decades after Atlantic City. Neighboring New York passed an amendment in 2013 authorizing the establishment of seven casinos in the state, including three across the Hudson River in New York City. Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, had partial ownership in a number of casino and hotels in the Atlantic City. He commented on the city's changes, stating, “A lot of it has to do with poor political management and a lot of has to, frankly, with too much competition. Casinos are opening all over the East Coast, and in the end they are just going to cannibalise and kill themselves. It's sad for Atlantic City. I know so many people there still to this day, and they're wonderful people, and now they don't have jobs, so it's a very sad thing."

Mayor Don Guardian (R) viewed Atlantic City's decline as partially a political problem. Most of the tax revenue from casino profits flow into state coffers, not the city's. With a larger portion of the tax revenue, Atlantic City's government could focus more on economic development, according to the mayor. Guardian said, "Shame on all of us; we should have been better prepared. We been making mistakes for some 50 years." Elsewhere, he stated, "“You got gambling, and you did become that auto town, you did become that mining town, or that factory town. [Politicians] put all the eggs in one basket. And it was easy enough to do because casinos were paying all the taxes. They gave people jobs.”

Attempt in 2015

See also: New Jersey Northern Casinos Amendment (2015)

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

In 2015, a group of legislators proposed an amendment authorizing the establishment and operation of not more than three casinos in three northern counties — Bergen, Essex or Hudson. All three of these counties are across the Hudson River from New York City. An unspecified portion of government revenue from taxes on the casinos would have been allocated to revitalizing Atlantic City. Another portion of the revenue would have helped fund services for the disabled and elderly.

Supporters of the amendment contended the measure was about saving New Jersey's position in the regional gambling market. According to Rep. Ralph Caputo (D-28), "We cannot sit idle any longer. We can’t bury our head in the sand anymore, because one day we’re going to look up and our gaming dollars will have flocked away to other states. This is not about taking business away from Atlantic City. This is about New Jersey missing out on the available markets in northern New Jersey and the surrounding region." Elsewhere, he elaborated, "The business has changed. To survive in anything, you have to adapt. If you don't adapt, you become extinct." Opponents were able to draw negotiations out until the end of the legislative session. On July 14, 2015, Senate President Steve Sweeney said the amendment was dead, at least until 2016.

Casinos across the states

The American Gaming Association produced data on commercial casinos, which included land-based, riverboat, dockside, and racetrack casinos, for the year 2012. The table below compares the number of casinos, total commercial casino revenue, total tax revenue, tax revenue as a percentage of total revenue, total employee wages, and employee wages per capita for each state with operating commercial casinos. Native American-owned casinos were excluded from AGA's calculations.

State	Date of legalization	Number of casinos in 2012	Gross casino/gaming revenue (in millions)	Tax revenue (in millions)	Tax revenue as % of gaming revenue	Employee wages (in millions)	Casino employees	Casino employee wages per capita
Colorado	1990	41	$766.25	$104.26	13.61%	$216.74	9,278	$23,360.64
Delaware	1994	3	$526.67	$217.44	41.29%	$105.19	2,775	$37,906.31
Florida	2006	6	$427.89	$161.76	37.80%	$104.66	3,319	$31,533.59
Illinois	1990	10	$1,639.00	$574.34	35.04%	$324.48	7,687	$42,211.53
Indiana	1993	13	$2,614.00	$806.56	30.86%	$461.82	12,543	$36,818.94
Iowa	1989	18	$1,467.00	$334.43	22.80%	$341.09	9,558	$35,686.34
Kansas	2007	3	$341.15	$92.17	27.02%	$50.45	1,344	$37,537.20
Louisiana	1991	18	$2,404.00	$579.45	24.10%	$631.00	15,061	$41,896.29
Maine	2004	2	$99.22	$43.11	43.45%	$11.90	879	$13,538.11
Maryland	2008	3	$377.81	$218.20	57.75%	$17.47	499	$35,010.02
Michigan	1996	3	$1,417.00	$319.75	22.57%	$366.53	7,972	$45,977.17
Mississippi	1990	30	$2,251.00	$272.73	12.12%	$847.66	23,277	$36,416.20
Missouri	1993	13	$1,769.00	$471.410	26.65%	$335.90	9,631	$34,876.96
Nevada	1931	265	$10,860.00	$868.60	8.00%	$7,693.0	170,206	$45,198.17
New Jersey	1976	12	$3,051.00	$254.84	8.35%	$912.22	34,726	$26,269.08
New Mexico	1997	5	$241.48	$62.79	26.00%	$29.77	918	$32,429.19
New York	2001	9	$1,802.00	$822.67	45.65%	$189.63	5,233	$36,237.34
Ohio	2009	4	$429.83	$138.18	32.15%	$91.27	4,197	$21,746.49
Oklahoma	2004	2	$113.06	$20.38	18.03%	N/A	870	N/A
Pennsylvania	2004	11	$3,158.00	$1,487.00	47.09%	$339.77	10,162	$33,435.35
Rhode Island	1992	2	$527.96	$328.98	62.31%	N/A	N/A	N/A
South Dakota	1989	35	$107.36	$16.62	15.48%	$38.170	1,686	$22,639.38
West Virginia	1994	5	$948.81	$402.50	42.42%	$134.68	4,351	$30,953.80

Reports and analyses

Lahr and Alvarez-Martinez

Michael Lahr, a research professor, and Maria Alvarez-Martinez, a postdoctoral scholar, at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, modeled the potential economic benefits of opening one machine-based casino at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford. Their work was published in the peer-review academic journal Growth and Change.

