◆ Scott Maxwell: Disney wants voters’ help to fight casinos.

Disney hates casinos … like

really hates casinos. After all, $10 lost on a hand of blackjack is $10 you can’t spend on a Mickey Mouse-shaped candy apple.

A night spent at a casino resort is one less night you can spend at the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

And perhaps most terrifying to Disney execs: If massive casino resorts open in South Florida — with massive convention centers — some groups might decide they don’t need to come to Central Florida at all.

That’s why Disney has long led the fight against gambling — because the best way to beat your competition is to never let your competitors open their doors.

But now Mickey is upping the ante, dumping a Space Mountainsized suitcase of cash — at least $650,000 so far — into an anticasino political campaign.

Disney wants to amend the Florida Constitution to require voter approval for any future casinos in this state.

Basically, it wants you to vote in favor of voting again before any more gambling is allowed.

Disney is consistent in its opposition to casinos. Beyond competitive reasons, the company seems to generally believe casinos don’t jibe with its brand — as evidenced by its casino-less cruise ships, a rarity in the industry.

Unfortunately, Disney is not consistent in trusting or respecting voters.

See, I have no problem with Disney asking for a public vote on casinos. I like asking citizens what they think.

But Disney has gone to great lengths to block citizens from having a right to vote in the past.

That’s what Orange County’s “Textgate” scandal was all about. Disney lobbied county commissioners to prevent citizens from voting on a measure that would force companies (like Disney) to offer mandatory sick time.

Instead of trying to persuade citizens to vote the way it wanted, Disney helped persuade county commissioners to violate their own charter and deny residents the right to vote on the issue at all that year.

So to recap: Disney is a big fan of direct democracy … when it thinks your vote might help its bottom line. Otherwise, not so much.

Forget Sleepy and Grumpy. It seems like Disney needs an eighth dwarf: Hypocrisy.

Disney says my analysis is “flawed.” In a statement, the company said it merely prefers “a consistent statewide approach” to both wage and gambling laws and that voters deserve the final say … on gambling.

Sounds a bit like Spin-derella to me. Still, I support Disney’s right to take issues directly to the voters, because I believe citizens deserve to be heard — at all levels.

So let’s look at what this gambling amendment would do.

John Sowinski, the head of the No Casinos group, says the initiative is really just about enshrining

existing state law.

Florida law theoretically bans gambling. But courts and legislators have found lots of ways to get around those laws to allow new card rooms and casinos to open.

“There is a fictional belief that the Legislature can do whatever it wants,” Sowinski said. “This is really about: Where does this decision belong? We trust the voters.”

Well, I’m not sure Disney does. Still, I think Sowinski is right when he says that legislators often try to subvert state law and the voters’ will. Not only does Florida law ban most gambling, Floridians overwhelmingly objected to amendments to allow casinos in 1978 and 1986. History is quite clear.

Still, attitudes also change — which is another reason I think it’s fair to see what Floridians think today.

But Marc Dunbar, an attorney and lobbyist for the gambling industry, says Disney’s anti-casino initiative is plagued with problems.

He says it tries to con voters into thinking they will have the final say on the matter — when the Legislature still may be able to overrule them — and that the initiative is so vague and poorly written that it will have everyone from Chuck E. Cheese to Native American tribes suing over currently legal games.

“All this does is shift the issue from the Legislature to the courts,” Dunbar said. “It’s a parade of uncertainty.”

I think Dunbar is right as well … which, yes, means I think both sides have valid points.

But that’s what campaigns are all about. If Disney is able to get its issue on the ballot next year — it still must collect hundreds of thousands of signatures — we can have a vigorous debate about its merits.

Both sides seem to agree the amendment is basically about giving voters the power to put up another roadblock to casinos.

So I think citizens deserve the right to vote … even if Disney only believes that when it’s convenient.