Introduction
Casinos are heavily regulated in the United States and Texas, in particular. The state prohibits the opening of such businesses and regularly challenges Native American casinos, which tend to operate at the edge of the law, legally. However, there is substantial pressure from the state’s population as well as gambling enterprises to change this ruling. These movements declare the arguments that are typically used by state officials as outdated and invalid. With that said, gambling is inherently a contentious issue, and, therefore, the matter has not progressed much in recent decades. The status quo of casinos being prohibited by law has persisted, with occasional openings and closures of Native American casinos as one side or the other won legal challenges on the matter. This essay will argue the case for permitting the opening of casinos in Texas while considering both sides’ arguments.
Current Situation
Despite local government efforts to the contrary, several forms of gambling remain legal in Texas. Brown et al. highlight three types of legal gambling in the state: dog and horse racing, a state lottery, and bingo (406). They also describe a 2013 challenge to abolish the Texas Lottery Commission that was hindered by the public school funding loss that would result. Overall, the governmental opposition to gambling is powerful but limited by the state’s reliance on the revenue generated by gambling. However, it is reinforced by the need to amend the Texas Constitution to permit casinos, which requires two-thirds of the votes in each chamber of the legislature (Jones et al. 50). So far, proponents of casinos have not been able to secure the votes they would need to reach a large enough majority to implement the initiative.
The Native American casinos warrant a separate mention because of their contentious status and continued legal difficulties. Per Brown et al., of the three facilities that are currently open in the state (one per nation), only the Kickapoo one is legally permitted while the other two are explicitly prohibited per a 1987 treaty (406). However, the other two casinos are the subject of considerable political maneuvering because of their importance to the tribes and profitability. Ebright and Hendricks discuss the 2002 closure of the Speaking Rock casino, which was then reopened in 2015 due to a federal decision but challenged again in 2016 (126-127). Employing nearly two-thirds of the tribe’s population and bringing in $60 million a year, the casino was crucial to them, which explains their continued resistance and willingness to resort to any available measures.
Arguments for Legalization
The arguments for the legalization of casinos can be separated into theoretical and practical categories. The theoretical category would include the benefits of gambling to the state, and the practical one would be the widespread support for the legalization of casinos. The essay will begin with a discussion of the first point, which can be summarized as the revenue generated from the taxation of casinos. Mottice details it as “increased consumer and producer surplus and increased government revenue for socially beneficial endeavors, such as education and public works” (190). As shown above with the Texas Lottery Commission, gambling already generates considerable revenue for the state. By permitting casinos, the state would collect additional income that it could use to expand its social programs. The practical findings concerning the matter tend to support this conclusion, as will be shown at the end of the section.
The practical argument for the legalization of casinos considers the widespread support for the legalization of casinos. As the people’s morals evolved, they have become more accepting of gambling and the personal freedom to engage in it at one’s discretion. According to Jones et al., polls show that if the constitutional amendment referendum initiative passed through the legislature, Texas voters would support it actively (50). With that said, this supposed popular support has not enabled supporters of the change to succeed in creating it throughout recent decades. A variety of reasons can explain this discrepancy, such as county concentration of support or the prioritization of other issues by voters. Regardless, it is likely that instead of voters, it is best to concentrate on members of the legislature and convince them of the importance of the initiative.
It is also necessary to consider the possibility that the polls are mistaken, especially since there was no information provided on the surveys used above. They may have applied invalid methodologies or used small and skewed samples, both of which would invalidate them. However, there is another useful statistic that may be used to evaluate the widespread support of Texas’s population for casinos, namely their tendency to use options that are available out of the state. Jones et al. cite a (potentially biased in favor of casinos) study that claimed Texans constituted a massive proportion of the clientele for casinos located within 50 miles of the state’s border (190). Finding local recreation unavailable, the state’s residents resort to external alternatives in large numbers, taking money out of the state and expressing their support non-politically.
Arguments Against Legalization
The most frequently used arguments against the legalization of casinos can be moral and socio-economic. The moral argument is the reason why the prohibitions on gambling have been incorporated into the constitutions of many states in the past. Brown et al. identify the principal groups that are opposed to gambling in Texas as social conservatives and religious groups (406). The former want to retain the old norms that support the idea of gambling as an immoral activity, which were historically put into place by the latter, Christians in particular, whose religion opposes the activity. However, with the ongoing secularization of the nation and the evolution of social norms, it can be argued that these groups hold disproportionate influence in the legislature relative to their size. Texas’s population appears to support gambling, putting moral opposition in the minority and demanding that the matter be reviewed more carefully.
The socio-economic argument can be further separated into two different categories. One of these aspects views gambling as an inherently non-productive activity that does not benefit the state while the other concerns the negative implications of gambling such as addiction. In the first view, gambling does not result in the generation of any beneficial product and does not increase tax revenue unless gamblers come in from another state. In Texas’s case, the first point that can be applied in opposition to this argument is the revenue that the state is actively losing money by letting it be used outside of it. The second would be the view of casinos as entertainment, which does not have to generate a tangible product, thereby defeating the case. Like sports games or television, casinos contribute to society by improving the population’s emotional well-being.
The second argument counters this point by citing the possibility of gambling addiction, the damage that it does to society, and the treatment costs that it incurs. Mottice cites a 2006 study that highlights potential costs of up to $40 billion in social expenses as a result of casino legalization (190). However, several counterarguments can be made to the idea, such as the most theoretical nature of the assertions about the cost. Mottice challenges the assertion of gambling addiction as an irrational behavior that drives people to self-destructive practices when their circumstances change (190). Moreover, a comparison can be made between gambling and other legalized addictive items, such as alcohol or tobacco. These substances are regulated, and people are informed about their dangers, but the government respects people’s freedom of choice in the matter, and it should do so with casinos, as well.
Conclusion
Overall, the arguments against the legalization of casinos in Texas despite the continued popular support for the idea are predicated on assertions that may not necessarily hold today. The initiative is likely to bring the state additional revenue, and the damage caused by potential addiction may be overstated. This finding does not imply that the legalization of casinos is a one-sided issue. Both sides have viable arguments, but upon initial review, the points of the pro-casino side appear to be more valid. An additional review of the situation is required to clarify specific, quantifiable points, such as the dangers of gambling addiction or the tax revenue that is removed from Texas by out-of-state gamblers. With these questions addressed, the issue will become substantially more transparent. As a result, the opposition will likely have to admit that their remaining arguments are based on a minority’s moral views that contradict those of the majority and accept the change.
References
Brown, Lyle C., et al. Practicing Texas Politics, 2017-2018 Edition. Cengage Learning, 2016.
Ebright, Malcolm, and Rick Hendricks. Pueblo Sovereignty: Indian Land and Water in New Mexico and Texas. University of Oklahoma Press, 2019.
Jones, Mark P., et al. Texas Politics Today 2017-2018 Edition. Cengage Learning, 2016.
Mottice, Candace McTeer. “The Political Economy of Casino Licensing: A Case Study of Maryland’s Experience.” Knowledge and Incentives in Policy: Using Public Choice and Market Process Theory to Analyze Public Policy Issues, edited by Stefanie Haeffele, Rowman & Littlefield International, 2018, pp. 187-206.