Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sweepstakes Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary panel gives favorable report to sweepstakes bill after tabling amendment to bind magistrate rulings
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee advanced Senate Bill 3 to a favorable report, clarifying that sweepstakes exceptions do not permit electronic gambling machines. Representative Rutherford’s amendment to make magistrate rulings binding on law enforcement was tabled 14-6 before the committee approved the bill by the same margin.
Mr. Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, told the House Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 3 — described in committee as the “sweepstakes” bill — is intended to make clear that sweepstakes exceptions do not provide a defense for electronic gambling machines.
The bill, Mr. Bannister said, clarifies statutory language and confirms "there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," answering concerns raised by the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) during subcommittee testimony.
Supporters framed the measure as closing a loophole used to operate video-poker-style machines under sweepstakes or alcohol-permit exceptions. Representative Rutherford argued the bill still leaves business owners exposed to what he called selective enforcement by law enforcement agencies and proposed an amendment to bind magistrate-court rulings on whether a machine is a gambling device. "Once a judge tells [law enforcement] this is a legal machine, then it is a legal machine," Rutherford said, warning that otherwise sheriffs could repeatedly seize the same equipment even after an unfavorable action had been rejected by a magistrate.
Opponents and other members questioned the amendment’s necessity if the bill already made the devices illegal, and expressed concern the amendment might be irrelevant if the underlying bill authorizes seizure. After debate, the committee voted to table Representative Rutherford’s amendment by a show-of-hands division vote, 14 to 6.
Following that action, the panel voted to give S.3 a favorable report; the chair announced the committee vote in favor was 14 to 6.
What happens next: The favorable report sends the bill forward in the legislative process; committee members said the change was intended to reduce the use of a sweepstakes exception by operators of electronic gambling devices and to clarify enforcement authority.
