The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com

George McHale of Orrington is a former chair of the Maine Gambling Control Board.

Here we are again: talking about an expansion of gambling that pushes the boundaries of what is reasonable and potentially oversaturating the gaming market in Maine to the detriment of our communities and those currently operating responsibly.

However, the biggest problem with this conversation is that nobody appears to be having one. Bills currently being considered by state lawmakers would drastically change the gaming landscape in Maine, yet, very few people seem to know these bills exist.

LD 1777, LD 1992 and LD 2213 would be a significant expansion of gaming in our state, essentially putting casinos in everyone’s hand and allowing for tens of thousands of new slot machines across the state. That is significant for several reasons, but on top of the list is because of who these bills exclude: Maine voters.

We have expanded large-scale gaming in our state a few times over the past 25 years. The approval of what is now Hollywood Casino in Bangor was done so with voters casting their ballots. The Legislature created the Gambling Control Board soon after. I served on that board from its inception until late 2010. I not only saw first-hand the detailed work that went into establishing rules for casino gaming in Maine, but I also helped to create it.

Today, I believe the people in Bangor have a great community partner and well-proven operator running Hollywood Casino. We continue to see positive results because of the work that was put into the process, and because we solicited and received input from both voters and regulators.

Later, what is now the Oxford Casino also started with a statewide vote. That referendum was a close, but victorious, vote. The developers spent a considerable amount of time educating people around the state about their plans, both from an operational point of view and as a community partner. In 2011, Hollywood Casino looked to expand with table games, and did so via a ballot initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by Penobscot County.

While these three measures were approved, several others have been rejected. Whether it’s in Scarborough, York County, Lewiston, Washington County or beyond, Maine voters have had numerous opportunities to weigh in and, more often than not, they’ve said no.

Today, voters have no opportunity to weigh in on these current bills being debated in Augusta.  One of the bills would allow for online slot machines and table games to be made available on cellphones, tablets and computers statewide. This internet casino bill could have a devastating effect on the state’s existing gaming venues, diluting the market and endangering state and local tax revenues and jobs.

Another bill would authorize more than a thousand new slot machine-like devices for off-track wagering parlors across the state, which to me is like authorizing a new racino. These machines would have a much lower tax rate than existing slot machines in the state and would likely erode operations in Bangor and Oxford, also risking local jobs and tax revenues.

Yet another bill would authorize tens of thousands of electronic pull tab, or “Lucky 7” machines, for nonprofit organizations in Maine. These look and play like traditional slot machines, and would have the potential of giving Maine twice as many slots as Atlantic City.

Astonishingly, not a single one of these bills require voter approval.

The casinos that exist today have operated in good faith, based on rules and regulations put in place through a thoughtful and deliberative process. They were subject to voter approval and enough Mainers said “yes” to allow them to operate in Maine.

Allowing additional gaming of this massive scale should at the very least be held to the same standard as the previous proposals, and voters should get a say. If history serves as a guide, it is almost certain that voters would reject these proposals, suggesting a deliberate silence around the discussions of the bills now before the Legislature.