One of the questions on the ballot here in Maryland this year is Question 2, which will give voters the opportunity to finally enact sports betting, finally catching up with most of Maryland’s neighbors.
The question will officially read: “Do you approve the expansion of commercial gaming in the State of Maryland to authorize sports and events betting for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education?”
One of the interesting things about the bill (it’s a bill, not a constitutional amendment like most statewide ballot questions) is the fact that the structure of the bill is not being enacted by referendum. The actual mechanics of how sports gaming will work will be decided by the General Assembly later.
That led to this peculiar comment from Democratic State Senate Craig Zucker:
But in March the legislature adjourned early because of the pandemic. It didn’t have enough to time to negotiate details on how the industry would operate, how the revenue would be split and who would get licenses if voters approved it.
Instead, lawmakers passed a bill that said Maryland would figure out how to build the industry after it was approved by voters. It’s a departure from the state’s two previous gambling expansions, slot machines and table games, which each went to voters with a prescriptive blueprint about how the industry would work if passed.
“We had to rush out of Annapolis,” said Sen. Craig J. Zucker (D-Montgomery). “Instead of going back and forth at the House [of Delegates] with five seconds on the shot clock, we just put it on the ballot.”
Zucker noted that every state surrounding Maryland either already has sports betting or has approved a program that’s getting ready to launch.
“We just put it on the ballot” is exactly how constitutional amendments or, in this case, legislative referral to referenda are supposed to work.
Democrats in the General Assembly have generally failed to lead on gambling from jump street. When casinos were first authorized in 2007, the Democrats insisted that the question be placed in the State Constitution in order to force the voters to decide on the issue. This included an overly complicated explanation of what gambling was in the state constitution. That’s why when table games were proposed to be added in addition to slot machines it required an entirely new referendum.
Ever look at Article XIX? It includes detailed descriptions as to where gambling facilities can be.
Sen. Zucker is complaining about the fact that the General Assembly couldn’t come to a complete deal as to what sports betting would look like before adopting the enabling legislation. That’s a good thing. That gives the General Assembly the ability to be flexible to meet the needs and demands of the marketplace. But this also means that the General Assembly will actually wait until seeing if the referendum is passed before proceeding to the next steps. Why do particulars about implementation need to be hammered out before you even know if the referendum is going to pass?
Adopting changes to gambling law in the General Assembly and not having Democrats kick the can over to voters is the responsible thing to do, and provides the agility and flexibility the gaming industry needs to propser.
Question 2, which I support, is the first time that Democrats on the General Assembly have put forth to the votes a gambling question in a way that makes sense. I fully expect that Sports Betting, which Maryland should have adopted years ago, to be adopted and hopefully implemented in time for the 2021 football season.