On Ike Leggett and Slots

And so it has finally come to pass: County Executive Ike Leggett has announced his intention to vote in favor of the slots referendum. This may not have a huge impact on the referendum’s chances, but it could very well have a significant impact on the future of the County Executive.

Why did Mr. Leggett switch his position to support slots? There are three reasons: the budget, the budget and the budget. Regular readers know that we have been following both the state and county budgets and the situation is grim. Montgomery County closed a $297 million gap this year and faces another $250 million gap next year. The state’s deficit could be as high as one billion dollars. While the slots referendum, if passed, would not generate any money next year, its importance looms in the out years. Back in April, we reported that state budget analysts estimated structural deficits of at least $600 million per year, every year, from fiscal 2012 on if slots did not pass.

Now while the County Executive does not manage the state’s budget, state aid is an important component of every county’s budget. Next spring, the General Assembly will be considering cuts in aid to the counties. Mr. Leggett is calculating that if the slots referendum fails and Montgomery County is blamed, it will be targeted by the Lords of Annapolis (and especially by rabid slots supporter Mike Miller) for a disproportionate share of cuts. For example, if the legislature passes down teacher pension funding obligations to the counties, that will combine with Montgomery’s existing problems to create a county deficit of close to 10% of its budget. It is impossible to overstate the devastating impact such a deficit would have on county services. Mr. Leggett is seeking to escape that fate along with the resulting political consequences.

Now Mr. Leggett may have little influence over the voters’ decision on slots. The introduction of slot machines to Maryland is not a complicated issue and voters do not need anyone to explain it. Many view slots as morally wrong. Many others view slots as preferable to tax increases. Will endorsements from politicians, one way or the other, really affect their thinking? Probably not.

As we reported earlier this week, the Washington suburbs are currently the only part of the state in which poll respondents lean against slots. This creates some political risk for Mr. Leggett. But that may underestimate his potential problems. Among Democratic Party political activists – the people who contribute time and money to campaigns, and work hard to elect candidates – slots are HUGELY unpopular. Mr. Leggett will no doubt be paying close attention to the slots recommendation of Democratic precinct captains next week, which will likely determine MCDCC’s sample ballot recommendation. Smart money is betting on fierce opposition to slots from the county’s liberal grassroots. And what will those people think now about their pro-slots County Executive?

Regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Leggett, he deserves credit for his honesty on the issue. Back in May, we revealed just how few politicians were campaigning against slots, even among those who voted against the referendum during the special session. Many of them privately hope that the referendum will pass so that they do not have to face a budget apocalypse so close to the next election year (2010). Mr. Leggett could easily have hidden under his desk with the rest of these politicians, but he chose to take a stand.

Some time ago, I asked a prominent office holder who was a longtime slots opponent about voting on the referendum. After much hemming and hawing, this individual finally sighed, “I am voting for slots, but don’t tell anybody I said that.” Many, many politicians in Montgomery County – perhaps even a majority of them – hold this secret opinion. At least Mr. Leggett’s opinion is now out in the open.

Update: Eric Luedtke's reaction is just a taste of what Mr. Leggett has coming.