New York loads dice on casino referendum's wording

This process continues to stink, though the state did straighten out some matters by acknowledging that voters should have to sign off on the plans. After more than a decade of various governors trying to circumvent the state constitution, lawmakers have placed a referendum on the November ballot that would allow seven Las Vegas-style casinos in New York, including the Catskills. But good-government groups are raising concerns, and rightly so, over the language of the referendum, saying it is one-sided and promotes passage of the measure.

The state may have thought it was being clever by adding favorable language, but the tactic could backfire and cause a backlash. The Journal has long said that having a few casinos in the Catskills could be beneficial. It could boost economic development in an area that once had a much more robust tourism industry. And it would siphon more money for New York by having people come to the casinos in the state rather than seeing them go over to neighboring ones, particularly Connecticut and New Jersey.

Voters should make up their own minds, and they shouldn’t be fooled by one-sided wording on what should be an objective referendum. “It has more spin than a roulette wheel,” Blair Horner of New York Public Interest Research Group told the Associated Press.

An initial draft said, “The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the constitution is to allow the Legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos. If approved, the amendment would permit commercial casino gambling in New York state.”