Committee debates electronic 'Lucky 7' devices for charities; analysts, regulators recommend guardrails

The Joint Standing Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs heard a detailed work‑session briefing on LD 19 02, a bill to authorize electronic sealed‑ticket games (sometimes called "Lucky 7" or electronic pull tabs) for eligible charitable organizations.

Analyst Rachel Olsen walked the committee through the proposal’s core elements: device and game definitions, membership‑based device caps (organizations with fewer than 100 members could host up to five devices per premises; organizations with 100 or more members up to 10; an overall cap of 10 per premises was noted), operating‑hour limits (up to 12 hours daily, not between 2 a.m. and 10 a.m.), license and distributor fees, and revenue allocation language that would allow up to 30% of gross revenue to be paid to distributors for leasing and service, 1% to the Gambling Control Unit for administrative expenses, and up to 20% for compensation to those who conduct the games.

"If it is less than 100 members, you can have up to 5 per premises," Olsen said, summarizing the membership‑based formula the bill uses for device limits.

Gambling regulators and law‑enforcement stakeholders pressed for more explicit statutory guardrails. Belt Champion (executive director, Gambling Control Unit) said current statute lacks clear reporting and location rules for electronic devices and recommended rulemaking to require certified devices, reporting of serial numbers and distribution chains, and stronger municipal or premises restrictions to reduce public exposure. Champion suggested many operational details would be better enforced through agency rulemaking than a rigid statute.

Representatives from distributors answered technology questions. Darcy DeCosta, vice president of government relations for Arrow International, distinguished between paper dispensers, fully electronic cabinet devices and tablet deployments and said roughly 11–12 states have adopted fully electronic pull‑tab systems. DeCosta described back‑office systems that can disable devices by schedule and said electronic reporting can make auditing and anti‑fraud controls stronger.

Problem‑gambling advocates flagged potential addictiveness and recommended best practices: a higher minimum playing age (21 was suggested by some witnesses), mandatory problem‑gambling signage and helpline information, a percentage allocation to gambling addiction prevention funds, and strong self‑exclusion enforcement. Analysts said available research is limited and that charitable gaming is a low‑revenue segment compared with commercial gaming, but user experience can be similar across platforms.

Committee members sought information on how many devices might be deployed under a maximum scenario (an early estimate was 1,510 machines, later revised by GCU staff to 1,260 as an adjusted maximum), how reporting would be enforced, and whether electronic systems would draw revenue away from casinos. Distributors said charitable modernization historically raised charitable gaming revenue without measurable harm to commercial gaming in other states.

After extended questioning and data requests, Representative Himes moved to table LD 19 02 and Representative Mallon seconded. The committee voted to table the bill "unanimous of those present and voting" and asked regulators and analysts to return with more granular data and proposed rulemaking language.