Committee advances bill clarifying sweepstakes exception does not legalize electronic gambling

The House Judiciary Committee’s Constitutional Law Subcommittee advanced Senate Bill 3, commonly called the sweepstakes bill, after members debated whether sweepstakes-style games are being used to shield electronic gambling machines such as modified video-poker devices.

Mr. Bannister, reporting the subcommittee’s work, said the bill makes clear that an exception for sweepstakes does not permit electronic gambling devices. "The only bill from the constitutional law subcommittee is senate 3, which is known as the sweepstakes bill," he told the committee, and he said testimony from the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) showed people were using a sweepstakes exception to justify possession of those machines.

Supporters said the bill clarifies that specific code sections are not exceptions to the prohibition on electronic gambling machines. Opponents raised concerns about how existing statutes affect charitable raffles and small businesses that use promotional sweepstakes. One member asked whether organizations such as the Shriners or local service clubs would be prevented from holding raffles; Mr. Bannister replied that the provision at issue applies to holders of permits to sell alcohol and that separate legislation for 501(c)(3) charitable raffles was expected.

Representative Rutherford offered an amendment to make a magistrate court’s determination about whether a machine is permissible binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued that, without such protection, law enforcement could repeatedly seize devices and "judge-shop" to obtain an unfavorable ruling. "Once a judge tells the sheriff in a county that it is a legal machine, then it is a legal machine," Rutherford said, describing repeated seizures that occur when agencies disagree with lower-court rulings.

Members questioned whether the amendment was necessary if the bill already outlawed the devices; after debate the committee voted to table Rutherford’s amendment. The chair called a division vote and announced the amendment was tabled 14 to 6.

After the discussion and the tabling of the amendment, the committee voted to give Senate Bill 3 a favorable report to the full House. The chair announced the favorable report passed by a vote of 14 to 6.