Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sweepstakes Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary subcommittee clears bill to close sweepstakes loophole for video poker; magistrate-binding amendment tabled
Summary
The House Judiciary constitutional law subcommittee voted 14–6 to give S.3, the "sweepstakes" bill, a favorable report after debate over whether magistrate court rulings should bind law enforcement; an amendment to make magistrate decisions binding on seizure actions was tabled 14–6.
The House Judiciary Committee’s constitutional law subcommittee voted to give S.3 — described by proponents as a sweepstakes bill to stop electronic gambling machines from being operated under sweepstakes or alcohol-permit exceptions — a favorable report by a vote of 14–6.
Mr. Bannister, the subcommittee representative who presented the item, said the bill clarifies that existing criminal provisions (including the provisions cited in the discussion as section 12 21 27 10 and related 61-series code sections) do not allow electronic gambling devices to rely on a sweepstakes exception. “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 using them in various establishments and that they needed this bill to clarify that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines,” Bannister said.
The bill prompted questions about how its language would affect charitable raffles and organizations that hold alcohol permits. Mr. Murphy asked whether the draft would prevent organizations such as the Shriners, Lions Club or Rotary from conducting raffles. Bannister replied the statutory subsection at issue applies to permit-holders that sell alcohol and that a separate charitable-raffles bill is being developed for bona fide 501(c)(3) fundraisers.
Representative Rutherford unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have made magistrate-court rulings about whether a machine is a gambling device binding on law enforcement unless reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued magistrate rulings currently have no statewide binding effect and said law enforcement agencies and SLED were engaging in “judge shopping” by repeatedly seizing machines even after magistrates had ruled they were lawful. “Once a judge tells him this is a legal machine, then it is a legal machine,” Rutherford said, urging a rule that would prevent repeated seizures while appeals proceed.
Opponents questioned whether the amendment was necessary because, they said, the bill already addresses the intended targets. After debate the committee voted by division to table Rutherford’s amendment; the chair announced the amendment had been tabled 14–6.
After additional procedural remarks, the subcommittee voted to give S.3 a favorable report, 14–6. The vote moves the measure out of the constitutional law subcommittee; the next procedural step is consideration by the full Judiciary Committee.
The hearing record includes extended exchanges about selective enforcement, examples raised by members of local responses by the Richland County Sheriff’s Office and the role of SLED. Supporters of the bill said the change would provide clarity to business owners and law enforcement; opponents warned the legislation could produce unintended consequences for lawful charitable activities tied to permits.
