Proposals 1 and 2

[KalicoKitty]

The wording is confusing, as usual. I am undecided about the gambling one. I support casinos, but I don't want to hurt our schools.

I am for gay unions and feel they should have their rights.

[noamnety]

1. it is confusing

I'm a bit confused, too. I see Granholm is against Proposal 1, saying it will take money away from schools. I know I trust Granholm, but I don't understand the logic of it ... doesn't the proposal require voters to approve new gambling sites? How does that take money away from schools?

I would think more gambling (which the bill seems to limit) would be more competition for the lottery, which would mean less money for schools.

Granholm blasting the bill:
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gambling15e_20041015.htm

Here's a bit more on it, I guess it will limit the lottery's ability to use new technologies. http://www.mlive.com/columns/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1097508131198530.xml

Definitely No on 2, because it bans even civil union rights.

[phlyphisher]

2. Prop 1 is suspect

Anything that Dick Posthumous is behind (Prop 1), I have a hard time trusting.

I'm also saddened that Mich. will likely join the numerous states in supporting hate language with Prop 2. I think that the measure will ultimately be overturned by the courts, thankfully.

[UrbScotty]

3. Prop 2 is close

http://www.coalitionforafairmichigan.org/new/press_releases/9_14.htm

This is a Gallup poll, mind you.

I hope the trend continues.

[stavka]

5. Courts can't overturn amendments -

That's the playbook they judge!

[UrbScotty]

6. Federal courts can overturn it

Of course, if it passes, I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to do so.

[lousydog]

19. the courts...

If a judge in Louisiana was brave enough to stand up and declare the discriminatory nature of that state's amendment unconstitutional, there's no logical reason that judges in MI would not do the same.

In fact, I'm counting on it, and (should it pass) plan to have a discussion with the ACLU-MI on 11/03 about what's being planned to challenge it in the courts.

----
mark
----
What you call "judicial activism," I call "checks-and-balances."

[michigandem2]

21. i voted no on both

I just figured nobody would ever vote yes for casinos and so I left that one a big fat NO

I voted no on Prop two...my feeling is why does anyone care what a person wants to do with their life...homosexuals deserve the right to be married...or to have civil unions and rights to help their partners make choices if they aren't able to...seems easy to me but we live in freeperville grand rapids

[tokenlib]

7. Here's my take..

On #1--if new forms of gambling include lottery games--and lottery revenues decline--the schools will still get their funding from the General Fund. HOWEVER, that money will decrease money available for everthing else in the budget.

In brief.. If it is confusing, if it is questionable--VOTE NO! Don't take any chances, I'm not.

Also, vote no on #2 is a no-brainer. It is a vindictive, hate-filled amendment that seeks to stop civil unions and partnership benefits for heterosexual and gay couples. See the Michigan ACLU summary on their website www.aclumich.org for details.

[stavka]

15. Wouldn't proposal one (1) kill Church KENO and Bingo?

That's a gambling enterprise that is currently in local executive hands, rather than the state wide population?

[UrbScotty]

4. The Detroit News and the GR Press, of all papers, reject Proposal 2!

Detroit News
The Grand Rapids Press

[jayfish]

8. Prop. 1 Seems To Morph On Any Given Day.

It's now my understanding that it also applies to on-line gambling and the state lottery. Prop. 1 seems to be a fundy attempt to quash gambling in the state under the guise of citizens rights. I wonder if we could get Bill Bennett to come and campaign against it?

Jay

[Strawman]

9. I think I'm going to vote yes on 1

I am wary of anything that is going to potentially harm public schools, and before I gave it much thought, I was ready was to just trust Governor Granholm on this and vote no, but I do tend to think that it would not be such a bad idea to require voter approval for expanding gambling whether it is under the guise of the certain types of electronic lotto games in bars or casinos or racinos.

I have a bit of a problem with this new trend to finance everything through "sin taxes" or lotto games because they ultimately amount to a regressive tax. It's just too easy for legislators to target these activities for taxation. Lately it seems there's always some last minute compromise to balance the budget this way. In fact, I believe the argument for rejecting Proposal 1 in order to "protect schools" more or less concedes this because it is based on the idea that the State plans on expanding electronic lotto games to meet future financing needs for schools, not that any current funds will be decreased. And in effect what they're doing is shifting the tax burden off of the wealthy and corporations where I think more of it belongs. We ought to be advocating funding the schools through a progressive state income tax, or corporate taxes, not the lotto. How long are the lines in Birmingham party stores to play the lotto?

If people want to gamble, that's fine, it's a free country and we already have casinos and a lottery, but I think there is something wrong with increasingly coming to depend on financing schools and necessary public goods and services through people's addictions. Taxes should be progressive and economic growth via gambling is a bad strategy.

I think the Free Press endorses a Yes vote on 1 also, and I'll give more weight to their endorsement than The News or any Grand Rapids paper. http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/ecas6_20041006.htm

I'm definitely voting no on 2. No question there.

