Judiciary committee advances sweepstakes bill, tables amendment to bind magistrate rulings

The House Judiciary Committee on (date not specified) advanced Senate Bill 3, known in committee as the sweepstakes bill, sending it out of committee with a favorable report and a recorded vote of 14 to 6.

Mr. Bannister, reporting for the constitutional law subcommittee, told the committee the bill is intended to clarify that an identified statutory exception does not apply to electronic gambling machines: "there is no exception for electronic gambling machines," he said, summarizing testimony from the attorney general and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) that the change is necessary to curb sweepstakes-style devices that operate like video poker.

Representative Rutherford led the most extensive opposition in committee debate, offering an amendment to make a magistrate's finding that a machine is permissible binding on law enforcement until the decision is reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued the amendment would prevent repeated seizures and alleged selective enforcement and judge-shopping by authorities, saying in part, "They go after people that they don't." He also framed the amendment as a business-protection measure for small operators who seek a judicial determination that their devices are lawful.

Opponents questioned whether the amendment was necessary or effective given the bill's core text and whether it would conflict with other enforcement processes. Ms. Funderbar asked how an amendment making magistrate rulings binding would work if the bill makes the machines illegal in the first place. Committee members and staff sought clarifications about which code sections were affected and whether existing law or parallel bills (on charitable raffles) addressed nonprofits' fundraising activities.

The committee voted to table the Rutherford amendment by show of hands, and the chair announced the amendment was tabled 14 to 6. The committee then took the pending question on the favorable report for S.3 and advanced the bill by the same recorded margin, 14 to 6.

What happens next: The committee approved a favorable report, which refers the bill onward in the legislative process; no further action on the floor or in the originating chamber is recorded in this transcript. The amendment offered by Representative Rutherford was tabled and could be raised later if the bill returns to committee or on the floor.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are drawn from committee proceedings and include: Mr. Bannister (subcommittee reporter), Representative Rutherford, Ms. Funderbar and the committee chair. All quotations are taken from committee remarks in the transcript.