Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances sweepstakes bill after heated debate over enforcement and magistrate rulings
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee favorably reported S.3, the sweepstakes bill, after debate about whether sweepstakes exceptions have allowed electronic gambling machines to operate and a 14–6 vote to table an amendment that would have bound magistrate rulings to law enforcement.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to give a favorable report to S.3, known as the sweepstakes bill, after members debated whether decades-old sweepstakes exemptions have been used to justify electronic gambling machines. The committee reported the bill by a vote of 14 to 6.
Mr. Bannister, the subcommittee reporter, told the committee the bill is intended to close a loophole used to market video poker as sweepstakes. "We outlaw video poker or prohibited in South Carolina ... some very free thinking people ... figured out ... create an exception for sweepstakes games to also for video poker games" and the attorney general and SLED testified the bill is needed to clarify that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines, he said.
Representative Rutherford offered an amendment that would have made a magistrate court's determination about whether a machine is a gambling device binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued in an extended floor statement that, under current practice, law enforcement can repeatedly seize machines even after a magistrate rules they are lawful, a practice he described as "judge shopping" and selective enforcement. "When a judge tells law enforcement you can't do something, they're stopped from doing it," Rutherford said while arguing the amendment would provide clarity and protect small businesses.
Opponents questioned whether the amendment was necessary given the bill's existing language and raised concerns about drafting and scope. The committee voted 14 to 6 to table Rutherford's amendment and then gave S.3 a favorable report by the same margin.
The action advances S.3 from the constitutional law subcommittee to the full committee process; proponents said the measure will make explicit that electronic gambling devices are not exempt as sweepstakes, while critics voiced concern about enforcement consequences and potential impacts on charitable or small-business uses of sweepstakes-like promotions. The committee did not adopt Rutherford's amendment binding magistrate rulings.