[bif]

10. No on both

In theory, 1 sounds good. It says that voters get to decide on any news games. However, the current casinos and Indian casinos are totally exempt. And that stinks. The law should apply equally to everyone. And 2 should go down for obvious reasons. You don't ammend the constitution to take away rights but to expand rights.

[placton]

11. Vote No on 1

This is supported by a combo of Native American interests, and fundies. Granholm says vote NO - and she's right.

[Lefty48197]

12. I voted "no" on both

Prop 2 was easy. It basically denies basic civil rights to many people. I don't see how anybody could support it.

Prop 1 isn't so clear. If it passes, then it sounds like it would put a moratorium on any more gambling enterprises. I wouldn't mind seeing slots or video poker in the race tracks, or even bars. They could regulate the bets to a 1 dollar or 25 cent maximum.
I also want to see card games and sports betting legalized. The laws against them sound like the prohibition laws of the 1920's. They were ignored.

[MichiganVote]

13. Vote no on prop 1 and 2

First of all prop 1 is poorly written but craftily designed. It allows people to vote on gambling related establishments that are not Indian. Another piss poor attempt by evangelicals to screw the schools and turn us all into pleasure beggers. No to 1, we can't spend all our time voting about what businesses we will or will not have in our state.

No 2. Forget it. Another evangelical bill. We don't need to add to our troubles.

[last1standing]

14. No on 1 supports the state, casinos, and the schools.

I've read through proposal 1 and from what I read, it not only requires the entire state to vote on every single expansion of gambling in the state, it then requires the community to vote on it as well. Why on earth should people have to vote twice on a measure to see it passed?

The net effect of this will be to stop smaller ventures that cannot afford to run a statewide campaign from even attempting to open gambling establishments. This is great for MGM and Mandalay, Inc. who already own casinos in Michigan and have the funds to advertise during a campaign, but it hurts racetracks and bars that do not have these funds. Essentially this measure backs big business at the expense of the little guy.

Tourism will also be hurt by this measure as it will limit the number of recreational activities allowed in the state.

And of course it hurts the schools because it will effectively end any new lotteries run by the state. In large part, the profits from these go to the public schools.

Lastly, on this, when big business (MGM, Mandalay), Dick Posthumous, the anti-gambling lobby, and Kwame Kilpatrick get together on something, RUN!!!!!

[MotownLew]

16. A Little More Insight Into Proposal 1

I work in video production and we've been doing quite a few of the ads you've been seeing... Here's some water cooler talk from the last couple weeks:

Prop 1 is supported by the three Detroit casinos, and the "Indian" casinos. They have a pretty good thing going -- just think of all the old folks who climb onto busses and go to Mt. Pleasant, Soaring Eagle, Greektown...

Those casinos pay little in taxes, and nothing toward the school budget. They get a lot of breaks.

The few racetracks left (like Hazel Park or Sports Creek in Flint) want to add slots and other gaming to boost attendance because they've been really hurting for a couple decades now. At the same time, the Michigan Lottery is expanding their menu as they add new games, like the Keno you can play in a lot of bars now. Obviously this paragraph of ideas takes potential money away from the Indians and downtown casinos. I honestly don't know what the reference to Internet gaming is, but they do show what seems to be a high school kid doing homework, and obviously you would have to be 18 with some sort of validity to play anything online like that.

Of course everyone wants to vote on whether there is gambling in their neighborhood. But that's the deceptive part -- EVERY locality would have to approve new games outside the current casinos. Think about what a cluster that would be for the people trying to run the Lottery. It would basically freeze their system on December 31st, and likely, put the racetracks out of business as well.

Yes on 1 would effectively leave the three Detroit casinos, and the few Indian casinos left as the only gambling in the state. And our schools would have to find that $580b from another source; check your wallet for the right vote on this one. I know I don't have $580 billion dollars handy.

So... I hope that helps. I'm sure there are nuances, but next time you watch the ads look through the pointer to the "race track lobby" sponsoring the Proposal. It's basically big casino owners fighting to shut out competition. And I'm not a gambler by any means, so that's a pretty unbiased assessment based on all the information I've heard behind the scenes.

[KalicoKitty]

17. Thanks Lew and everyone else for replying.

I am much more informed now. I will be voting No and No on proposals 1 & 2!


:bounce:

[maddogesq]

18. Voted no on 1 and 2. Homer says both are BULL!

I mean really, must we spend big bucks to vote on instant games? OK, I know the Monty Hall game is kinda stooopid, but paaaleeeese.

And Prop 2 is a way for Betsy and the Crew to get their religio rocks off...


This state is far beyond the wording of these 2 props; oh wait, we had Gov. Big Turd for 12 years, so I guess we aren't.

[really annoyed]

20. No on 1 and 2!

There was somebody passing out literature to vote "NO" on the second proposal. I told him not to worry, I was voting "NO!"