News

OPPONENT: LOTTERY PROPOSAL’S IMPACT UNCLEAR

By Wes Clement/OF THE COMMERCIAL STAFF
Friday, October 10, 2008 10:20 AM CDT

Following Lt. Governor Bill Halter’s appearance at a meeting of the West Pine Bluff Rotary Club last week, Little Rock Attorney Scott Trotter, expressed concerns Thursday about Halter’s proposed lottery amendment.

Pine Bluff Commercial/Ralph Fitzgerald Scott Trotter, a lawyer in Little Rock, addresses the West Pine Bluff Rotary about the lottery proposition’s opposition Thursday afternoon at the Pine Bluff Country Club.

Trotter, a Pine Bluff native, is co-chair of United Methodists Against Gambling.

He said the proposed amendment that would allow a state-run lottery to fund college scholarships for Arkansas students does not contain a limiting definition of “lottery.”

“It may very well be authorizing the legislature to go beyond a lottery,” he said adding that when charitable bingo and raffles were legalized in 2007, very specific definitions of bingo and raffle were included in the constitutional amendment.

“I would point out that our legislature has a history of expanding gambling in the state when it has had the opportunity,” Trotter said.

He referenced the expansion of the scope of gambling that allowed Oaklawn Park at Hot Springs to include machines much like slot machines under the category of “games of skill.”

Trotter speculated once the novelty were to fade from the lottery, the state would first spend more to advertise to a wider variety of people then attempt to expand the scope of “lottery,” defined by Arkansas Supreme Court as “a game of chance,” to include different forms of gambling such as video gambling terminals in convenience stores.

In a November opinion issued by Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, he warned against not including a concrete definition of “lottery” in the proposed amendment citing troubles faced by officials of Wisconsin in the early 1990s after the state’s constitution was changed to allow a lottery without adequate definition. McDaniel issued the opinion before Halter’s proposal was completed, Trotter said, though a definition was not added.

Rotary member Joe Dempsey said as a matter of practicality he leaned more toward Halter’s view of the lottery.

“We’re still number 49 and this would be a way out,” he said referring to Arkansas’ ranking in per capita income.

Bud Jackson, a spokesman for Hope for Arkansas, a pro-lottery-amendment organization, said Thursday it is the responsibility of the legislature to determine what form the lottery would take.

“No one would put those details in the constitution. That’s not what the constitution is for. The purpose is to amend state law to implement a lottery for scholarships,” Jackson said.

“The fact is the Attorney General approved it and is now defending it in the Supreme Court along with us,” he said in response to Trotter’s reference to McDaniel’s published November opinion. “The only other alternative is to raise taxes. The lottery will bring in $100 million per year after all expenditures and expenses to be used for college scholarships without raising taxes.”

Jackson stated some are attempting to confuse Arkansans into thinking the amendment would open the door to casino gambling. “That is dead wrong,” he said.

Though Trotter expressed criticisms of Halter’s proposed amendment, he did not speak against the question appearing on the Nov. 4 ballot, nor did he indicate affiliation with Jerry Cox, who filed a lawsuit to remove the question from the ballot.

“On average in states with a lottery, two-thirds of revenues generated go to pay administrative costs and prizes. In my book, that’s an inefficient way of funding a government project,” Trotter said.

He said the state could raise scholarship funds in a more efficient way such as charging an additional two dollars for the renewal of drivers licenses. The alternative would make use of systems and state employees already in place without additional expense, he said.

Print this story   |   Email this story