DENVER – You could call it “slots for tots.”
The ballot question facing voters this November would expand gambling to raise money for K-12 education.
Supporters say Amendment 68 would generate more than $100 million annually for K-12 education by permitting expanded gaming at Arapahoe Park horse racing track in Aurora.
“The reality is that when you look back at what happened with (Amendment 66), we’re going to have to start thinking about becoming more creative in how we increase funding for K-12 education,” said former state Sen. Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, referring to a ballot question that failed last year to raise taxes for K-12.
Hagedorn has years of experience in education, having served in 1993 on the committee charged with rewriting the School Finance Act. He is a proponent of the initiative.
The racetrack would pay 34 percent of proceeds from gambling to support public and charter schools. An upfront payment of $25 million also would be paid to the new special education fund.
Proponents point to an economic report from the Innovation Group, a market research firm, that estimates about $114 million more for schools per year.
The initiative also would allow for gaming at one future horse racetrack in Pueblo and Mesa counties, respectively, if criteria were met, including hosting live horse racing and wagering for five continuous years.
The issue has faced opposition from existing casino owners since it was proposed. Don’t Turn Racetracks into Casinos has raised more than $16.1 million, mostly contributions from the Colorado Gaming Association, which represents casinos in Colorado’s historic mining towns.
“There’s really no reason to drive to Black Hawk and Central City if there’s a casino within 30 minutes and you don’t have to go to the mountain towns,” said Steve Roark, president of the Colorado Gaming Association.
For the current casino executives, the issue is about fairness. They say the owner of Arapahoe Park, Rhode Island-based Twin River Worldwide Holdings Inc., is interested only in expanding its gambling interests and that the measure is deceptive.
“It’s going to decimate the gaming towns, and it’s not really what voters expected when it was passed in 1990,” Roark said, pointing to the amendment voters passed allowing limited gaming.
No local vote is required with the initiative, another factor that opponents say tilts the scale. But Hagedorn pointed out that county and local governments could still have the final say.
“The Arapahoe County Commissioners, or the Aurora City Council, has the ultimate power to be able to prevent the doors from opening,” Hagedorn said.
Proponents have been keeping up in the fundraising category, earning $16.8 million.
With plenty of money flowing, advertising has been bombarding the airwaves.
Backers of Amendment 68 have already pulled advertising following controversy. The Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services issued a cease-and-desist letter on behalf of the Colorado Office of the State Auditor, asking the campaign to pull advertising that misrepresented the content of a report issued by the auditor.
“We did take that down just to not incur any additional confusion,” said Monica McCafferty, spokeswoman for Amendment 68.
Opposition is also coming from the Colorado Association of School Boards and the Colorado PTA. They find the initiative to be a distraction from larger, more stable funding streams.
“It is not appropriate for legislative amendments to use public-education funding and our children in this way, and it is not beneficial to the children of Colorado,” said Colorado PTA President Michelle Winzent. “In fact, by misinforming voters, Amendment 68 can be very harmful to our children and public education.”
