Casino proposal likely to pass by wide margin

By Mark Hornbeck / The Detroit News LANSING -- The statewide ballot proposal to limit casino gambling was headed for voter approval Tuesday, Detroit News exit polling indicated. The survey of 800 voters, conducted in collaboration with Local 4 and WZZM 13 in Grand Rapids, showed the Proposal 1 constitutional amendment leading 55-45. “The big winners are Michigan voters,” said Roger Martin, spokesman for proponents of the measure. “Now voters will always have a say on whether casino-style gambling and Internet gambling games that are run by the state can operate in their communities.” The outcome appears to kill efforts to place video slot machines at horse tracks, or so-called racinos. Opponents say a Proposal 1 victory also threatens the future of the state lottery and the funding it generates for public schools. “This proves that $20 million can buy the state's constitution,” said Kelly Rossman-McKinney, spokeswoman for the opposition. “We have now constitutionally prohibited voters from ever deciding on expansion of Indian casinos or Detroit casinos and we've put school funding at risk by threatening the future of the Michigan lottery.” Passage of the measure to require statewide and local voter approval of gambling expansion spoils plans for a racino vote in the Legislature. Key lawmakers had intended to take up that legislation before the end of the year. The “yes” vote, however, will not curb expansion of Indian gaming or the three Detroit casinos. Indian casinos are regulated by the federal government. The Detroit gaming halls are specifically exempted in the ballot proposal. It remains to be seen how much impact Proposal 1 will have on the state lottery. Gov. Jennifer Granholm and other state officials said restrictions in the measure endanger the lottery's long-term viability and therefore the $600 million in revenue the games generate for public schools. Independent studies indicate the current game is not threatened, but the ballot proposal limits the lottery's flexibility to update games to maintain or increase ticket sales down the road. The anti-gambling forces lined up in favor of Proposal 1 along with Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who wanted to protect the viability of the three city revenue-generating casinos in Detroit. State leaders including Granholm and school groups fearing impact on the state lottery took a hard line against it. But this campaign on both sides was about making bushels of money. The Indian casinos and the three gaming halls in Detroit financed the pro side, to the tune of $18.3 million, in an attempt to constitutionally limit competition and protect their share of the state gaming market. That's more than the President Bush campaign spent on ads in Michigan. Interests who want lucrative slot machines at horse tracks bankrolled the opposition. They shelled out $7.6 million. Taken together, spending by the two sides may be a record high for a Michigan ballot proposal. The Proposal 1 campaign was going strong this summer, with polls showing a wide margin of voters in favor of putting limits on gambling. Then when Granholm decided in early fall to take an active role in the anti-Proposal 1 effort, support for the ballot plan started to go south. But the governor's effort ultimately was trumped by the overwhelming volume of ads aired on TV and radio by the proponents. The commercials painted Granholm and other Proposal 1 opponents as double-talking politicians playing a shell game in an effort to trick voters. Backers of the amendment said they had to hustle in the final days of the campaign to “unconfuse” voters after the governor and others muddled the issue with the lottery arguments. “After being confused for so long by both sides, voters probably took the time this past week to actually read the ballot language and realized the argument that Proposal 1 threatens the lottery doesn't stand up,” said Martin, the Proposal 1 spokesman. “By and large it was a vote for a vote and nothing more.” Granholm, who went all out against the amendment in September and October, pegged her opposition to the notion that passage could cripple the state lottery, which funnels money to the public schools. She enlisted the help of education groups and prominent Republican leaders such as House Speaker Rick Johnson and Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson. The “no” coalition put the governor's formidable political credibility and telegenic face to good use. She was featured in three TV ads that proved devastating to Proposal 1 supporters. Bill Ballenger, editor of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter, said Granholm's aggressive campaign against the proposal was surprising and unprecedented.