More News

ANNAPOLIS — Opponents of slot machine gambling filed suit Aug. 28 in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court to prohibit state elections officials from certifying the proposed ballot language that the plaintiffs allege is misleading and biased.

The legal challenge intensifies the lengthy battle over expanded gambling in Maryland and opens a new front in the effort to defeat slots. Voters will decide in November whether to approve putting 15,000 slot machines at five locations in Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester counties and Baltimore city.

Anti-slots advocates have blasted the proposed ballot language drafted last week by Secretary of State John P. McDonough, saying it's crafted to deceive voters into believing slots revenue will go solely toward education.

"My concern is simply that this referendum question does not pass the smell test," said Aaron W. Meisner, chairman of Stop Slots Maryland, who is one of several plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "… We would be doing ourselves and our supporters a tremendous disservice if we did not explore every potential avenue in terms of assuring the voters are faced with a fair and reasonable ballot question."

McDonough, who has taken heat from slots opponents because he is a former lobbyist for Rosecroft Raceway in Prince George's County, said he closely followed legislative mandates in writing the referendum and does not believe the language favors either side of the debate.

Meanwhile, the state elections board on Aug. 28 declined another anti-slots group's request to reject the proposed wording, consider alternate language or seek an attorney general's opinion.

"I'm sure the public is tired of people just kicking the can here," said Scott Arceneaux, senior adviser for Marylanders United to Stop Slots. "I can't believe that the entire executive branch is incapable of writing a fair and impartial ballot."

Arceneaux said his group does not plan on joining the lawsuit filed by Owings Mills attorney Irwin R. Kramer on behalf of Meisner and his group, NOcasiNO Maryland, and its co-chairman, Barbara Knickelbein, and Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Dist. 36) of Elkton. But he did not completely rule out being a part of the legal action once all other avenues have been exhausted.

The different approaches by the leading anti-slots organizations will not undermine the opposition's effectiveness, Arceneaux said.

"There's a lot of reasons to oppose slots and a lot of people that oppose slots don't agree," he said. "We all have different reasons here, so we want to get them all out on the table. They've got reasons to oppose this, we do, and we're going to keep this going at all barrels."

Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot, a vocal slots opponent, also does not plan to join the lawsuit, said his chief of staff, David S. Weaver. "We don't accept the idea that nobody in government can provide relief for slots opponents," he said. "The system is broke if the only way to right a wrong is to file a lawsuit."

Slots proponents characterized the lawsuit as "anti-democratic" and a frivolous attempt to block voters from settling the issue of slots.

"This has obviously been in front of the citizens of Maryland for more than a decade, going back to when Peter Franchot was sponsoring constitutional amendments for slots," said Frederick W. Puddester, chairman of the For Maryland For Our Future, which was formed to support the referendum. "To come here at the 11th hour now to try to stop the vote is anti-democratic. Let the voters decide."

Arceneaux said his group does not want to stop the referendum from taking place, but will exhaust all avenues to modify the language.

"What's going to be on the ballot has to be about trust and people ought to know what they're voting on," he said.

The substitute wording proposed by Arceneaux and rejected by the state elections board adds that the horse racing industry, lottery operations and slots licensees will also benefit from gaming revenues. The current language only mentions education as a recipient of gambling proceeds.

"We feel it doesn't give either side an advantage, but it does give a much fuller picture of what voters are voting on in November," he said.

He said he plans to make another appeal to McDonough within a few days.

The lawsuit boils down to truth in voting, said Kramer, who earlier this year represented a Carroll County businessman and several Republican lawmakers who sought to invalidate the product of last year's special session on procedural constitutional violations.

"If we're going to put it to a popular vote, we have to be honest about what we put on the label," he said, adding that the current language will manipulate voters into supporting slots solely to help fund schools. "That makes it look very enticing to voters, because who's going to vote against our kids? … Judges who take a look at this in an objective, honest way ought be troubled about what our state is trying to tell the voter."