Senate panel advances bill tightening definition of groups that may run charitable gaming

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday continued hearings on Senate Bill 2035, which would amend who may conduct charitable gaming in North Dakota.

Proponents of maintaining the current, broader definition clashed with some senators who said the law has expanded beyond voters’ original intent. The bill drew testimony from the North Dakota Gaming Alliance, municipal and tourism groups, youth sports organizations and the attorney general’s gaming director.

Scott Meske, representing the North Dakota Gaming Alliance, said the alliance opposed SB 2035 because it could unintentionally cut off small community organizations that use gaming proceeds to support local programs. “I just want to make sure that the definitions that you decide, we don't hurt those organizations,” Meske said, urging the committee to adopt a grandfather clause for organizations authorized to conduct gaming today.

Corey Peterson, appearing for the North Dakota League of Cities and a former Horace mayor, said many cities rely on gaming revenue for economic development and tourism promotion; he warned the bill could remove a proven funding source for some local programs. “These convention and visitor bureaus operate charitable gaming as a way to raise that funding,” Peterson said, and removing that source could force programs to be reduced or eliminated.

Laura Locker, executive director of the Economic Development Association of North Dakota, also urged a “do not pass” recommendation, saying more than 80 economic development and tourism organizations across the state rely heavily on charitable gaming funds.

Deb McDaniel, director of the Gaming Division in the Office of the Attorney General, told senators the state constitution (Article 11, Section 25) allows the Legislature to authorize “bona fide nonprofit veterans, charitable, educational, religious, and fraternal organizations, civic and service clubs, or such other public-spirited organizations as it may recognize” to conduct games of chance when proceeds are devoted to public-spirited uses. McDaniel said the law already defines many categories, but the phrase “public-spirited organization” has been used to include a broad set of groups — from tourism and economic development to amateur sports — and asked the committee to clarify which groups the Legislature intends to permit.

Several speakers representing youth and amateur sports organizations urged the committee not to remove amateur youth athletics from eligibility. Richard Stidler of MATPEC wrestling club said his organization has used gaming proceeds to send athletes to national and international competitions and to support community giving; he said removing eligibility would “pull the rug out” from organizations that have built budgets around charitable gaming.

Committee members debated whether the bill appropriately narrows the definition or instead removes funding from local programs that serve broad public interests. Senator Paulson said he supports narrowing instances of gaming tied to economic development, while others cautioned that the state should protect long‑standing community programs.

After discussion, Senator Murdall moved a due-pass recommendation on SB 2035; the motion was seconded by Senator Lueck. The committee voted to give the bill a due-pass recommendation, and Chairwoman Larson asked Senator Myrtle to carry the bill to the floor.

What this means going forward: the bill will move forward but is likely to face amendments in the House and further scrutiny in session committees. Several testifiers and senators signaled interest in drafting clarifying language, grandfathering existing licensees or tightening definitions of “public‑spirited organizations.”