Mainers Have Changed their Minds About Racinos

Douglas Muir

April 2004

On November 4, 2003, Maine voters rejected, by a 33-67 margin, a Foxwoods-style casino in southern Maine. In seeming contradiction, they also approved, by a 53-47 margin, one or more racetrack casinos, or "racinos."

Since the election, we have heard repeatedly from racino promoters that we must respect the "will of the people." Agreed. But what, exactly, is the will of the people concerning the legalization of slot machine gambling in Maine?

One indication of that will is the result of the referendum campaign of November 2000, when, by a margin of 40% for and 60% against, the voters statewide rejected slot machines at Scarborough Downs. In contrast to that vote, the referendum in 2003 placed two very different proposals for the expansion of gambling in the state before the public on the same ballot. In my opinion, fear of success of the casino initiative profoundly affected the vote on the legalization of slot machines.

Evidence for this can be found in the polling results released during the campaign by organizations such as Critical Insights, Strategic Marketing Systems, Market Decisions and Survey USA. These results changed from month to month by amounts considerably larger than the sampling accuracy of around 4%, presumably reflecting genuine shifts in opinion

In a poll released on May 1, 2003, a question identical to the final wording of the casino referendum question was supported by a margin of 57-41. As worrisome aspects of the casino legislation were debated, the margin began to narrow, with a 50-42 result published on August 10. Finally, on October 9, a poll showed the casino proposal trailing for the first time, but only by a percentage point. In the final three weeks of the campaign a large shift took place. A poll published on October 15 showed the casino then trailing 43-50. Polls released in the final ten days of the campaign gave results of 41-57, 38-59 and 33-67.

The pattern of polling results on the racino question was entirely different. The same May 1 poll mentioned above showed the racino running behind 43-52, figures not changed very much from the vote of November 2000. However, something happened over the summer to change the mind of about 20% of the voters. A poll published on September 29 gave the racino a huge 63-35 lead. In a second surprising turnaround, this 28-point "slam dunk" lead nearly evaporated in October, dropping to 13 points by mid-month and to just 6 points on election day.

Simple explanations do not come close to explaining these results. Even tribal leaders have said that it is hard to blame the casino defeat on deeply rooted racism against Native Americans, because of the large shifts in public opinion that took place during the campaign. Similarly, there is clearly sympathy for Maine's horse breeders and the agricultural fairs, but this does not explain the month-to-month variations. A third factor is that, unlike the casino campaign, TV and newspaper advertising on the racino question was very one-sided, being nearly all pro-racino. In the month of October, racino supporters blanketed the state with effective media ads and mass-produced campaign signs. In spite of this large pro-racino publicity effort, this time period is exactly when racino support dropped most dramatically.

The element that is missing in these explanations in the brutal competition for gambling dollars and public concern over the effects of this competition. In October 2002 at the legislative task force on casino impact, Scarborough Downs owner Sharon Terry testified "... in every state where casinos compete directly against harness racing, racing has been badly hurt and often destroyed." During the 2003 referendum campaign, the Maine Association of Agricultural Fairs distributed 800,000 campaign flyers attacking the tribal casino proposal and concluding "If a casino comes, the fairs and harness racing will go!"

The most likely explanation for the early rise and late fall of racino support is that there is a substantial block of voters who are generally opposed to slot machine gambling, but whose highest priority is preserving the harness racing industry. Over the summer months, when the tribal casino appeared unstoppable, they switched from a "racino no" to a "racino yes" position, as an act of self-defense. Similarly, when support for the casino plummeted in October, this same block of swing voters began returning to their original "racino no" position.

Of course not all voters followed the polls this closely or necessarily believed what they heard or read. Today, those swing voters know that the casino initiative really did go down to a crushing defeat. This factor lends special significance to a poll conducted after the election by Market Decisions of South Portland. It clearly shows a continuation of the slide in public support for racinos discussed above. According to the poll, which was conducted in January, 2004, a majority of Maine's citizens are, once again, opposed to racinos. As of that date, 47% of Mainers were in favor of a racino and 53% were opposed.  Many additional results of this poll are summarized in a news article and the corresponding Market Decisions press release.

The trend of declining support for a racino is summarized in the table below, which compares the vote on election day, November 4, 2003, with the poll conducted two months before the vote and the one conducted two months after the election.

With the threat of a huge Native American casino now a fading memory, public support for racinos has dropped dramatically.  The January 2004 poll numbers are, in fact, comparable to the 40-60 result of the vote of 2000 and the 43-52 result of the poll taken at the beginning of the 2003 campaign.

For everyone who truly respects the will of the people, an urgent task is to work towards placing a vote on the issue of slot machines at the tracks once again before the voters of Maine. The question of slot machines at the tracks should be decided on its own merits, this time in an atmosphere free of fear.