House Judiciary committee votes 'do not pass' on proposed constitutional ban on political use of charitable gaming proceeds

The House Judiciary Committee voted 9–3 to recommend “do not pass” on Senate Concurrent Resolution 40‑27, a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the use of most charitable gaming proceeds to support political campaigns, candidates, ballot measures or political organizations.

Senator Sean Cleary, who represents District 35 and introduced the resolution, told the committee the measure was intended to “draw a bright line” between charitable gaming and political activity as charitable gaming has grown in the state following the introduction of electronic pull‑tab machines. Cleary said the amendment would allow raffles to continue: “proceeds from a game of chance, lottery, or similar activity may not be used to support, finance, or influence any political campaign candidate for office, ballot measure, or political organization, unless the game of chance is a raffle.”

The committee heard clarifying testimony from Deb McDaniel, director of the Gaming Division in the Office of the Attorney General, who said she was neutral and was appearing to provide information. McDaniel described current statutory limits on political uses of raffle proceeds enacted in 2021 and later adjustments in House Bill 1192: under current law political parties and legislative district party committees may run locally permitted raffles subject to prize limits and local permitting and reporting requirements. She told the panel that those laws already restrict use of net raffle proceeds for political purposes and cited North Dakota Century Code section 53‑06.1‑11.1 when discussing existing statutory prohibitions.

McDaniel told the committee that under current statute a political party or legislative district party may apply to a local governing body to be treated as a public‑spirited organization for purposes of a local raffle permit; she said permitted local raffles will soon have a primary prize maximum of $15,000 and annual total prizes capped at $50,000. She also warned that placing language such as “or similar activity” in the constitution could create ambiguity about what activities are covered.

Committee members asked multiple questions about whether the bill was necessary given existing statutes and whether any evidence exists of charitable gaming proceeds being funneled into political campaigns. Cleary said he was not aware of widespread misuse but wanted to act proactively to prevent it. McDaniel and other members pointed to existing statutory restrictions and to the administrative regime that regulates charitable gaming and local permits for raffles.

Representative Wolff moved the committee recommendation of "do not pass;" the motion was seconded by Representative Henderson. The roll call produced a 9‑3 vote in favor of the do‑not‑pass recommendation with two members absent, and the motion carried. Representative Wolff volunteered to carry the resolution.

What happened next: the committee's do‑not‑pass recommendation will be reported in the committee minutes and the resolution will not advance from the Judiciary Committee on a favorable recommendation. The record contains testimony and statutory references that the committee said would remain available to lawmakers and the public.

(Reporters' note: the Attorney General's gaming division cited current statutory limits and local permitting for raffles; key statutory reference given in committee testimony was North Dakota Century Code 53‑06.1‑11.1.)