Ways and Means seeks conference after Senate rewrites gaming bill to an opt‑out approach

The House Ways and Means Committee opened a work session on the Senate message for House Bill 737, a gaming measure, and heard public testimony before ultimately indicating it will not concur with the Senate changes and will ask for a committee of conference.

The House originally passed an opt‑in framework for charitable gaming and keno; the Senate amended the measure to treat new games of chance as allowed by default and to give municipalities the option to opt out by local referendum. That change prompted public testimony and extensive discussion.

Dr. Debbie Warner of Littleton, who helped coordinate the original House bill, told the committee the original House language gave voters a clear local voice. "It retains the people say in Keno, and it establishes the people say in casinos," she said of the compromise language the House had approved. Warner told members her group organized after a proposed commercial casino surfaced in Littleton and said residents felt powerless under existing law; she said the revised conference language is "functional" and will work, but that the House's original opt‑in approach better preserves local control.

Bernie Deshais, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, told the committee the association preferred the House's opt‑in language and opposed the Senate's opt‑out approach for keno specifically. "We have deep concerns about the senate's addition of this keno language," Deshais said, arguing opt‑out would create voter confusion and require municipalities to reeducate residents who previously voted on keno.

Testimony and committee discussion cited RSA 39:3 and RSA 675:4 (statutory references on how local warrant articles are presented) and stressed that the petition warrant article process under RSA 39:3 allows a municipality to put an article before voters without waiting for November election timing. Dr. Warner said that process was part of the House compromise and that it could allow towns to seek a local decision on casino or keno status within a municipal meeting calendar.

Committee members expressed a variety of views: several voiced principle support for local choice and for the House’s prior opt‑in language, while others said the Senate language at least preserves some local voice through the opt‑out mechanism. Representative Southworth said she preferred opt‑in, calling opt‑out confusing for voters. Representative Ors and others argued the Senate changes were an imperfect but workable compromise that at least gave towns some local authority that did not previously exist for charitable casinos. Several members noted that municipalities with an existing casino are grandfathered and cannot later force the operation to close by a future local vote.

At the end of the work session the chair conducted a straw poll about the committee position. Members broadly preferred a non‑concur posture and asked the chair to seek a committee of conference with House conferees to try to restore the House‑passed opt‑in language (or keep the House position). The chair said he would non‑concur and request a committee of conference.

Public testimony and municipal association comments emphasized voter clarity—witnesses and multiple representatives said voters understand a clear opt‑in question more easily than an opt‑out question that requires a "yes" vote to prohibit gaming. Committee members generally said they favored maintaining the House’s original position when possible.

Next steps: The committee chair will transmit the committee’s non‑concur position and request a committee of conference. If conferees are appointed, they will meet with Senate conferees to try to reach a compromise that the full House and Senate will accept; if conferees do not reach agreement, the bill could fail or be retained for further action in a later session.