S.C. Lottery's Success Might Sway Opponents

S.C. Education Lottery officials recently reported that they have sold $192 million in tickets since the lottery began in January.

Officials had predicted earlier that it would take until June to reach that target.

Brian Rush, publications specialist for the SCEL, said new lotteries have a novelty effect that tends to lead to increased sales but that South Carolina is proportionately bringing in more money than other states with relatively new lotteries.

Rush said the SCEL does not track who purchases lottery tickets, but retailers along the border say a large portion of their sales come from N.C. residents.

The finding might give fuel to N.C. legislators looking for additional revenue sources. Legislators are predicting a $1.2 billion shortfall for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

Rep. Bill Owens, D-Camden, co-sponsored legislation in the N.C. General Assembly last session that would have establish a state lottery and use the revenues for educational expenditures.

Owens said the legislation failed by slim margins last year and that he plans to reintroduce it in the next session, which begins May 28. Owens said he expects his proposal to fare better this summer. "I think it has the best chance ever this year," Owens said. "I think it has a lot better chance than ever because North Carolinians are looking to the lottery as a revenue source."

Owens said N.C. citizens already are purchasing lottery tickets from retailers in other states.

He said South Carolina's recent addition of a lottery adds impetus to what has been going on between North Carolina and Virginia for years. "We need to stop money from flowing out of the state to educate the students of Virginia and South Carolina and have it educate the students of North Carolina," he said.

But Rep. Verla Insko, D-Orange, said it is not reasonable to think that lottery revenues will perpetually fund education.

"The first year or two or three, people are interested in (the lottery)," she said. "But after that the newness wears off."

Insko said the lottery loses some of its initial appeal after a few years, forcing states to sink additional money into advertising instead of education.

She also said that if voters think the lottery will fund education, then they might be more apt to vote down more stable funding like education bonds.

But Insko said those arguments are not the main reason she opposes the lottery. "My opposition to the lottery is based on the fact that government should not be involved in administrating gambling," she said. "That is not the way to pay for essential human services."

The State & National Editor can be reached at stntdesk@unc.edu.