Measure on the ballot in the 2016 Multistate 2016 General Election in Mississippi.
View your personalized ballot, check your voter registration, make a plan to vote, and research every name and measure on the ballot with BallotReady.
Get StartedA "yes" vote grants the Massachusetts Gaming Commission the ability to issue an additional slots license
A "no" vote maintains the current law that allows up to three resort casinos and one slots parlor across the state
Abuse of the ballot question process—the petition was filed by one developer, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Allows for a fourth casino proposal in the vicinity of Suffolk Downs, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Opens the door to even more casinos before a full assessment of the negative impacts in their host communities and statewide, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Proposed host city would have no ownership interest in the proposed casino, and would receive no direct benefit from it, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
New revenue to the Horse Racing Fund from this measure may not be enough to save New England horse racing, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Opposition to casinos is not a partisan issue, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Legalized casino gambling in the Commonwealth is too new and unproven to expand at this time, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Five casinos are expected to open in Massachusetts by 2019 and experts say that New England already has more casinos than the market wants or needs, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Gambling expansion should be postponed until a review of the costs and benefits of existing Massachusetts gaming establishments is completed, in opposition to Question 1 (Learn more)
Estimated millions of dollars in potential revenue to the state and the host city per year, in support of Question 1 (Learn more)
Thousands of potential new jobs, in support of Question 1 (Learn more)
In 2013 Massachusetts residents who played at neighboring state gaming facilities gave those states over $240 Million that could have stayed in Massachusetts, in support of Question 1 (Learn more)
Over the past year, the one existing slots parlor contributed over $60 million for Massachusetts communities, plus additional funds paid to the host community, in support of Question 1 (Learn more)
Assures that the long tradition of horse racing in Massachusetts survives , in support of Question 1 (Learn more)
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016? This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category 2 license, which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines. The proposed law would authorize the Commission to request applications for the additional license to be granted to a gaming establishment located on property that is (i) at least four acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track, including the track's additional facilities, such as the track, grounds, paddocks, barns, auditorium, amphitheatre, and bleachers; (iii) where a horse racing meeting may physically be held; (iv) where a horse racing meeting shall have been hosted; and (v) not separated from the race track by a highway or railway.
View your personalized ballot, check your voter registration, make a plan to vote, and research every name and measure on the ballot with BallotReady.