Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sweepstakes And Electronic Gambling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill to close sweepstakes loophole used by electronic gambling machines
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee gave a favorable report to Senate Bill 3, which clarifies that sweepstakes exceptions do not permit electronic gambling machines; an amendment to bind magistrate rulings was tabled 14–6 amid heated debate over selective enforcement.
The House Judiciary Committee advanced Senate Bill 3 on a favorable report after a lengthy debate over whether sweepstakes exemptions were being used to shield electronic gambling machines.
Mr. Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, told the committee the bill "has passed the Senate and it's been through our subcommittee" and was intended to clarify that the sweepstakes exception cannot be used to justify electronic gambling devices. He said testimony from the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) showed operators were invoking an exception to retain machines in establishments.
The bill's supporters said it would remove ambiguity about whether devices that resemble video poker could be treated as lawful sweepstakes. Committee members pressed for specifics about the statutory provisions at issue and whether the bill would unintentionally bar charitable raffles for some permit holders. Bannister said the provision at issue applies to businesses holding permits to sell beer and wine and that those permit holders are already restricted under current law.
Representative Rutherford proposed an amendment to make magistrate-court determinations that a machine is lawful binding on law enforcement "unless reversed on appeal," arguing law enforcement had been "judge-shopping" and repeatedly seizing machines even after magistrates ruled them lawful. Rutherford said the amendment would give business owners "certainty" and prevent repeated seizures.
Miss Funderbar questioned whether the amendment was relevant if the bill's plain text made the machines illegal. Other members raised concerns about drafting and whether the bill would capture all targeted devices.
A motion to table the Rutherford amendment succeeded on a division vote. The chair announced the amendment was tabled by a 14-to-6 margin, and the committee then took and recorded a favorable report for S.3.
The committee's action clears the bill for further House consideration; the bill had already passed the Senate, according to the subcommittee report. The committee did not adopt Rutherford's amendment, which sought to make magistrate rulings broadly binding on law enforcement in these cases.
