By Sondra Washington and Jennifer Davis Rash
Television commercials, pro-gambling politicians and casino operators alike are declaring, “Let the people vote.” This rhetoric currently centers around Senate Bill (SB) 380 and its companion bill, House Bill (HB) 507, calling for a referendum to legitimize illegal slot machines being called electronic bingo.
Since these are only two of the bills calling for a gambling vote and are the only ones moving, opponents say the legislation receiving all the attention is more about sustaining unlawful casino operations than allowing people to exercise their right to vote.
Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, who has fought against gambling for many years, said the gamblers only want to pass their version of the bill. “It’s just one big charade,” he said. “The gamblers are manipulating the media to try to drive the vote. … Gamblers don’t like to take chances. They like to stack the deck in their direction and make sure the house wins. It’s about making money and winning.”
And why not call for a straight up or down vote? Maybe something like “Do you want to legalize slot machines? Yes or no.”
If the answer is yes, then the next step would be to figure out the parameters for that. If the answer is no, then all facilities with slot machines, no matter what they are called, would remain illegal and could not operate.
Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville, sponsor of SB 380, said this is not an option because Alabamians would not vote for gambling if that were the wording.
“We would never get it through because there is a fear that we wouldn’t get higher taxes and regulations on it, because if you legalize it without those in place, then you have to fight the gambling industry to get those things,” he said, noting right now industry representatives will negotiate because they want it legalized. “If it is legalized and then we try to negotiate, it will be hard to get higher taxes and regulations out of them.”
But Attorney General Troy King disagrees.
He wants a simple, up or down vote on the issue, then work out the details of taxation and regulation if it is decided that expansion of gambling is what Alabamians want. “I believe the people of Alabama are just like me and want an easy, straight-forward constitutional amendment that is yes or no,” King said.
Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, who has sponsored one of the other “let the people vote” bills, SB 333, said, “Why not an up or down vote?
“We’ve got to find out where the people are,” he said. “If the people want to expand gambling, then we’ve got to figure out what to do, but the legislation that would expand gambling should not be written by the four or five who are going to benefit from it.”
Bedford confirmed that representatives from the existing gambling operations in the state — such as VictoryLand, Country Crossing, Greenetrack, Mobile Greyhound Park, White Hall, etc. — are helping write the bill.
He and Rep. Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, sponsor of HB 507, contend that legislation dealing with this issue cannot be written without input from existing facilities in the state.
But Beason believes this proves the legislation is not a true “let the people vote” bill.
“If this bill passes and the people vote yes, then we’ll never be able to repeal it because of the gambling money and the influence that will run the Legislature,” he said.
That’s one reason why Beason plans to introduce an amendment to SB 380 calling for a reauthorization vote by the people periodically. “That way when people realize it is bad, they can vote again,” he said.
Beason still believes his bill is the best option for the state currently.
It would give state residents the opportunity to vote whether they want any kind of gambling activity in the state and would repeal all county amendments currently allowing charity bingo games.
“My bill is an abolition of gambling all the way around. It asks, ‘Are we going to be a gambling state or not?’” he explained. “There is no carrot, and it doesn’t buy anyone.”
But Beason was clear to point out that his bill would call for a yes or no vote on whether to rid the state of all forms of gambling, even what is already legal, including the dog tracks and charitable paper bingo.
“Doing away with it for good clears out all the problems,” he said.
Plus the only way to shut down the Poarch Band of Creek Indian casinos is with a bill “like mine,” he added.
If Alabamians voted no on Beason’s constitutional amendment, then that would not legalize slot machines in the state. It would mean everything would remain the same as it is right now.
While many have criticized the extreme restrictive nature of Beason’s bill, King was considering endorsing it at press time.
But King prefers sticking with the legislation calling for a statewide vote on gambling he prepared six years ago that has had a sponsor every year, except this year.
He said in a recent press conference that the legislation he has prepared would “replace the 17 constitutional amendments we now have that allow bingo and the confusion they create with a single, simple statement of law.” Yet the proposed bill he gave to media representatives does not repeal the current bingo constitutional amendments, causing confusion around the state. Instead it would “preserve” the current amendments and “allow pari-mutuel wagering or non-electronic forms of gambling.”
Beason and Erwin have both sponsored King’s legislation in the past.
Beason said he did not sponsor it this year because it was not as restrictive as he wanted.
Erwin said he did not sponsor it this year because the courts have spoken on the issue and slot machines are illegal in the state, so there is no need for the bill.
Still one other bill, SB 381, sponsored by Sen. Marc Keahey, D-Grove Hill, was filed in an attempt to “let the people vote.” It has not moved out of committee either.
Keahey’s proposed constitutional amendment would legalize “commercial bingo operations” and establish a gaming commission, but it would limit the number of facilities to eight statewide. This bill would also repeal all constitutional amendments allowing charity bingo but retain the charitable requirements for electronic bingo gambling in the state.
While Beason, Erwin and others could only speculate why their bills this year and in the past are not being allowed a chance for debate by the full legislative bodies, they do believe it is connected to the existing gambling industry. “The gambling interest already has an overwhelming influence on this Legislature,” Beason said. “They are very powerful people who want to see gambling legalized while making the state pay for the social costs.
“They won’t allow a bill to come up if it hinders their profit,” he noted.
Share with others: