- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 61,334
SOURCE
Florida’s gubernatorial and Senate races are not the only ballot items from Election Day that are undergoing re-examination. It turns out that the ballot question on the future of casino gambling in the Sunshine State is likewise the subject of some post-election intrigue. Amendment 3, which passed with more than 70% of the vote (considerably higher than the 60% threshold needed for passage), grants Florida voters the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize the expansion of casino gambling in Florida.
But does it apply to Sports Betting? After all, dozens of editorials and op-eds encouraging people to vote either “yes” or “no” on Amendment 3 focused on how the amendment would impact the prospects of Sports Betting legalization in Florida. I should know, as I was the author of one of those op-eds. (For the record, I urged people to vote “no” on Amendment 3 because I believed that its passage would make it far more difficult to legalize Sports Betting.)
On the day after Election Day, stunned at the landslide margin by which voters passed Amendment 3, I wondered where it all went so wrong. Could 71% of Florida voters really want to make it more difficult to legalize Sports Betting, when survey after survey indicated broad support for legalizing wagering on professional sporting events? Did the tens of millions of dollars of advertising spent by the sponsors and supporters of Amendment 3 – none of which even mentioned Sports Betting – sway voters? Or was there some other explanation?
In searching for answers to these vexing questions, I decided to re-examine the Amendment 3 petition form for clues. And there it was – in all its glorious fine print. The definition of “casino gambling” used in Amendment 3 gives no indication to voters that it includes Sports Betting. It doesn’t even mention the words. Further, it defines “casino gambling” in such a specific and unique way that it could not logically encompass Sports Betting.
Florida’s gubernatorial and Senate races are not the only ballot items from Election Day that are undergoing re-examination. It turns out that the ballot question on the future of casino gambling in the Sunshine State is likewise the subject of some post-election intrigue. Amendment 3, which passed with more than 70% of the vote (considerably higher than the 60% threshold needed for passage), grants Florida voters the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize the expansion of casino gambling in Florida.
But does it apply to Sports Betting? After all, dozens of editorials and op-eds encouraging people to vote either “yes” or “no” on Amendment 3 focused on how the amendment would impact the prospects of Sports Betting legalization in Florida. I should know, as I was the author of one of those op-eds. (For the record, I urged people to vote “no” on Amendment 3 because I believed that its passage would make it far more difficult to legalize Sports Betting.)
On the day after Election Day, stunned at the landslide margin by which voters passed Amendment 3, I wondered where it all went so wrong. Could 71% of Florida voters really want to make it more difficult to legalize Sports Betting, when survey after survey indicated broad support for legalizing wagering on professional sporting events? Did the tens of millions of dollars of advertising spent by the sponsors and supporters of Amendment 3 – none of which even mentioned Sports Betting – sway voters? Or was there some other explanation?
In searching for answers to these vexing questions, I decided to re-examine the Amendment 3 petition form for clues. And there it was – in all its glorious fine print. The definition of “casino gambling” used in Amendment 3 gives no indication to voters that it includes Sports Betting. It doesn’t even mention the words. Further, it defines “casino gambling” in such a specific and unique way that it could not logically encompass Sports Betting.
