Judiciary committee advances sweepstakes bill after tabling amendment on magistrate rulings

The House Judiciary Committee voted to give S.3, the sweepstakes bill, a favorable report after a contentious debate over an amendment intended to make magistrate-court rulings binding on law enforcement.

Mr. Bannister, reporting for the Constitutional Law Subcommittee, said S.3 clarifies that certain statutes do not create an exception allowing electronic gambling devices to be treated as lawful sweepstakes machines. "This clarifies that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," Bannister said, describing testimony from the attorney general’s office and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) that the bill was needed to close an enforcement loophole.

Representative Rutherford offered an amendment that would require law enforcement to abide by a magistrate court’s determination that a machine is permissible until that ruling is reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued the change was necessary to prevent what he described as judge-shopping and repeated seizures of the same machines: "Once a judge tells him this is a legal machine, then it is a legal machine," Rutherford said, adding that without the amendment law enforcement could repeatedly seize property even after a magistrate ruled it lawful.

Opponents questioned whether the amendment was relevant if the bill itself made the targeted machines illegal and raised concerns about whether the amendment would permit a magistrate’s ruling to create a statewide binding precedent. Ms. Funderbar asked how the amendment would be effective "if this bill is making them illegal," and Rutherford replied that technological changes and modified machines complicated enforcement and that magistrate decisions should provide short-term certainty for businesses.

The committee voted to table the Rutherford amendment by show of hands; the chair announced the amendment was tabled 14 to 6. The chair then put the pending question on a favorable report for S.3, which the committee approved by the same 14-6 margin.

The bill’s sponsors and supporters said the measure is intended to remove ambiguity from statutes—cited in committee discussion as provisions within Chapter 61 and a 1931 statute—so law enforcement and businesses would have clearer guidance. Opponents, led by Rutherford during debate, framed the issue as one of due process and selective enforcement, saying business owners should be able to rely on magistrate determinations while appeals proceed.

The committee’s favorable report sends S.3 back to the House for further consideration. The Rutherford amendment remains tabled.