Split decision: Slots lose in Miami-Dade, win in Broward

SOUTH FLORIDA (FBW)—Gambling forces lost one and won one March 8 in the South Florida counties’ referendums on slot machines. Now, attention turns to Tallahassee as the Legislature is required to adopt enabling legislation because voters’ approval of Amendment 4 last November.

The controversial gambling expansion initiative lost in Miami-Dade County, with nearly 52 percent of voters rejecting the referendum, while 57 percent of Broward County voters authorized slot machines at its four pari-mutuel facilities, according to local election officials.

The split decision is considered a set-back for the gambling industry which spent about $7 million in the referendums campaigns to get slot machines at pari-mutuel facilities following the narrow adoption of Amendment 4 last November authorizing the local referendums in the two South Florida counties.

Advocates claimed that slot machines could raise about $500 million annually for the state’s public education needs, while opponents—which were far outspent in the campaign—argued the social costs of expanded gambling far outweighed any projected new tax revenues.

In the waning days of the slot machines campaign, Gov. Jeb Bush—a Miami resident—aggressively lobbied South Florida voters against the referendums, with a letter to the South Florida Christian Coalition, a day of campaigning in the last weekend before the election and interviews with local media outlets. The Florida Baptist Convention contributed $5,000 to the anti-slots efforts of No Casinos, a leading anti-gambling organization in Florida.

Florida Baptist Convention legislative consultant Bill Bunkley praised the governor’s efforts and credited Bush with the defeat in Miami-Dade County.

“Gov. Bush was very influential in blocking the measure in Miami-Dade,” Bunkley told Florida Baptist Witness.

“It was a split, and I think what is certainly clear is that there is no great mandate for expanded gambling in South Florida,’’ anti-slots spokesman Roy Teicher told Associated Press. “It’s really vital that attention be paid to this and that people are vigilant in following up on this. And now the battle goes to the Legislature.’’

The Florida Legislature—which opened its 2005 session the same day as the South Florida slots referendums—is left to determine how the constitutional amendment will be implemented in enabling legislation.

Bunkley discounted the likelihood of passage of legislation introduced Rep. Randy Johnson, R-Celebration, which would put the matter back before voters seeking repeal of Amendment 4. Gambling opponents will seek to limit the impact of slot machines in Broward County, Bunkley said, with the rate of taxation of the machines, hours of operations, and other measures.

Two Indian tribes which operate casinos have suggested they will demand the right to introduce slot machines at their facilities in light of the adoption of Amendment 4.

Bunkley warned that adoption of Amendment 4 last November authorizing the slot machines referendums in South Florida may require the state to begin negotiations with the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes because federal law permits Indian gambling facilities to offer the same class of gambling permitted by a state.

Bunkley said that many voters last fall would probably be “shocked” to know that their approval of Amendment 4 may bring Las Vegas-style gambling to tribal facilities across the state, not just in Broward County.