At the very end of this Trib story about more legislative hearings on gambling expansion comes this tidbit:
The Win for Texas group — which includes current racetrack owners who’d like to add slot machines and other games to their facilities — is touting that updated study on the “Economic and Tax Revenue Impact of Slot Machines at Racetracks in Texas.” The Texas Gaming Association — those are the folks who want to legalize and build resort casinos around the state — will update their economic studies and polling closer to the legislative session, according to Chris Shields, the group’s chief lobbyist. Their previous work has promised larger revenue numbers for both the state government and for the economy. And the rivalry between the various gaming factions has been the secret weapon of gambling opponents. Casinos vs. tracks has been a losing proposition in recent sessions.
“It’s different this year because of the situation with the budget,” Shields says. “What hasn’t changed, but I think will change, is the willingness of the gaming interests to work together. I don’t think there’s any way for a bill to pass without that — and everybody wants a bill to pass.”
I’ve noted the racetrack/casino rivalry a few times myself. If they really are going to work together to get a bill passed, that changes things considerably. The question is, what does it mean for them to work together? Since it isn’t in the interests of one group for there to be legislation that would only allow for the other – indeed, such legislation might close the door on them for years to come – what this suggests to me is that they’ll jointly push for a multifaceted expansion. The question then is will that be too much for some legislators, or does the budget situation make this just the right time to reach for the brass ring? I don’t know how this will play out, but it will definitely be worth watching.
By the way, you can see the study mentioned in that last paragraph here (PDF). I blogged about a similar study I got from this group last year, which was sent to me in response to a previous post that had asked questions about the economic impact of expanded gambling. This study is an update to that one, as noted in their press release. The Trib also has a from the hearing.
Are the votes there though? Are Tea Party folks gaming supporters? Averitt, who supported gaming, is replaced by Birdwell, who is probably not supportive of gaming. Merritt and Jones were probably open to gaming, but were defeated by Tea Party Candidates. Conservatives in the House only need 51 votes to kill a constitutional amendment. They probably have it. Budget shortfall? These guys don’t mind cutting into the bone.