Committee advances sweepstakes bill, tables amendment tying magistrate rulings to enforcement

The House Judiciary Committee gave Senate Bill 3 — described by sponsors as a sweepstakes bill to close an electronic-gambling loophole — a favorable report by a 14–6 vote on the committee floor.

The bill’s reporter, Mr. Bannister, told the committee S.3 is intended to make clear that the statutory prohibition on gambling devices does not contain an exception allowing video-poker or similarly modified machines to be treated as sweepstakes. "We outlaw video poker ... and some folks ... figured out ... to create an exception for sweepstakes games," Bannister said, and S.3 would clarify there is "no exception for electronic gambling machines."

Why it matters: committee members spent much of the hearing debating enforcement and the practical effects of the statute. Representative Rutherford proposed an amendment that would make a magistrate’s determination that a machine is lawful binding on law enforcement until that decision was reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued the change would stop what he described as "judge shopping" and repeated seizures of machines even after a judge found them lawful. "Once a judge tells him this is a legal machine, he's not bound by that ruling," Rutherford said, arguing the amendment would provide certainty to small businesses.

Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary after the bill’s criminalization of the devices and questioned whether the amendment would meaningfully change enforcement practice. Ms. Funderbar asked how an amendment that presumes some machines might be permissible would square with the bill’s purpose to outlaw the devices. "This bill is making them illegal. So how would your amendment even assume that one could be permissible?" she asked.

The committee voted to table the Rutherford amendment on a division (show-of-hands); the motion to table carried 14–6. After tabling the amendment, the committee recorded a favorable report on S.3, also by a vote of 14–6.

Context and next steps: sponsors and supporters said the bill responds to new technologies and court decisions that have created uncertainty about whether certain electronic machines are gambling devices. The record contains repeated references to enforcement by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and local sheriffs' offices; proponents said the statute must be unambiguous so courts and law enforcement apply the law consistently. The committee’s favorable report moves the matter out of this committee context; further procedural steps were not specified in the hearing record.