Using a computable general equilibrium model, the authors concluded:

“

With further, more realistic, simulation, we find that the new gaming establishment (at least the configuration we have assumed) would clearly increase nonresident consumption and state tax revenues. But it would also likely harm the state’s existing set of casino resorts in Atlantic City as well as the sundry set of industries that support tourism there, such as food and drinking places, entertainment venues, hotels, and other retail establishments.

”

The model showed the casino would lead to a 1.2 percent reduction in the state's budge deficit. According to Lahr, "a new casino appears to do little else for the state’s economy."

The full article is available here.

New Jersey Policy Perspective

New Jersey Police Perspective, a think tank focusing on government, public investment, and the public sector, released a report on Question 1 titled "Big Promises, Few Answers on Casino Expansion." The organization issued five "lessons" about the casino proposal:

“

Lesson number one: New Jersey and Atlantic City failed to exploit their monopoly on casino gambling by tending to the casinos and little else. Lesson number two: Claims promising that North Jersey casinos will produce revenues adequate to rescue Atlantic City and expand assistance to seniors and the disabled should be treated as speculation and hypothesis. Lesson number three: New Jersey has no plans in place to improve transportation to proposed casino sites in Jersey City and the Meadowlands. Lesson number four: The heavily-advertised assertions that North Jersey casinos would “rescue” Atlantic City are based on implausible hypotheses and inaccurate citation of the facts. Neutral Wall Street analysts target at least three casinos for closure. Lesson number five: The chances are excellent that New York would move quickly to authorize full casinos in New York City should the November 8 referendum be approved.

”

The full report is available here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the New Jersey Constitution

In order to place a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the ballot, either the state legislature must approve a proposed amendment by a supermajority vote of 60 percent during one legislative session, or the measure must be approved by a simple majority of legislators in two successive sessions.

SCR 1 was approved by the New Jersey Senate on March 14, 2016, by a vote of 34 to 6. It was also approved by the New Jersey Assembly on March 14 by a vote of 54 to 17 and was placed on the ballot. It was voted on largely along party lines, with most Republicans voting "no" and most Democrats voting "yes."

Senate vote

March 14, 2016, Senate vote

New Jersey SCR 1 Senate vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		34	85%
No		6	15%

Assembly vote

March 14, 2016, Assembly vote

New Jersey SCR 1 Assembly vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		54	76%
No		17	24%

Drafting the amendment

Question 1 was the product of deliberation between leaders of each house of the New Jersey Legislature. Both Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-3) and Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-32) drafted versions of a plan to expand the state's casino industry, disagreeing on how to allocate licenses for casinos. Prieto argued that one license should be given to Atlantic City vendors and the other should be open to all bidders. Sweeney contended that both licenses should be reserved for those who already operate casinos in Atlantic City.

The $1 billion investment assuaged Prieto's concerns that low-budget casino proposals would provide nominal job creation.

Gov. Chris Christie (R) praised the agreement, saying it was reached with "a great deal of compromise on the parts of all parties."

State profile

Demographic data for New Jersey
	New Jersey	U.S.
Total population:	8,935,421	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	7,354	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	68.3%	73.6%
Black/African American:	13.5%	12.6%
Asian:	9%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	19%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	88.6%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	36.8%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$72,093	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	12.7%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in New Jersey. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in New Jersey

New Jersey voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, two are located in New Jersey, accounting for 0.97 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. New Jersey had one Retained Pivot County and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 0.55 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More New Jersey coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in New Jersey
• United States congressional delegations from New Jersey
• Public policy in New Jersey
• Endorsers in New Jersey
• New Jersey fact checks
• More...

Related measures

Gambling measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Authorization of a Second Slots Location, Question 1 d

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms New Jersey 2016 Casinos Question 1. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

New Jersey Allowance for Casinos in Two Additional Counties, Public Question 1 (2016) - Google News

See also

Suggest a link

• New Jersey ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• New Jersey 2016 ballot measures

External links

• Senate Concurrent Resolution 1
• Assembly Concurrent Resolution 206
• Certification of Public Questions

Support

• Our Turn NJ
• Our Turn NJ Facebook
• Our Turn NJ Twitter

Opposition

• Trenton's Bad Bet
• Trenton's Bad Bet Facebook
• Trenton's Bad Bet Twitter
• No North Jersey Casinos Coalition
• No North Jersey Casinos Coalition Facebook
• No North Jersey Casinos Coalition Twitter

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox