Montgomery's legislators have long been some of the loudest voices opposed to the expansion of slot machine gambling, so it was not surprising when a recent sampling found many local residents who share their views.

In a rather unscientific straw ballot conducted by the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, more than half of participants said they oppose the slots measure backed by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D). Voters will be asked in the November election whether to allow up to 15,000 slot machines at five locations throughout the state.

The central committee surveyed led about 600 people who stopped by its tent at the Montgomery County Fair this month. The results: 37 percent in favor; 56 percent opposed and 7 percent undecided, according to Milton J. Minneman, a spokesman for the committee.

Straw pollsters did not check whether participants were registered voters or county residents, so the results are not a reliable indicator of local sentiment.

"The vote may or may not have reflected the views of Montgomery County Democrats," Minneman said in announcing the results. "Of interest was the low vote for 'had not made up their mind yet,' which was even lower as the week progressed."

A recent statewide poll conducted for slots proponents told a different story: 63 percent of likely voters said they favor the slots measure, and 34 percent were opposed. The poll, conducted in May by Garin Hart Yang Research Group, found nearly identical support for slots in the Washington and Baltimore media markets.

An independent poll released in January found less support for slots, with 54 percent of regular voters backing the proposal and 38 percent against legalizing the machines.
Next month, Montgomery's central committee will decide whether to take a position on the measure and on other ballot questions voters will face in November.

An anti-slots group says that the wording of a November referendum to authorize 15,000 slot machines in Maryland is too favorable to pro-gambling interests.

The language, released today by Secretary of State John P. McDonough, an appointee of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), lists several education programs that stand to benefit from slots proceeds. Scott Arceneaux, a senior adviser to Marylanders United To Stop Slots, noted that the ballot question does not mention the portion of proceeds that will be kept by slots operators or earmarked for the horse-racing industry.

"We think it's as favorable to the pro-slots side as possible," Arceneaux said, adding that the group is studying its options, including legal action.

In a statement, McDonough, who as a lawyer formerly represented Rosecroft Raceway in Prince George's, said he crafted a fair question. He noted that the ballot language makes clear that the "video lottery terminals" at issue are "slot machines."

"While I am sure advocates on one side or the other (or both) will probably have criticisms, I am satisfied I carried out my statutory duty to fairly summarize the intent and meaning ..... without arguing for or against it," McDonough said.

Fred Puddester, chairman of For Maryland For Our Future, a pro-slots group, said in a statement that legislation authorizing the referendum last year made clear that the primary purpose of slots is to help education. "That purpose of funding education should not be lost in the coming weeks as we continue our discussion on this important issue," he said.

Here is the ballot language:

Authorizing video lottery terminals (slot machines) to fund education

Authorizes the state to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions. No more than a total number of 15,000 video lottery terminals may be authorized in the State, and only one license may be issued for each specified location in Anne Arundel, Cecil, Worcester, and Allegany Counties and Baltimore City. Any additional forms or expansion of commercial gaming in Maryland is prohibited, unless approved by a voter referendum.

Maryland's slots wars, 17 days and counting before Labor Day's traditional fall campaign kickoff, managed to heat up anyway on Thursday.

First, state and local leaders working to defeat the November referendum held a press conference on the boardwalk in Ocean City -- host this week of the annual Maryland Association of Counties conference and a few miles from the proposed slots site at the Ocean Downs racetrack-- to denounce a small business impact statement put out by the administration of Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).

The two-paragraph "economic impact analysis" was short and sweet: If slots facilities buy goods from local businesses at the five proposed sites, "these small businesses would benefit," it concludes. The businesses include horse breeders and related racing industries.

But the analysis, required by the referendum legislation approved by the General Assembly, goes on to state that "other small businesses could be negatively impacted by the substitution of any consumer spending away from other consumption to gambling."

That's it. Comptroller Peter Franchot (D) , flanked by several council members from Montgomery County and Ocean City, held up the one- page document and called it a "scholarly study of two paragraphs that said absolutely nothing."

Meanwhile, slots supporters were gathering their own firepower for a press conference to denounce opponents for considering filing a lawsuit against the state when the language of the Nov. 4 ballot question is made public next week.

Stop Slots Maryland leaders pressed Maryland's new secretary of state, John McDonough, last month to recuse himself from preparing the ballot language, citing a conflict of interest with his former job as attorney and lobbyist for Rosecroft Raceway. McDonough said writing the language was part of his job, required by statute.

Scott Arceneaux, a senior advisor to the anti-slots campaign, told WBAL radio this week that his group will consider suing the state if the ballot language is not to their liking. The pro-slots For Maryland For Our Future took his comment to mean that opponents intend to go to court to throw out the whole referendum.

"We always thought that they would challenge the ballot language sight unseen, and that's their right, but we never thought that they would actually try to stop the referendum," Fred Puddester, chairman of the pro-slots campaign, told reporters Thursday. "Whether you're for or against the slots referendum, the fair thing to do is to allow the election to move forward."

Arcenaux and other slots opponents said Puddester is engaging in hyberbole.

A leading anti-slots group is calling on new Secretary of State John P. McDonough to recuse himself from crafting ballot language for a fall referendum on whether Maryland should legalize up to 15,000 slot machines.

McDonough has served as a lawyer for Rosecroft Raceway in Prince George's County. Approving language for ballot questions is one of the varied responsibilities that falls to the secretary of state in Maryland.

Given McDonough's past representation of a gambling interest, "your ability to carry out this responsibility in an impartial fashion is very much in doubt," Scott Arceneaux, senior adviser to Marylander United To Stop Slots, wrote in a letter to McDonough dated yesterday. Arceneaux asks for a reply by tomorrow.

A spokesman for McDonough, who was appointed by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), a slots supporter, said McDonough declined to comment. An O'Malley spokesman took a pass as well.

When asked about this issue during a recent news conference announcing his appointment, McDonough likened himself to an umpire whose job it is to call balls and strikes as he sees them.

Anti-slots strategists sought today to put to rest talk that they may turn to out-of-state gambling interests to help fund their campaign to defeat slots in Maryland.

In a conference call with reporters, Aaron Meisner, chairman of StopSlotsMaryland, said the notion has "no basis in reality." Both Meisner and and Scott Arceneaux, a representative of Marylanders United To Stop Slots, another group working to defeat the November referendum, pledged during the call not to take any gambling money.

In interviews this spring, Meisner left the door open to the possibility, saying he could not speak for his grass-roots coalition. Since then, pro-slots forces have needled their opponents on the issue, suggesting as recently as this month that they were planning to take gambling money.

"We've always been grassroots and funded by the people of Maryland," Meisner said today.

The issue has received renewed attention in the past week with the announcement by Penn National Gaming, an Pennsvylvania-based company, that it is interested in operating one of the five Maryland sites that would be authorized. The company has suggested it might provide financial support to the pro-slots side, being led by a group called For Maryland For Our Future.

Voters will be asked in November to allow slots at up to 15,000 machines at locations in Allegany, Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester counties and Baltimore.