Turnout, late ads will play role in Issue 3 fate, poll director says

By DARREL ROWLAND

Amid an increasingly contentious campaign in the past month, the lead for the casino issue on next week’s statewide ballot has dropped from 21 to 18 points, a new poll for Ohio’s major newspapers shows.

The survey also shows that voters like Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to balance the state budget by delaying a state income-tax cut, but they are deadlocked over whether the Democrat deserves another term.

Will Ohioans’ newfound pro-gambling sentiments hold up through Election Day?

The outcome of state Issue 3 all comes down to who shows up at the polls: voters such as Kelly Collins, or voters like Mike Harbison.

‘I voted “no” the last time it was on the ballot,’ says Collins, 27, an insurance company service representative from Cleveland.

‘Since the state still seems to be struggling, though, I think we need to try something different. Several people I know travel out of state frequently to gamble in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Michigan. I’d rather those people spend their money in our state.’

Thus Collins’ “no” vote on previous Ohio gambling issues has become a ‘yes’ on this year’s measure to put casinos in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo.

Not so for Harbison.

The 61-year-old consulting engineer from Montgomery, in suburban Cincinnati, opposed the earlier proposals and will vote against the current plan, too.

He says casinos would increase such problems as crime and gambling addiction in Ohio. And he’s suspicious about how casino proponents drew up the proposed constitutional amendment themselves.

“I don’t like an industry (any industry for that matter) supplying/providing input into the language that changes the state constitution,” he said. “That’s like having a wolf in a chicken’s costume in the hen house.”

Ohio voters currently favor Issue 3 by 57 percent to 39 percent, with 4 percent undecided. That compares to 59 percent for and 38 percent against a month ago.

“The poll shows there’s a possibility to close this, but like everything else, it depends on turnout composition,” said Eric Rademacher, co-director of the University of Cincinnati’s Institute for Policy Research, which conducted the poll.

“Opponents will need to ramp up the opposition. There’s going to need to be a higher profile advertising effort on the “no” side. There’s certainly going to need to be a ramped-up effort on the part of political leaders who have come out against this issue, and I think with some of the local grass-roots efforts, not only through organizations but through churches.

“They really have a lot of work to do.”

Rademacher, also a political science professor, said he senses an air of “inevitability” among voters that gambling will wind up in Ohio, and he cites Strickland’s support of electronic slot machines at horse racetracks as a key factor. The governor’s turnaround on slots last summer shifted the debate from one of gambling vs. no gambling to a discussion of which type of gambling should be allowed and where the money should go.

A majority (53 percent) of casino backers cited the prospect of new jobs as the most important reason for their support of the issue.

“The additional state tax paid by the casinos will help Ohioans,” said James Stanway, 64, a Springfield retiree. “New jobs will be created, and these dollars will be spent in Ohio, and these new jobs will be paying Ohio income and sales tax. Additionally, spin-off jobs will be created in addition to the jobs created in the casinos.”

Another retiree, Richard Mason, 69, of Dover, said, “I have traveled through the Lawrenceburg, Aurora and Vivay areas of Indiana for many years, beginning before the Indy casinos, and have watched it change from a major depressed area into a thriving, improved area.”

Art Dilger’s reason for supporting the casino proposal is more direct: He wants to be able to gamble in Ohio. The 53-year-old materials director from North Royalton has played the odds in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and Detroit casinos and Indiana riverboats, but he would like something a little closer to his home near Cleveland.

But Robert Bell, 43, says casinos will increase problems such as crime and gambling addiction in Ohio. That was the No. 1 reason opponents gave for turning thumbs down to Issue 3.

The architect from Oxford, in southwestern Ohio, said he is against gambling in general and that Ohioans “don’t need more low-wage jobs.”

William Miller, of Middleburg Heights in suburban Cleveland, is voting “no” because of what he witnessed as a youth in eastern Ohio.

‘I was born and raised in East Liverpool, Ohio, directly across the river from the Mountaineer Casino in West Virginia. I saw the damaging effects Mountaineer had on the social fabric of our community, and I witnessed how the only economic development fostered by the casino took place on casino grounds “excepting, of course, the strip club across the street.”

The 28-year-old human resources representative said he doesn’t believe casinos will help Ohio’s economy,

‘Gambling is a red herring used by lazy politicians who want to find an easy way to solve problems. Our government leaders should do the real work of economic development by improving the business environment of Ohio to attract legitimate industry rather than by engaging the vices of others.”

John Martin, of Perrysburg near Toledo, doesn’t like the “selective” amending of Ohio’s constitution in Issue 3.

“If we are to allow casinos in Ohio, then we should not restrict which citizens will receive the profits,” said Martin, 22, who is unemployed. “If we are to allow gambling in Ohio, we must allow all companies a chance to provide this service. And, we certainly mustn’t single out private institutions within our constitution.”

Although Strickland’s plan to balance the state budget by putting video slot machines at the horse tracks fell through, his current push to delay the final 4.2 percent of a 21-percent state income tax enacted in 2005 wins a plurality of support.

When given a choice of postponing the tax cut, raising taxes in other areas, or making additional cuts in state programs and services, 42 percent chose to forgo the tax reduction.

“It’s better than the other two choices,” said Delinda Clark, 31, a customer service representative from Oakwood in northwestern Ohio.

Another 16 percent want higher taxes, while 26 percent opted for more cuts ‘” including John Crosby, 44, a compliance supervisor from Marietta who says there is “too much government spending as is.”

While those results are good news for Strickland and the House Democrats who approved the tax-cut freeze last week, an early look at the likely gubernatorial match-up next year is more sobering for the incumbent.

Strickland is ahead of former central Ohio Congressman John Kasich, a Republican, by a single point point — 48 percent to 47 percent. That’s well within the poll’s margin of error.

Paul Kemp, 74, of Columbus, said Strickland, a Democrat, deserves four more years.

“With the problems that he had when took office, he hasn’t had a chance to do the things he promised to do,” said the former heavy equipment operator for the city of Columbus.

Miller, the Middleburg Heights man, has come to the opposite conclusion.

“I approved of Strickland’s job during the first couple years of his term, but the financial crisis made him renege on some convictions he once said he held. The true colors of the man have been shown, and it is time for him to go.”

The telephone survey of 687 registered Ohio voters conducted from Oct. 14 through Tuesday has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, public opinion studies contain other inherent sources of potential error or bias, such as question wording or order and non-response. The response rate was 27.4 percent.

Rademacher noted that polling on statewide ballot issues presents special challenges. For instance, respondents are only read a summary of the issue over the phone, while in the voting booth they can read and re-read it for themselves.

The poll also has more self-identified Republicans than Democrats, which represents a large shift from the same poll a month earlier and other recent Ohio surveys. If the Democratic-oriented electorate of Ohio’s recent past returns, that likely would mean an even better environment for the casino issue, Rademacher said. Democrats favor the issue by more than a two-to-one margin, while Republicans are divided evenly.

On the other hand, while Rademacher did not develop a “likely-voter” scenario for this survey, the measure is ahead by only 14 points, 55 to 41, among those who said they will definitely vote.

drowland@dispatch.com