What doomed gambling measure?

By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

"I believe the Eyman connection was a big negative," said Jim Springer, owner of Hilander Bowl in Kelso, Cowlitz County, an initiative backer. "It was huge. He carries so much negativity. I had people tell me they were voting no because Tim Eyman was associated with it. He's real cocky, and arrogance only goes so far. He has offended everybody at one time or another. Do that enough and pretty soon no one hears you."

Drubbed statewide, with the measure passing in only five counties, Eyman, a veteran of low-budget but often successful initiative campaigns, handled the slot-machine campaign in signature fashion. He waged his war largely with e-mail, billboards and a bit of radio, even as opponents unloaded a statewide barrage of radio and TV advertising.

Some saw not a failure of personality, but execution.

"They accomplished conducting one of the more pathetic campaigns around," said David Olson, a professor of political science at the University of Washington.

"I don't give credence to this 'it was a rebellion against Tim Eyman.' But I do think the campaign that was waged was woefully lacking in appeal. They never countered the main message of the No on 892 campaign, which was that this was going to change our neighborhoods, it's going to contaminate our children, it's going to be too closely proximate to schools. That really struck. Their strategy was to personalize this, and bring it home to family and children."

The initiative would have allowed 18,225 electronic slot machines in more than 2,000 neighborhood bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, charities, bingo halls and cardrooms across Washington. Gambling interests would have pocketed 65 percent of net machine proceeds. One percent of the rest, after deduction of state administrative costs, would have been dedicated to programs for problem gamblers. The balance would have paid for an annual cut in the state property tax.

Backers were badly outspent by Washington tribes, who spent more than $5 million to defeat the measure, the most ever to oppose an initiative in Washington. Gambling interests spent a little more than $1 million to back it.

Eyman said voters clearly disliked the idea of putting slots in so many new venues.

"Did voters say no to $400 million per year in property-tax relief? No, that part they really liked, but are they willing to pay for it with these machines in 2,000 locations? No. I had supporters tell me, 'I liked this initiative, but God, 2,000 locations, what are you, nuts?' "

That skepticism pleased him, Eyman said. "Some people viewed the voters as Pavlovian dogs, if you rang the bell that said 'tax cuts' they would come running and wouldn't think of anything else. I like the validation of the voters as thoughtful people, not just these Neanderthals, 'Me see tax cut, grunt.' "
 
He disagreed that voters rejected him, not the initiative. "Do initiative supporters hold a grudge? No, I am getting e-mails saying, 'Hey, this just didn't turn my crank' or 'I am really not with you, but shrinking the size of the King County council? Go for it.' Your coalition changes with each campaign you do."

Eyman was the spokesman for a measure reducing the size of the county council that passed handily.

Gambling measures struggled on ballots around the country. In California, voters decisively rejected two gambling-expansion measures. Everything from riverboat gambling in Iowa counties to slot-machine gambling in Nebraska failed at the polls. But some measures, such as a ballot question in Oklahoma creating a new education lottery, passed by wide margins.

That kind of direct public benefit from gambling expansion was largely missing in I-892, and hurt the proposal, some analysts said.

"I think if you had what is basically a voluntary tax dedicated to education, it would have had a better sell to it," said Rep. William Eickmeyer, D-Belfair, who supported failed slot-machine legislation in 2003 that would have dedicated a share of the proceeds to state and local government.

Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com