Casinos, electronic slot machines, horse racetracks. Glitzy ads for gambling, ominous ads against gambling. Multiple lawsuits, a busted budget.

Don't feel bad if you don't quite follow the ever-shifting maze of gambling proposals afloat in Ohio. Almost everyone has questions about what's going on now.

Q: I heard about the proposal to put video slot machines at Ohio's racetracks. Is that the same as the casino ballot issue I'm also hearing about?

A: No, they are separate issues. In June, Gov. Ted Strickland proposed adding as many as 17,500 video slot machines at the state's seven horse-racing tracks as a way to raise $933 million for the two-year state budget and avoid increasing taxes. Separately, a group is supporting a proposed constitutional amendment to allow full-fledged casinos in Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Toledo; revenue would benefit local governments, but not the state.

Q: So, TWO gambling plans? What's their status?

A: Voters will decide the casino ballot issue on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot. All of the commercials you're seeing on TV about "Issue 3" relate to the casino issue. Separate from that effort, work had been under way to get the racetracks to pay a license fee to add the video slot machines at the racetracks. The goal was to have 80 percent of the machines operational by May -- that is, until an Ohio Supreme Court ruling this week.

Q: What was that case about?

A: A new conservative group called LetOhioVote.org filed a lawsuit arguing that the plan to add slots at the racetracks should be subject to a statewide referendum to give voters the chance to affirm or repeal the plan. The state had said no referendum was possible because the plan was passed as part of the state budget bill, and according to the state constitution, state appropriations are not subject to such a referendum.

Q: What did the court say?

A: In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the slots plan itself did not appropriate any state money, so the slots plan is subject to a referendum.

Q: So now what?

A: The court put implementation of the slots plan on hold for 90 days to give LetOhioVote.org time to collect the 241,365 signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot. That's 6 percent of the total vote cast statewide for governor in 2006.

Q: I know it's too late for this year's election. Would it go on the May 2010 ballot?

A: No, the rules of such a referendum mean the earliest it could be on the ballot is November 2010.

Q: What does that mean for the state budget?

A: It potentially creates a hole of nearly $1 billion because the state has been counting on the revenue that the slots would generate to devote to education. If the issue qualifies for the November 2010 ballot, the state realistically could not count on that revenue.

Q: What's the governor going to do?

A: So far, Strickland will say only he is reviewing the court ruling and considering his options. He has hinted that there might be a way to proceed with the slots plan outside of what's being challenged in the budget, such as with an executive order.

Q: Can he do that?

A: It's not clear. Two lawsuits have been filed saying that the governor and Ohio Lottery Commission cannot add video slot machines as an expansion of the lottery without first amending the constitution to allow them.

Q. What happens if the state loses either lawsuit?

A. You might see several state officials assume the fetal position. That could well mean slots could not be implemented without changing the constitution, which requires voter approval. It also could eliminate the need for a referendum in 2010, because the law in question would have been declared illegal. Strickland will say only that he is weighing his options and won't speculate about what he might do then.

Q: What about the legislature? Didn't they approve this plan?

A: Yes, but Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, said he is looking for Strickland to make the first move: "I accept what the governor said that it's his issue, and I'm interested in how he solves it." Strickland said yesterday that he expects House and Senate leaders to join him in determining what to do next. "If they will sit down with me and we can work to find a solution, that would be the best possible outcome," Strickland said. "If they choose to absolve themselves of any responsibility for leadership, then I will proceed as I must as the governor."

Q: What are the alternatives if the slots plan doesn't go forward?

A: Basically, raising taxes or cutting beyond the $2.4 billion in reductions that already were made for the budget that took effect

July 17. It's unclear whether lawmakers or Strickland -- or their constituents -- can stomach even deeper cuts. Yet Strickland and legislative leaders are adamantly opposed to raising taxes. The legislature also could put the slots issue on the May 2010 ballot, but even if it passed, the impact on the current two-year budget would be diluted.

Q: Why no higher taxes?

A: Strickland says that Ohioans and businesses already are struggling because of the recession, and imposing more costs on them now could make the recession in the state worse or hurt the state's ability to recover from it. Harris and many Republicans also are adamantly opposed.

Q: What about the horseracing tracks that have already paid the first $13 million installment of the

$65 million license fee and a "nonrefundable" $100,000 application fee? What about those tracks that haven't paid yet?

A: Strickland said yesterday that he doesn't expect the tracks to pay while the slots plan is in doubt, and that if the plan doesn't proceed, the state will return the money.

Q: All $933 million that slots were expected to raise was earmarked for education, right? So any of the revenue shortfalls must come out of the education budget, meaning the state will have to pass new legislation to fill the hole?

A: The state constitution requires that all lottery profits go for primary and secondary education. So technically, if video slots revenue comes up short, it comes directly out of school budgets. But considering the priority Strickland and state lawmakers from both parties have placed on education, schools likely won't bear the brunt of the impact. Lawmakers and the governor can shift budget spending among agencies to fill the gap, or they can find other revenue sources to allocate for education.

Dispatch reporter Jim Siegel and Public Affairs Editor Darrel Rowland contributed to this story.

mniquette@dispatch.com