Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sweepstakes Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Judiciary Committee gives favorable report to sweepstakes bill after tabling Rutherford amendment
Summary
The committee voted to give Senate Bill 3 a favorable report to clarify that sweepstakes-style exceptions do not allow electronic gambling machines; Representative Rutherfords amendment to make magistrate rulings binding on law enforcement was tabled 14-6 after extensive debate.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to give Senate Bill 3 a favorable report, advancing legislation the subcommittee described as intended to prevent electronic gambling machines from being treated as lawful sweepstakes devices.
Mr. Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, said the bill "clarif[ies] that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," noting witnesses including the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division urged the measure to address machines being used as sweepstakes devices.
The bill text as discussed in committee references statute strings noted in the hearing (transcript references included phrases such as "61 dash 4 dash 5 80" and "12 21 27 10"). Committee members asked whether the language would unintentionally bar charitable raffles for organizations that also sell alcohol; Mr. Bannister replied the bill targets permit-holders who sell alcohol and that a separate charitable-raffles bill was expected to address fundraisers for 501(c)(3) charities.
Representative Rutherford moved an amendment to make magistrate-court determinations about whether a machine is a gambling device binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal, arguing that without that change law enforcement has engaged in "judge shopping" and repeatedly seized machines despite magistrate rulings finding them lawful. "Once a judge tells [law enforcement] this is a legal machine, then it is a legal machine," Rutherford said, adding his amendment was aimed at giving certainty to business owners.
Opponents and questioners raised concerns about whether the amendment or the bill fully addressed evolving technology and whether selective enforcement could be best addressed through the statutory changes proposed. After debate the committee voted to table the Rutherford amendment by show of hands, 14 to 6, and then recorded a favorable report for S.3 by the same margin.
Committee action gives S.3 a pathway to further consideration by the full House.
