Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Gambling Sports Betting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Georgia committee hears first hearings on constitutional amendment and enabling bill to legalize online sports betting

2496093 · March 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Chairman Weidower opened a first hearing on proposed changes that would legalize online-only sports betting in Georgia if voters approve a constitutional amendment in 2026 and the Legislature later enacts implementing law.

Chairman Weidower opened a first hearing on proposed changes that would legalize online-only sports betting in Georgia if voters approve a constitutional amendment in 2026 and the Legislature later enacts implementing law.

"This House Resolution 450 would be introducing a constitutional amendment that simply would put a question on the ballot in 2026, asking Georgians whether or not they want to legalize online sports betting only," Chairman Weidower said, summarizing the pair of measures the committee heard together: HR 450 (the amendment) and HB 686 (the enabling statute).

Why it matters: The resolution would ask voters to permit online sports wagering and direct revenue to education; the enabling bill lays out licensing, taxes, consumer-protection rules and criminal and administrative penalties the Georgia Lottery Corporation and regulators would use if the ballot measure passes. Committee members heard roughly equal portions of organized opposition and support during a late-evening hearing.

What the bills would do (as described at the hearing) - HR 450 would put a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot to authorize online sports betting only (no brick-and-mortar casinos, kiosks, parimutuel horse wagering or other in-person gambling expansion), and dedicate revenue to pre-K and HOPE scholarships. Representative Weidower told the committee the amendment pairs with HB 686 so voters and legislators understand the intended implementation. - HB 686 would designate the Georgia Lottery Corporation as the master sports-betting licensee, cap Type 1 licenses at 16 overall (including reserved slots for professional teams and major events), prohibit prop bets on collegiate sports, require geofencing, and set identity and account safeguards including two-factor authentication and a ban on promotional credits. - Fiscal and allocation details presented at the hearing: a 20% operator tax rate; 85% of net proceeds to pre-K and HOPE scholarships; a carve-out of 15% of the first $150,000,000 for responsible-gaming programs; an application fee of $100,000 and a $1,000,000 annual license fee for primary operators (smaller fees for service providers were described as $10,000 application/$100,000 annual). - Consumer and enforcement provisions described: a minimum age of 21, prohibitions on wagering by lottery employees or people with access to material nonpublic information, geofencing, account limits on deposits/wagers and time, tools to allow bettors to self-limit behavior, and criminal and civil penalties for illegal wagers and unlicensed operations (hearing text referenced misdemeanors with fines from $500 up to $7,500 for repeat offenses and administrative fines up to $25,000 per violation and civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, not to exceed $50,000). - Effective dates and legal housekeeping: HB 686 includes changes to Title 16 (criminal code) to treat online sports wagering as a legal lottery activity and an effective date of Jan. 1, 2027, to allow time for rulemaking and licensing if voters approve the amendment in 2026.

Supporters and opponents - Opponents included faith-based and public‑health groups that testified the bills would expand gambling access and exacerbate problem gambling, particularly among young adults and vulnerable populations. Mac Parnell of the Georgia Faith and Freedom Coalition said, "The Georgia Faith and Freedom Coalition is opposed to the expansion of gambling in our state, including sports betting." Dr. Khan, an academic who testified, said the evidence from other states shows serious social costs and summarized his view: "This is lose lose for the state." Chelsea Thompson, general counsel for Frontline, also testified in opposition and urged the committee to "leave things the way that they are." Opponents cited studies and examples from other states (speakers referenced Illinois, Massachusetts and national reports) to argue the social costs often outweigh the projected public revenues. - Supporters included industry representatives and the Metro Atlanta Chamber. Cash Ready of Capital City Public Affairs, representing the Sports Betting Alliance (member companies listed included FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM and Fanatics in the hearing record), said the alliance "are very much in support of this legislation" and thanked the chairman for negotiating language. Nick Fernandez of the Metro Atlanta Chamber said the chamber "rise[s] in support" and emphasized the bills' potential to generate revenue for pre-K and higher-education opportunities and to create business opportunities for Georgia sports brands.

Committee process and next steps The hearing was a first hearing; no committee action or vote was taken on HR 450 or HB 686. Chairman Weidower said the committee will continue discussion on a subsequent committee work day and noted a potential timeline that could include further hearings or action in coming days. Witnesses were limited to short remarks because of the late hour; committee members signaled additional opportunities for testimony and amendment in future meetings.

Context and clarifications from the hearing Committee testimony repeatedly emphasized that the amendment and enabling bill are intended to be paired: the constitutional amendment would authorize online sports betting generally, and HB 686 would set the licensing, tax and consumer-protection framework that would take effect if voters approve the amendment. Supporters argued the legal market would capture dollars leaving the state and direct proceeds to education programs; opponents argued legalization would increase problem gambling and social costs and cited research and data from other states.

No formal votes or committee directives were recorded at the hearing; the measures remain at the hearing stage pending further committee action.

Ending note Committee members scheduled additional committee work-day meetings to continue business; the chairman closed the session without objection and adjourned the hearing for the night.