House Judiciary panel backs bill to close sweepstakes loophole for electronic gambling machines

The House Judiciary Committee voted to give a favorable report to Senate Bill 3, known as the sweepstakes bill, which clarifies that statutory sweepstakes exceptions do not permit electronic gambling machines. The committee also tabled an amendment that would have made magistrate-court determinations about a machine's legality binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal; the amendment was tabled by a show-of-hands vote of 14 to 6.

Mr. Bannister, reporting for the committee’s constitutional-law subcommittee, said the bill was intended to close a loophole used to justify possession of video-poker-style machines. "The only bill from the constitutional law subcommittee is Senate 3, which is known as the sweepstakes bill," he said, and it "clarifies that there is no exception for electronic gambling machines." He said the bill makes clear that the cited statute is "not ambiguous and is clear on its face."

Committee members pressed for specifics about who would be affected. Mr. Murphy asked whether the provision that removes "raffles" from an exemption would prevent charitable organizations such as Shriners or Lions Club from holding fundraisers. Mr. Bannister replied the statutory language at issue applies to holders of beer-and-wine permits and that organizations without those permits remain prohibited from offering those activities under current law.

Representative Rutherford offered an amendment intended to prevent repeated seizures after a magistrate rules a machine legal. Rutherford said current practice lets law enforcement "go judge shopping" and repeatedly seize machines even after a magistrate has found them permissible. "Law enforcement comes in, they kick in her door, they seize it, they take it to the magistrate... The magistrate says, yes, it's legal. Law enforcement comes back the next day, they kick in the door," Rutherford said, arguing that a magistrate's finding should bind law enforcement unless reversed on appeal.

Opponents questioned whether the amendment was necessary given the bill's primary purpose. Miss Funderbar asked how the amendment could apply if the bill makes the machines illegal, and other members expressed concern about unintended consequences or gaps in the bill's drafting. The committee then voted to table the Rutherford amendment by a division vote, 14–6.

After tabling the amendment, the committee voted to give Senate Bill 3 a favorable report by the same recorded margin. The bill had already passed the Senate and was before the House committee for clarification of the existing statutes. The committee docket showed no additional amendments adopted during the floor consideration.

What happened next: With a favorable report recorded, Senate Bill 3 advances in the legislative process; committee members noted enforcement disparities raised during testimony and concerns from local business owners and charities about statutory clarity.