House Judiciary Committee advances sweepstakes bill, tables amendment to bind magistrate rulings

The House Judiciary Committee voted to give Senate Bill 3 a favorable report after members debated whether existing "sweepstakes" exceptions can be used to operate electronic gaming machines and whether magistrate rulings should bind law enforcement.

Mr. Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, told the committee the bill clarifies that the sweepstakes exception does not apply to electronic gambling devices and that the relevant code sections should not be read as creating an exception for video-poker-style machines. "This is to clarify that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," he said.

The bill focuses on removing ambiguity, Bannister said, pointing to the statutory citations discussed in subcommittee and testimony from the attorney general’s office and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) that the sweepstakes exception was being used to justify possession of those machines.

Committee questions centered on charitable raffles and the statutory scope of the prohibition. One member asked whether the bill’s language would prevent organizations such as the Shriners or local service clubs from selling raffle tickets; Bannister replied the code section under discussion applies to permit-holders who sell beer and wine, and that a separate charitable-raffles bill would address lawful fundraisers by 501(c)(3) charities.

A high-profile amendment by Mr. Rutherford would have made magistrate-court determinations about whether a machine is a permissible skill-based device binding on law enforcement unless reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued the amendment was needed to stop repeated seizures, what he described as "judge-shopping" and inconsistent enforcement across counties. He said machines that some magistrates had found lawful were still being seized and that a binding magistrate ruling would stop repeated enforcement actions against business owners.

Miss Funderbar pushed back on the amendment’s premise, asking, "This bill is making them illegal. So how would your amendment even assume that one could be permissible?" The debate highlighted differing views about whether the bill already addressed the problem and whether the amendment would materially change enforcement outcomes.

After extended discussion, Mr. Talla moved to table the Rutherford amendment. The committee voted to table the amendment by a division vote of 14 to 6. Following that action, the committee voted to give Senate Bill 3 a favorable report; the chair announced the favorable report passed by a vote of 14 to 6.

The committee’s action advances the bill to the next stage of the legislative process; the bill’s sponsor, the attorney general’s office and SLED were cited in committee testimony as having taken positions on the underlying enforcement questions. The committee did not adopt Rutherford’s amendment and did not change the bill’s core language during this session.