JEFFERSON CITY --
Opponents of Proposition A are sounding off once again. If approved, Proposition A would freeze the number of licenses for new casinos, repeal the state's limit on gambling losses, and would increase the taxes casinos pay. Cole County Judge Richard Callahan rejected a legal challenge to the ballot measure. But, opponents say the way the measure landed on the ballot is wrong and they' re calling for a federal investigation. KRCG's Mallory McGowin has the story.
Missouri Rep. Ray Salva (D-Jackson County), from the Kansas City area, wants the state auditor's office, along with the secretary of state and the attorney general to investigate a study that helped get Proposition A on the ballot.
Salva says the Missouri Gaming Commission twisted a University of Missouri-St. Louis analysis regarding the impact on Missouri gaming if casino licenses were limited in the state.
"The study done by UMSL had nothing to do with Proposition A," says Salva. "It had to do with a new gaming facility proposed in the Kansas City market area. But yet they took that survey, put their analysis on it to Proposition A."
Salva says the commission officials' analysis was one that supports casinos and Proposition A. And he says that means the fiscal note, the report from the state auditor's office which concluded the ballot measure's fiscal impact of more than $100 million to Missouri schools, is not a result of the actual study. Salva says that means Missouri voters are being misled.
But the Missouri Gaming Commission Executive Director says Salva's claims are just not true.
"MGC is not in cahoots with casinos. We regulate 'em," says Missouri Gaming Commission Executive Director Gene McNary. "And the idea that somehow we would condone or, or as I'm afraid he's inferring, engineer some illusion there is just a mistake."
McNary says yes, the UMSL study was contracted by the Missouri Gaming Commission as a market research tool. But, he stands by the fiscal impact projections that were made and believes they are the best they can be.
"We know that there's maybe some variance in projecting figures," says McNary. "But there's no deliberate engineering of figures or anything that is cooking the books."
Mallory also spoke to officials with the state auditor's office by phone Tuesday. They say they stand by the fiscal note they prepared and add that the allotted time period to challenge fiscal notes, according to Missouri law, is 10 days after the ballot language is certified by the secretary of state's office. Proposition A wording was certified in late February, and Salva's lawsuit, which Callahan ruled against Monday, was not filed until August.
