Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee advances bill to bar Internet sweepstakes machines in alcohol-serving places amid split over notice
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17–2 to report a bill clarifying that Internet sweepstakes machines that function like video poker are illegal in establishments that sell alcohol; sponsors cited law-enforcement seizures and magistrate rulings, while some senators urged more public input from machine owners and industry witnesses.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to give a favorable report to S.B. 3, a bill intended to clarify that Internet sweepstakes machines that operate like video poker are not lawful in establishments that sell alcohol.
The measure’s subcommittee chair described the bill as a narrow fix to close a perceived loophole created by conflicting magistrate rulings and to align Title 12 (the state’s anti‑gambling statutes) with Title 61 (alcohol regulation). The sponsor summarized testimony from law‑enforcement witnesses and the attorney general’s office saying seized machines have been upheld by magistrates in seizure challenges.
The chair noted law‑enforcement involvement and referenced enforcement actions: “I believe it there was over 1,000 machines that SLED has been involved in seizing thus far successfully,” a point offered to underscore the bill’s practical footprint.
Opponents in committee urged more time for affected business owners to testify. One senator said the timing—some subcommittee work occurred during the prefile period and holidays—meant some machine operators had not been heard. That senator said he was “against the bill to start with” and warned the measure targets a subset of sweepstakes operators while leaving others untouched.
The sponsor and law enforcement witnesses told the committee they viewed the measure as corrective: it removes ambiguity that some magistrate rulings had created and affirms that where devices mimic prohibited video poker machines, they are illegal. The sponsor also said the bill does not attempt to address every possible sweepstakes format and that a separate comprehensive reform could follow.
By recorded count, the committee reported the bill favorably to the full Senate by a vote of 17 to 2; the senator from Martinsburg was noted as preparing a minority report.
The committee did not adopt substantive amendments on the floor during the discussion; members debating the calendar and public input emphasized the prospects of fuller debate on the Senate floor.
The bill’s supporters cited recent seizures and law‑enforcement testimony as a rationale; opponents asked for additional hearings with industry stakeholders and expressed concern about singling out machines in alcohol‑serving venues without broader reforms.
