Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sweepstakes Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rutherford amendment to sweepstakes bill tabled after heated debate over law-enforcement authority
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee advanced S.3, the "sweepstakes" bill, by a 14–6 vote after tabling a Rutherford amendment that would have made magistrate rulings binding on law enforcement. Members disagreed over selective enforcement, judge-shopping and how the bill affects charitable raffles.
The House Judiciary Committee on an unspecified date voted 14–6 to give S.3—the so-called sweepstakes bill—a favorable report after tabling an amendment offered by Representative Rutherford that would have made magistrate-court determinations about whether a gaming machine is permissible binding on law enforcement until appealed.
Mister Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, said the bill was intended to close a loophole some operators used by classifying electronic gambling devices as "sweepstakes." "We heard from the attorney general and SLED that this was an exception that people were using to justify having possessions of those machines ... and that they needed this bill to clarify that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," Bannister said.
Rutherford argued the amendment was needed to stop what he called selective enforcement and "judge-shopping" by law-enforcement agencies. "When does the sheriff get to be above a judge?" Rutherford asked, describing repeated seizures of machines even after magistrates ruled they were lawful and saying owners had no effective way to stop repeated takings. He said the amendment would make a magistrate's decision binding on law enforcement unless reversed on appeal.
Other members raised drafting and scope questions. Miss Funderbar asked how the amendment would work if the bill already made the machines illegal; she questioned whether an amendment that treats a magistrate ruling as dispositive could have practical relevance if the underlying device is outlawed by statute. Committee members also asked whether the bill's language would unintentionally restrict charitable raffles; Bannister said a separate charitable-raffles bill aimed at 501(c)(3) organizations would address legitimate fundraisers and would not extend to permit-holders who sell alcohol.
The committee took a show-of-hands division on tabling the Rutherford amendment; the amendment was tabled 14–6. After brief further remarks, the committee voted 14–6 to give S.3 a favorable report, advancing the bill out of committee.
The committee did not adopt Rutherford's proposed binding rule for magistrate decisions; the sweepstakes bill now moves forward with the committee's favorable recommendation.
