One Man's Crusade to Mislead

John P. McDonough is our Secretary of State. He's a former gambling lobbyist appointed by Martin O'Malley and has the power to write the amendment to enshrine slot machine gambling into our Constitution. The amendment he wrote will appear on the ballot in full. Everyone agrees that it's biased in favor of his former gambling industry bosses. The Baltimore Sun has described the language as "misleading" and recommends that it be rewritten; The Washington Post has said the language "misrepresents" the proposal before Maryland voters; the President of the League of Women Voters of Maryland declared the current wording neither balanced nor complete with the potential to be misleading.

Secretary McDonough has until September 10th to correct this travesty and Marylanders United has written a letter urging him to do so. The open letter reads as follows:

September 4, 2008

Mr. John P. McDonough
Secretary of State
16 Francis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Secretary McDonough:

As the September 10, 2008 deadline for certifying the November ballot approaches, I want to formally request, once again while there is still time, that your office re-write Question 2 – Constitutional Amendment, so that it more accurately reflects that a significant portion of the projected slots revenue – nearly $500 million – will go to the gambling industry. I am also writing to check on the status of our August 6, 2008 request for records under the Maryland Public Information Act.

The language you submitted to the State Board of Elections does not fairly, clearly and impartially characterize this important Constitutional amendment. And this determination is one shared by many impartial observers. The Baltimore Sun has described the language as "misleading" and recommends that it be rewritten; The Washington Post has said the language "misrepresents" the proposal before Maryland voters. Even the venerable League of Women Voters has called Question 2 as written into question.

Regardless of one's position on slots, we can all agree that this issue should be decided in a fair, open and honest way. The State Board of Elections has indicated that it does not have the authority to ensure the fairness or accuracy of the election ballot, and that this responsibility falls to you alone. Because of your clear conflict of interest in this matter, it is particularly incumbent upon you to act in a way that is beyond reproach, and that you make every effort to ensure the fairness of the question.

Marylanders United to Stop Slots submitted alternative language to the Board of Elections, and we are submitting it today for your review and consideration (see below). We would strongly encourage you to adopt this alternative language and put this controversy behind us.

Under Maryland law, public agencies have 30 days to respond to a Public Information Act inquiry, and as of yet we have heard nothing from the Secretary of State's office regarding our records request. Given your past work as a gambling lobbyist and lawyer, we seek to learn more about the drafting and decision making process that led to the current biased ballot question wording. For example, were there other drafts that were rejected? Did the agency contemplate a more balanced presentation of the facts to voters, an approach that may have been rejected when you took office? Because of the critical importance of this matter we ask that you respond to our request with all deliberate haste.

When voters are faced with a decision as significant as a constitutional amendment to allow slot machines, the questions of trust and full disclosure become much more important. This is especially true since voters were told last year that in order to solve the State's budget deficit we needed to approve the largest tax increase in history. A year later, we're all paying more in taxes and we still have an enormous deficit, a clear sign that you can't trust Annapolis when it comes to solving our budget problems. The question we are asking now is can voters trust Annapolis to present a fair and honest description of this important potential amendment to our State's constitution.

Again, we would respectfully ask that you re-write the biased ballot language your office has crafted before the September 10 deadline, and we look forward to your prompt response to our Public Information Act request.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Scott Arceneaux
Senior Adviser
Marylanders United to Stop Slots

We also did his work for him and suggested ballot language that would be fair to both sides of the slots debate. It reads:

Proposed Substitute Language for Question 2 Constitutional Amendment
Question 2 - Constitutional Amendment
(Chapter 5, Acts of 2007 Special Session)

Video Lottery Terminals (Slot Machines)
Authorizes the State to issue up to 5 video lottery operation licenses at specified locations in Allegany County, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Cecil County, and Worcester County. This constitutional amendment provides that only one license may be issued in each specified location, limits the total number of video lottery terminals to 15,000, specifies that the proceeds of the video lottery operations be used for public education, the horse racing industry, and lottery operations , with the remainder going to the licensees (operators). The amendment prohibits the expansion of commercial gaming unless approved by referendum of the voters.

(Enacts new Article XIX of the Maryland Constitution)
For the Constitutional Amendment
Against the Constitutional Amendment

Will McDonough do the right thing? Or, will he continue to bow before the very same gambling lobby that used to line his pockets?