|
of this Committee it means that the Gen-
eral Assembly will have no power to pass
any legislation giving the right to grant a
lottery permit or a lottery grant to anyone
whether it is a corporation, an individual,
or a political subdivision of the state,
meaning a city or a county.
If you turn this recommendation down,
then it will mean that the legislature may
grant lotteries, may provide for the manner
of their operation, but I ask you to keep
this one thing in mind, because in a few
moments I will go into it in detail.
We have passed by our action in con-
nection with the local government provi-
sions a series of recommendations with re-
spect to local government. They will have
their home rule, they will retain the powers
which they have at the present time. Ex-
cept with respect to changes in taxing
power or the judiciary on the local level,
the local subdivisions, meaning the cities as
well as the counties, will retain all of the
power that they have.
I ask you to keep in mind that if the
constitution of Maryland removes the re-
straint on lotteries, unless and until the
legislature acts, the local subdivision may
issue their own lottery grants.
This may provide this State with some-
thing inconceivable and unheard of. Now
bear this in mind, it is true that the Gen-
eral Assembly, if it wishes, could take this
power away from the local subdivisions,
and leave it only with the State.
Our recommendation is that the General
Assembly not have this power but that the
restraint be in the constitution.
We have found from our studies and
from our hearings that lotteries have a
debilitating effect on the economy and on
the tax structure of the state. This some-
thing for nothing psychology that is in-
herent in lotteries we think adversely af-
fects the will of the people to face up to
public needs and to pay for them.
Now, what is the result of lotteries for
tax revenues? In the September 1966 issue
of the magazine "Taxes", Professor Rosen,
Professor of Economics at the University
of New Hampshire, concludes in this fash-
ion, and I quote, "No lottery can be ex-
pected to have a significant impact on
either federal or state public finances over
any sustained period of time. Gross reve-
nue let alone net revenue raised by this
means will always be negligible as a per-
centage of total returns from other sources.
|
AVhatever amount is collected, it will be at
relatively great administrative cost."
This has been found to be sadly true in
the states of New York and in New Hamp-
shire. I am sure that there will be some
details given to you in the course of this
discussion showing full well that what was
promised was pie in the sky, but it just
did not come out that way.
I am going to anticipate the Minority
Report in this discussion, because I think
it is best to let you know how the issues
come into focus.
The majority believes that legalized lot-
teries breed other forms of gambling. We
do not accept the argument that the le-
galization and control of lotteries would
assist in the suppression of gambling rackets, because this is not borne out by
history.
We refer you to the January 13, 1964
report of the Baltimore Criminal Justice
Commission on Legalized Gambling. We
also point out that lotteries bear most
heavily on the poor. They weaken the be-
lief that reward will come from effort, and
as a form of revenue they are more re-
gressive than any other known tax. They
take their toll from those who are least
able to pay. Now, you have before you this
decision to face up to squarely. Is the re-
moval of lotteries from the Constitution,
is the granting to the legislature of this un-
limited power to grant lotteries of constitu-
tional import?
I do not think that anyone can argue that
adding twelve words to this particular con-
stitution ought to give you any concern. I
pass that over. The real question is: is
this of constitutional dimension.
I remind you that lottery grants have
been prohibited by all four Maryland Con-
stitutions heretofore: the one of 177(5 by
later amendment, the one of 1851, the Con-
stitution of 1864, and the Constitution of
1867. The Constitutions of 35 other states
also contain provisions like Maryland's
against lotteries.
We think it is rather difficult to say that
a ban on lotteries is not of constitutional
dignity when you realize that 35 other
states think so and Maryland has thought
so since the 1839 amendment to the 1776
Constitution.
I also say to you because of the state-
ment we have made and because of the
argument we believe will come from the
minority, that organized gambling inter-
|
