House Judiciary Committee advances sweepstakes bill after tabling Rutherford amendment

The South Carolina House Judiciary Committee voted to give a favorable report to Senate Bill 3 on July 23, a measure the sponsor said clarifies that sweepstakes exceptions cannot be used to legalize electronic gambling machines. The committee also voted 14 to 6 to table an amendment from Representative Rutherford that would have made magistrate-court rulings binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal.

Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, told the panel that S.3 "clarif[ies] that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," saying the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division testified the bill is needed to prevent operators from treating video-poker-style devices as sweepstakes. "The only bill from the constitutional law subcommittee is Senate 3, which is known as the sweepstakes bill," Bannister said.

The bill’s text, committee members said, is intended to remove any ambiguity in the code sections cited by proponents and enforcement agencies. During questioning, members raised whether the statute language would affect charitable fundraising and organizations that run permitted events. Bannister responded the provision being discussed applies to businesses holding alcohol permits and that separate legislation addressing charitable raffles is expected.

Representative Rutherford offered an amendment that would have required law enforcement to accept a magistrate’s determination that a device is lawful until that determination was overturned on appeal. Rutherford said repeated seizures and what he characterized as "judge shopping" by enforcement officials have left business owners exposed: "If a judge tells him this is a legal machine, he's not bound by that ruling," Rutherford said, arguing the amendment would "give some clarity or some certainty to law enforcement and to your potential clients." He described instances in which local judges found machines lawful but, he said, law enforcement later seized them again and pursued different rulings.

Opponents and some questioners pressed on drafting and scope. After debate, a motion to table the Rutherford amendment passed on a division vote. The committee then took up the main motion and reported S.3 favorably, recorded in the meeting as a 14–6 vote.

The committee record shows that enforcement agencies (identified on the record as the attorney general’s office and SLED) had testified in subcommittee about the exception being used to justify possession and operation of those machines. Rutherford and others framed the dispute as both a statutory clarity issue and a dispute over enforcement practice.

With S.3 reported favorably, the bill moves to the next committee or floor steps per the legislative process. The committee did not adopt Rutherford’s amendment; the amendment was tabled.