Staff file photo by Sam Yu Charles Town Races and Slots in Charles Town, W.Va., boasts more than 5,000 slot machines. On Tuesday, Maryland voters will decide on a constitutional amendment to legalize slots.

Now, after lawmakers decided they couldn’t resolve the divisive issue themselves, the voters will decide on a constitutional amendment to legalize slots.

To supporters, slot machines are a crucial revenue source in the face of big budget deficits that are likely to force painful cuts. Opponents decry gambling as a social curse with dubious economic benefits.

If voters approve a constitutional amendment Election Day, up to 15,000 slot machines will be allowed in five locations. A “no” vote could make it more difficult for supporters to start over.

Maryland faces budget deficits totaling $1 billion over the next several years. Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley contends the roughly $660 million slots are expected to generate each year for the state — once the machines are fully implemented in fiscal year 2013 — are essential to prevent devastating budget cuts.

The state would get about $90 million in fiscal year 2010 from the sale of licenses to slot operators. The next year, the state would net about $150 million. State budget analysts estimate that will jump to about $494 million in fiscal year 2012.

Even with the delayed benefit, supporters say slots could offer an important bridge over the budget chasm. The new revenue would make it easier for Maryland to tap into a $740 million Rainy Day Fund without repercussions from bond rating agencies.

If voters reject the constitutional amendment, O’Malley believes it would be hard to start over in the General Assembly, where legislation stalled during the administration of his predecessor, Republican Robert Ehrlich.

“I think, instead, we fall into a nasty spiral of greater and greater cuts to programs that all of us would not like to see cut, like education and affordable college and health care and other things,” O’Malley said.

But critics have always questioned how much money slots would raise for the state. As neighboring states have escalated gambling opportunities beyond slot machines to casino-style table games, opponents say Maryland would have a hard time drawing in customers without approving more gambling options later, which would require another referendum.

Also, the national economic crisis has raised questions about whether people will gamble as much as they have in recent years. In addition, slots operators wouldn’t get as much of the proceeds as they do in other states, a provision Maryland lawmakers made to make the machines more lucrative for the state.

Currently, operators are set to receive 33 percent of the revenue, while schools are to receive nearly half.

Legislative leaders say they might revisit the slot operators’ share in the next legislative session, if slots are approved. The proposed revenue split hasn’t stopped gambling interests from donating about $4 million to a pro-slots group. Slots opponents, who have been vastly outspent, pounced on talk of raising the operators’ share.

“This is an October surprise for Maryland voters, but unfortunately, with four days left, it’s all trick and no treat,” said Scott Arceneaux, an adviser to Marylanders United to Stop Slots.

The slots plan has picked up endorsements from the AFL-CIO, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, the Maryland State Teacher’s Association and the Maryland Association of Counties, but Republicans who have supported slots legislation are criticizing the ballot strategy.

Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-Howard, who opposes the constitutional amendment approach, doesn’t think slots are dead in Maryland if voters reject the amendment. He believes some voters support slot machines, but oppose amending the constitution.

“I support slots. I just think that we need to do it in a practical and a workable way,” Kittleman said.

But House Speaker Michael Busch agrees with O’Malley that a “no” vote on Election Day would make it tough to try again anytime soon.

“I think, if it’s unsuccessful ... there’s been a clear message sent by the citizens that they don’t want it within the state, and I think a vast majority of the legislators will abide by the will of the general public,” said Busch, D-Anne Arundel.

Still, despite loud and persistent opposition from the clergy and grass-roots groups opposed to gambling, it’s hard to rule out such a potential money maker.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, an adamant slots supporter over the years, said the state should have approved them years ago. He believes the current proposal has flaws, including the low percentage going to operators.

“It might have to be tweaked for a number of reasons,” Miller said.

Ehrlich, whose slots proposals were defeated despite Miller’s support, believes the proposal doesn’t offer enough money to slots operators to attract the right vendors.

“I would love to see us kill this turkey in November, and pass a bill that makes sense,” Ehrlich said.

But O’Malley doubts the General Assembly is ready to start over and endure more gut-wrenching votes, even a year after the stormy special session last year, when the constitutional amendment idea was approved, along with $1.4 billion in tax increases.