The message from Maine voters was clear Tuesday: No casino.

But what killed the casino was not just opposition to gambling, but a bad bill – deeply flawed, ambiguous and confusing. We’re not convinced that the tally would have been the same if voters had been asked only the big question – “Do you support a casino in Maine?” – without all the baggage associated with the proposal put forth by the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot tribes. That big-picture question should be put to voters.

Mainers gave their OK to slot machines at the harness racing track in Bangor. Three years ago, voters rejected a similar proposal by a 2-to-1 margin, the same margin of defeat that greeted the casino on its first appearance on the ballot.

A majority of state voters don’t oppose gambling, but they do pay attention to the details. Voters took time to examine the issues and built educated, informed opinions. Those who talked to Sun Journal reporters as they exited polling places understood the nuances of the complex Question 1, which dealt with school funding and tax reform. They could point to specific provisions in Question 3 that they found troubling. And they understood what the bond money from Questions 4, 5 and 6 would be used for.

Question 2 benefited greatly from the firestorm created by the proposed casino. The slot machine issue stayed out of the spotlight for most of the campaign season, taking advantage of the lack of an organized, well-funded opposition group. CasinosNO! took the fight to the resort casino, spending more than $2.6 million to counter the efforts of Las Vegas developer Marnell Corrao, which spent around $7 million to promote its plan.

Opposition to the racinos by CasinosNO! was an afterthought, and it showed at the polls. Late in the campaign, former Gov. Angus King tried to rally gambling opponents to the cause, but even then his 20-minute stump speech focused mainly on the casino and left the racino to the end.

Meanwhile, backers of Question 2 were eager to offer their initiative as an alternative to the large-scale gambling enterprise of a resort casino.

They portrayed their motives as saving harness racing, protecting open space, providing scholarships to Maine college students and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. It was an attractive package and carried the day with state voters.

After weighing the information, voters split the difference on gambling. And while this casino plan was resoundingly defeated, we expect that this question is far from settled.

A sea change from three years ago has allowed slot machines to gain a toehold in Maine. The same thing could happen with a resort casino.

Despite his stated intentions to the contrary, Gov. John Baldacci would serve the state well if he and the Legislature took a proactive approach, discovered the will of the people on the principal of a casino and began a deliberative process to explore what type of deal could be negotiated with potential developers.

Be assured, the question of a casino will be back. The state should be prepared.
[email protected]