Meetings & Information


Friday, November 4, 2016

Mass. likely voters skeptical of Question 1 allowing 2nd slots parlor, Western New England University poll says

They argue thousands of Massachusetts children are stuck on charter ... Revere voters rejected a localslots ballot question last month but McCain can ...

The $3.2 million campaign to open a second slots parlor in Massachusetts has been secretly financed by a team of developers who brought gambling ...

Mass. likely voters skeptical of Question 1 allowing 2nd slots parlor, Western New England University poll says

By Gintautas Dumcius
November 04, 2016

Fifty percent of likely voters in Massachusetts aren't interested in allowing the state to set up a second slots parlor, according to a new poll from the Western New England University Polling Institute.
Thirty-two percent said they back the proposal, known as Question 1. Seventeen percent said they're undecided.
Tim Vercellotti, the Polling Institute's director, called the high number of undecided voters "usual" as Nov. 8 draws closer.
"Our interviewers reported many instances in which survey respondents simply did not understand the term 'slots parlor' in the question," Vercellotti said in a statement accompanying survey results.
"The ballot that voters will view on Tuesday has a lengthy explanation of the term, and the actual results of the ballot question could be very different from what we are seeing in our survey," he said.
Under the Massachusetts expanded gambling law passed in 2011, the Gaming Commission can authorize up to three casinos and one slot parlor.
The state's sole slots parlor, operating under the name Plainridge Park Casino, located near the Massachusetts-Rhode Island border, opened in June 2015. The MGM casino in Springfield and the Wynn Resorts casino in Everett, north of Boston, are expected to open in the coming years.
Developer Eugene McCain is the primary backer of the question that would allow a second slots parlor. He is arguing approval of the question will bring jobs to Massachusetts and he's seeking to place it in Revere.
But Revere voters rejected a non-binding referendum on allowing the casino to be sited in their city. Opponents of the question say it was "written by one casino developer, for one purpose: his own financial gain," according to a summary of arguments provided by the state's elections division.

No comments: