Committee hears SB 90 on Greene County historical horse racing; amendment clarifies county-only scope

SB 90, a local bill concerning historical horse racing and pari-mutuel wagering in Greene County, received a public hearing and an amendment that the committee adopted to clarify the bill applies only to Greene County. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill during the hearing.

Representative Singleton (presenter) said the draft updates a statute originally enacted in the 1970s to modernize which entities may receive distributions and to add a definition of “historical horse racing.” He told the committee the change is intended to remove defunct entities from specified recipient lists and to add new entities so revenues can be distributed more broadly in the county.

Eric Johnston, speaking for Citizens for a Better Alabama, opposed the bill in public comment and provided two legal memos from the Southeast Law Enforcement Institute for the committee’s review. Johnston said the bill redefines pari-mutuel wagering and allows computerized gaming machines that, in his view, could operate without patrons selecting a specific race or seeing the original race graphics. He said the memo argues that pari-mutuel wagering is protected only where a game contains a substantial element of skill and warned the committee the proposal could conflict with the Alabama Constitution.

A second public commenter raised constitutional concerns and said local residents had not been adequately notified; that speaker also said local charities and county governments rely on existing bingo and pari-mutuel distributions and warned the change could disrupt those funds. That speaker additionally alleged past financial problems at a facility referenced in the hearing.

Representative Hollis offered an amendment that narrows the bill’s application to Greene County, removing language that could have been read to affect tracks statewide. The committee accepted the amendment by voice vote; members emphasized the amendment was intended to make the bill strictly local. Committee members and at least one senator present noted that a statewide bill on related gaming issues had been considered previously and that piecemeal, county-by-county legislation is a concern for some members.

Committee members asked technical questions about how “historical horse racing” machines operate and whether the machines stream live simulcast races or replay archived races for wagers. The sponsor said the machines utilize historical races (past races) and that he did not know the machines’ internal workings.

The committee took no final vote on SB 90 during this session; the sponsor and members said the bill will return for further consideration. The record includes references to attorney-general opinions on historical horse racing that presenters offered to supply to committee members.

The amendment adopted: clarifies that the permissive activity described in the bill applies only to the pari-mutuel wagering facility in Greene County and not statewide. The record does not show a final committee vote on SB 90; it shows the bill received a public hearing and an adopted amendment narrowing scope.

Public testimony and committee questions in this hearing repeatedly referenced the county-only amendment, attorney-general opinions, and the legal and constitutional issues raised by opponents; the committee did not resolve those constitutional questions in the session.