Policy Brief Vol. 5, No. 34:
August 29, 2002
Video Gambling Proposal Could Become Big Issue
You can count on it. The weeks leading up to a general election typically produce verbal sparks on one issue or another. This year promises to be no exception.
The main attraction in Nebraska seems sure to be a proposed constitutional amendment to allow electronic gaming devices (slot machines) in bars, some restaurants and other venues. The only way this won't be the case is if the courts rule that the initiative-generated proposal is unconstitutional.
Opponents seek such a ruling based on a 1998 constitutional amendment that limits initiative measures to only one subject. But what is one subject?
Proponents say the 2,600-word proposal is a single comprehensive plan to authorize, regulate and tax slot machines, and distribute the proceeds. Opponents counter that as many as a dozen separate subjects are embedded within the proposal. Until the judiciary speaks, we won't know for sure.
Assuming the proposal is certified and appears on the Nov. 5 ballot, certain arguments for and against it will be heard repeatedly. The following will be included in proponents' arguments:
— Nebraskans' gambling dollars are going to neighboring states. They should be kept at home.
— Cities and counties, not state government, would authorize the number and location of machines within the community. Thus, there would be local control. Local governments also would designate machine operators.
— A portion of gamblers' losses would be used for property tax relief, educational programs and community betterment projects.
Opponents will counter with the following arguments:
— Revenue generated for property tax relief will vary widely. Many communities will receive little or nothing.
— Local governments' regulation and enforcement costs could exceed revenues generated.
— Legislative supervision and oversight would be largely absent. Such authority would be vested, instead, in an elected State Gaming Commission.
Beyond these boilerplate arguments, other motivations – pro and con – may be less obvious. For example, potential slot machine operators have been the primary sponsors of efforts to put this issue before the voters. At the same time, some state officials apparently fear that this initiative could preclude eventual consideration of full-fledged, state-controlled casinos.
We shouldn't forget, either, that this issue tugs at the emotions of individual voters. By early November, I have a hunch that few citizens will be undecided about their votes. Most will vote one way or the other with conviction.
08/29/02-RF/VM Roy Frederick - Ph.D.
Agricultural Economics Professor (402) 472-6225
 
Vicki Miller Research Communications Coordinator (402) 472-3813
Department:
Agricultural Economics
|
