Opinion: Voters approve gambling expansions in three states


Artist's rendering of the MGM Springfield commercial casino in western Massachusetts. Voters in the state refused to repeal the state's gaming law on election day. Image from MGM Resorts International

New York Times reporter Josh Barro discusses the increasing dependence of state governments on gaming:
On Tuesday, voters in five states considered proposals to significantly expand legal gambling and approved three of them. The two defeated proposals, in California and Colorado, had something in common: They faced strong opposition bankrolled by gambling operators that would have competed with the newly authorized gambling.

Voters in Massachusetts ratified a plan, approved by the legislature, for three full-service casinos. South Dakotans voted to allow existing casinos in the Old West town of Deadwood City to offer more games, including roulette and craps. Rhode Islanders voted 57 to 43 to add table games to an existing racino in Newport — but that won’t happen because city voters, whose approval was also required, rejected the plan.

The approvals, including the moot statewide vote in Rhode Island, are part of a strange trend. States have gradually expanded legal gambling over the last four decades as a way to generate revenue without unpopular tax increases. But large parts of the American market are now saturated, with revenue in decline in most major casino markets. A majority of Americans already live relatively near casinos, so opening new ones does more to shift revenue around than to generate new business. As supply has outpaced demand, some casinos are closing, and governments have missed their projections for gambling-related revenue.

Get the Story:
Josh Barro: The Strange Case of States’ Penchant for Casinos (The New York Times 11/6)

Related Stories
Voters reject North Fork Rancheria off-reservation gaming deal (11/5)
South Dakota voters support initiative for more Class III games (11/5)
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe safe after voters back gaming law (11/5)

Join the Conversation