House subcommittee advances HB 1272 with tighter guardrails on electronic "skill" games, votes 6–1 to refer to Appropriations

A subcommittee of the Virginia House General Laws Committee on Wednesday voted 6–1 to report House Bill 1272 with a subcommittee substitute and to refer the legislation to the Appropriations Committee.

Delegate Jennifer Hayes, the bill’s patron, opened the hearing and said HB 1272 aims to regulate unlicensed electronic “skill” gaming devices operating across the commonwealth. Hayes told the panel the devices generated "some $130,000,000 for the commonwealth" during a previous period of legality and argued the subcommittee should provide law enforcement and prosecutors tools to address an estimated 70,000 machines operating now. "Our police departments are asking for give us something to regulate by," Hayes said.

The substitute presented to the subcommittee tightened several provisions from earlier drafts. The chair summarized the key changes: a narrower definition of electronic gaming devices, a substantial reduction in the number of machines allowed compared with the original bill, a 1,000‑foot buffer prohibiting devices near public K–12 schools and child daycare centers, a distributor-license requirement that host locations install ID‑scanning terminals to verify age, a minimum age of 21 to play, and a delayed effective date of Jan. 1, 2027 with a sunset on Jan. 1, 2030. The substitute also changes taxation to a 40 percent rate and includes local‑option referenda limited to once every three years.

Supporters, largely convenience store operators and industry groups, said the machines provide essential revenue for small, family‑owned businesses facing rising costs. Brent Click of East Coast Amusements described his business as "family owned" and said he supported advancing the bill. A representative of the 7‑Eleven Franchise Association told the committee the income from such devices can mean the difference between staying open or shutting down. Mike O'Connor of the Virginia Petroleum and Convenience Marketers noted there are roughly 5,620 convenience stores in Virginia and warned caps on machines could affect those businesses and their employees.

Opponents, including casino operators, unions and charitable organizations, said the legislation risks undercutting casino investments and jobs, drains funds from charitable gaming, and preys on lower‑income communities. Michael Hashie, research and policy director for Unite Here, said expanding legal machines "will put good union jobs in Virginia's casinos at risk," and cited Illinois as a cautionary example where a growth in retail gaming corresponded with lower casino employment. Joanne Smith of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and representatives of the Moose Lodges Association said legal machines would reduce charitable fundraising. Rena Hicks of Freedom Virginia argued the projected revenue is "a rounding error" in the state budget and warned the devices concentrate in lower‑income ZIP codes.

An academic witness, Dr. John Sencich, flagged statutory language, recommending the bill replace the phrase "predominant skill" with "elements of skill or chance" to avoid federal seizure risk under the Federal Gambling Device Act of 1962.

During subcommittee discussion members highlighted guardrails in the substitute, including a proposed two‑game limit per establishment, a maximum wager of $1 per play and a maximum single‑play payout of $500, and a three‑tier licensing scheme for manufacturers, distributors and hosts. Delegate Doug Simon, who moved to report the bill with substitute, said the approach seeks balance between protecting communities and providing local choice via referenda.

The motion to report the bill with the substitute and refer it to Appropriations carried on a 6–1 vote. The subcommittee record shows the recommendation to report with substitute and refer to Appropriations was made after deliberation and public testimony; the clerk recorded the final tally as 6 in favor and 1 opposed. The bill will now be considered by the House Appropriations Committee under the substitute presented to Subcommittee No. 5.

The hearing record shows the committee received both written material and oral testimony, and members said they expect continued negotiation on technical language and on where local options and tax revenues should flow. No final changes beyond the subcommittee substitute were adopted at this meeting.