Heated debate as House considers Greene County pari‑mutuel updates; members split on local approach

Members engaged in an extended, often emotional debate over Senate Bill 90, a local measure to update Greene County’s pari‑mutuel statute. Sponsor Representative Travis said the bill modernizes a 1970s law governing pari‑mutuel racing in Greene County, adjusts how local revenue is distributed to hospitals, EMS, volunteer fire departments, school systems and economic development, and clarifies regulatory oversight. Supporters argued that the county relies on the revenues to fund essential services and that the proposal redistributes existing funds rather than expanding statewide gambling.

Opponents and some members who had worked on a comprehensive statewide gaming proposal—most notably Representatives Klaus and Warren and others—urged caution. They said the House’s earlier comprehensive bill, approved by the House last year, would have given voters a statewide, uniform approach to gambling and betting; that package failed in the Senate by a single vote. Several members argued the statewide approach would be fairer and prevent a patchwork of local laws creating uneven regulation and revenue flows.

Concerns raised on the floor included constitutional questions about permitting games of chance by local law, whether the bill effectively legalized new computerized historical‑horse wagering without a statewide referendum, and whether local bills should be used to modify general criminal or regulatory law. Representative Mooney (Shelby) urged caution and said legal scholars told him the bill may implicate Alabama constitutional restrictions on games of chance and revenue‑raising rules. Supporters including Representative McCampbell said the bill affects only Greene County and only modernizes an existing statutory framework that has operated for decades.

The session included multiple members from affected and neighboring counties speaking in favor of updating the local statute to meet economic and public service needs. Lawmakers also discussed specific redistributions: examples included raising the hospital board share and creating or increasing small allocations to local fire departments, libraries, daycare, and county services. Several members urged a statewide referendum on gambling policy; others said local updates should be handled where communities already operate under long‑standing statutes.

After lengthy floor debate the sponsor withdrew a motion to suspend rules; the bill was carried over to the call of the chair for further work. Members repeatedly said the issue would return to the calendar.