In its narrowly worded and narrowly approved constitutional amendment last November, the gambling
industry argued that Floridians shouldn't stand in the way of two counties that wanted their own slot machines.
Despite a $7-million promotional campaign, voters in Broward and Miami-Dade this week all but shrugged
their shoulders.
The low turnout and the unexpected loss in Miami-Dade should prove instructive to state lawmakers, who will
write the regulations for slot machines in Broward County and determine how much they are taxed. Despite
what the gaming industry suggests, Floridians aren't clamoring for casinos.
The vote does mean, though, that lawmakers will need to honor the intent of the constitutional amendment
and provide for slot machines at four existing parimutuel facilities in Broward. Some House members are
already suggesting they should approve only the video-style low-stakes machines already in place in the
state's unregulated Indian casinos. Such an approach might help the state prevent the spread of full-scale
casino gambling to other counties, such as Hillsborough, that already have Indian gaming facilities. But
whether the low-stakes version faithfully complies with the Constitution is, at best, debatable.
Given the prospect that Florida may need to authorize so-called "Class III" gambling in Broward, Gov. Jeb
Bush and lawmakers should carefully consider the implications. If that would lead inevitably to more gambling
on Indian reservations, then it is past time for the state and the tribes to reach a compact that will enable the
public to get something in return. Without such an agreement, Broward could be home to four slot gaming
rooms that are regulated and taxed and one that is not, the Seminole Indian Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in
Hollywood.
The industry already has publicly committed to give 30 percent of the new slot proceeds to public education,
but that tax rate should serve only as a floor for legislative debate. Some states tax as much as 80 percent. In
a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, one gaming official argued that too much taxation would deter
investors and spoil the ambiance of the facilities. "A 10 percent tax rate will get you a Bellagio," she said, "a
35 percent tax rate will get you a Holiday Inn and a 70 percent rate will get you a slot barn." Given that the
slot tax is pledged to schools, why would lawmakers want to assure gamblers a Bellagio when students are
being taught in trailers?
The state has no choice but to let the slot games begin in some form on July 1, but it has no obligation to
inflate industry profits. Especially when schools were supposed to be the winners.