Proposition A may have been approved by voters Nov. 4, but Rep. Ray Salva (D-Sugar Creek) said he won’t let Big Gambling walk away so easily.
“I’m going to fight this until my last breath as a legislator,” said Salva, who is entering his final two years as a state legislator due to term limits. “We have a sound argument; this is not over yet.”
Proposition A was approved Nov. 4 by a margin of 56.2 percent to 43.8 percent.
Salva said he is at work on a bipartisan bill that would raise the casino gambling tax from 21 to 27 percent. While Proposition A is expected to bring between $105.1 million and $130 million in new funds, no new money would be received for 115 of the 524 school districts in the state due to the foundation formula, the main funding mechanism for public schools in the state. Local districts left out include Independence, Fort Osage and Kansas City.
Scott Charton, a spokesman for the Proposition A campaign, said Missouri casinos are losing 30 percent of potential business out of state due to such inconveniences as loss limits and voter identification cards.
“They say they’re interested in the welfare of our schools, so I’m going to give them the opportunity to prove it as a 30 percent gain for them ought to be a 30 percent gain for our schools,” Salva said. “And if (the increased gambling tax) doesn’t happen, I’m personally going to start an initiative petition to repeal Proposition A.”
In mid-October, a Cole County Circuit judge ruled on three of seven issues raised by plaintiffs Salva and David Knight, a business owner from Cape Girardeau, Mo., in a lawsuit challening Proposition A. Named in another lawsuit against Proposition A were two St. Louis residents representing Casino Watch, a Missouri-based volunteer organization against the expansion of gambling.
The four remaining issues to be heard Nov. 20 in the Western District Court of Appeals include the initiative’s alleged violation of the Missouri Constitution requiring such petitions to have no more than one subject (Salva and Knight contend the measure has five subjects) and that the measure “logrolled” voters by getting them to vote favorably for Proposition A – liking some parts despite possibly disliking others.
Proposition A, also known as The Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Initiative, calls for the following:
- A cap on the number of casino licenses at 13, the current number.
- Repeal of the $500 loss limit.
- Raising of the casino gambling tax from 20 to 21 percent.
- Creation of a new specific education fund from the gambling tax called “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund.”
- A requirement that there be annual audits of the fund to assure money isn’t earmarked for purposes other than public education.
Salva’s attorney, Bob Buckley, filed for the injunction in August. Earlier that month, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan approved the measure to go before voters in the general election. Before Carnahan’s certification, 178,000 signatures were gathered over a two-month period from Pinnacle Entertainment in St. Louis and Ameristar Kansas City Casino and Hotel on Missouri 210. The driving force behind the petition is Yes For Schools First, a coalition of 600 individuals and organizations funded by two: Ameristar and Pinnacle, which have spent nearly $14 million in advertising statewide.
Salva has expressed support for a casino project in Sugar Creek, which would be jeopardized if Proposition A is approved by capping the number of casino licenses built or under construction at 13. Iowa-based Wild Rose Entertainment has agreed to develop a $135 million facility on 200 acres east of Missouri 291 just south of LaBenite Park. With 1,200 slot machines and 30 table games, it would be the smallest riverboat casino floor in the Kansas City market. Plans also include a hotel and some stores with the possibility of a marina, an open-air theater and a golf course.
If the judge does not rule in Salva’s favor following the hearing Nov. 20, Salva said Proposition A still must go before the Missouri Supreme Court.
“The vote was the first of three determining factors,” Salva said.
