LANSING – The cigars came out Tuesday night at the Lansing headquarters of Let Voters Decide, the committee backing Proposal 1, which required state and local referenda to extend gambling in the state. The measure passed by 59-41 margin despite Gov. Granholm?s pleas that the amendment would affect state Lottery revenues used to fund schools. Opponents said money carried the day, as proponents outspent them by nearly 3-1.

Kelly Rossman-McKinney with No Casino Monopolies, one of the two opposition committees, said the election was about money. She said her side had been able to close the gap during the last month, but had not had the funds to keep up the media exposure that proposal backers were able to maintain.

“We’re disappointed by the outcome, but not surprised that we were outspent nearly three to one by Detroit and Indian casinos,” Rossman-McKinney said. “We did a good job in the campaign of focusing the debate on who would be most affected by the proposal: Michigan’s school children. In the end, however, it was not enough to counter the $20 million campaign blitz by the casino interests.”

Granholm spokeswoman Elizabeth Boyd was even more blunt: “What we have is a group that literally bought an amendment to the constitution.”

Granholm, House Speaker Rick Johnson (R-LeRoy) and other state and local officials have argued the proposal would affect the Lottery’s ability to develop new games and new methods of distributing games, which would eventually cut heavily into the Lottery’s revenues as players lose interest in current games.

“Now the fears that the governor talked about will come true,” Boyd said. “It will take some time to know the impact on public education.”

Roger Martin, spokesperson for Let Voters Decide, said the results were expected given that some 80 percent of Michigan residents think there is enough gambling opportunity in the state. Martin said adoption of the issue was a victory for voters.

“From this day forward no matter where you live in the state of Michigan if the state proposes casino gambling or Internet gambling you get a vote,” he said.

Opponents had argued the proposal would limit the Lottery’s ability to develop new games and so would eventually reduce the revenue the games provide to schools, but Martin said in the end, voters read the proposal and saw that it was about voting on casino gambling.

Martin acknowledged that the issue could end up in court, but he maintained that it was not the intention of supporters to affect current formats of Lottery games and that the proposal would only cut off the ability of the Lottery to begin using video lottery terminals, slot machines or other casino-style games.

This article was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com