Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gaming Racing Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House defeats divided measure on electronic pull tabs, dog-racing wagering after heated debate
Summary
Senate Bill 23-84, which included provisions on electronic pull-tab device maintenance and language eliminating dog racing, failed after division votes on two sections both failed; the House rejected division A 4–85 and division B 19–69.
Senate Bill 23-84, a multi-part bill that at various points addressed maintenance of electronic pull-tab devices and included amended language eliminating dog racing wagering via advanced deposit wagering (ADW), failed on the House floor after members split the question into two divisions and voted down each section.
The bill, introduced in its engrossed form by Senator Cory and others and carried across chambers by Representatives Haggart and Meyer, was recommended do not pass by the judiciary committee. Representative Twite, who spoke at length on the House floor, argued the amended language effectively attacks ADWs and would harm live horse racing in North Dakota by prompting ADWs to withdraw, taking tens of millions in wagering and taxes out of state. Proponents of the bill framed it as cleanup of outdated pull-tab stamp language and animal-rights reforms; opponents said out-of-state animal-rights groups had pushed amendments and that the bill would damage a local racing economy.
Representative Hager requested the question be divided under House rule; the House voted on division A (relating to manufacturers/distributors and language removed in committee) and division B (relating to elimination of dog-racing wagering and impacts on ADWs and live horse racing). Division A failed 4–85; division B failed 19–69. With both divisions defeated, the clerk announced Senate Bill 23-84 failed.
Floor debate included detailed fiscal estimates from the Racing Commission, testimony about ADW wagering volumes (about $709 million in 2024 reported on the floor) and split testimony about whether removing dog-wagering options would end live horse racing in the state. Members voiced concerns about out-of-state advocacy groups influencing state law and about the potential economic impact on breeders, track workers and the North Dakota Horse Park.
