Baltimore Sun: Slots Ballot Question "Misleading"

The Baltimore Sun opines:

Our View: Slots ballot questions doesn't quite pass the fairness test... The proposal's claimed impact on education funding is misleading.

The ballot language submitted this week by Secretary of State John P. McDonough goes to considerable length (about one-quarter of its total 100-odd words) to describe how revenue raised from the potential 15,000 machines would go to various forms of education spending.

That's true, technically, but the constitutional amendment doesn't require more money to be spent on education this year, next year or any year slots revenue might be available. A governor could just as easily redirect general fund money that would ordinarily be spent on education for other purposes and thus make the impact of slots revenue on schools meaningless.

Supporters can argue (as they have and will) that slots revenue is vital to prevent future budget deficits that might require cuts in state education spending or tax increases. Fair enough, but that's speculative and not the central issue before voters.

Read that again: "A governor could just as easily redirect general fund money that would ordinarily be spent on education for other purposes and thus make the impact of slots revenue on schools meaningless." Now ask yourself, do you really trust Annapolis not to divert the money away from education? If you don't trust Annapolis (and, you shouldn't) - it's clear that the slots ballot question language, written by a former gambling lobbyist, is misleading and inappropriate.

The Sun concludes:

No matter where one stands on the issue of slots, Maryland voters need a fair explanation of the constitutional amendment -- not necessarily a complete but at least a balanced one. Decades ago, the state lottery required approval by voters, and many still remember the empty promises of how lottery revenues would go to underwrite schools.

The fix here is easy. A new version should simply state that the revenue would be used for education -- period. It needn't delineate the potential ills that come from slots. That's the burden of opponents. But it shouldn't make misleading pro-slots claims that undermine the process.

There's still time to stop the unfair, former gambling lobbyist written ballot question! The Maryland Board of Elections must certify the ballot and we're asking that they reject the ballot language because the language submitted, as the Baltimore Sun acknowledges, is neither fair nor balanced.