Judiciary panel advances sweepstakes bill, tables amendment on magistrate rulings

The House Judiciary Committee's constitutional law subcommittee voted to give a favorable report to Senate Bill 3, a sweepstakes bill that committee members said closes a loophole used to justify electronic gambling machines.

Mister Bannister, who presented the measure, said the bill "clarifies that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," explaining testimony from the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) showed operators were using sweepstakes labels to maintain machines that function like video poker.

Supporters said the change would prevent modified video poker devices from being marketed as sweepstakes. Representative Rutherford introduced an amendment intended to make magistrate court determinations binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal, arguing that, without such a rule, law enforcement engages in "judge‑shopping" and can repeatedly seize machines even after a judge has ruled they are legal. "What part of republican is that? What part of capitalism is that?" Rutherford asked during his remarks.

Miss Funderbar questioned the amendment's relevance, noting the bill itself would make the targeted machines illegal and asking how the amendment could allow a machine to be deemed permissible. Committee members also raised concerns about drafting and scope: some said the bill appears to address the devices it intends to target, while others warned that evolving technology could create ambiguity about whether a device is a game of skill or chance.

The committee voted to table the Rutherford amendment (division vote) and later recorded a favorable report on SB 3. The chair announced that the amendment was tabled by a 14–6 vote and that SB 3 received a favorable report by the committee, the chair stating "Ayes have it" and noting the same 14–6 count.

SB 3 already passed the Senate and will proceed through the House process after the committee report.