Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee backs bill to bar Internet sweepstakes machines in alcohol‑serving establishments
Summary
After heated debate about process and industry input, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17–2 to report out a bill clarifying that Internet sweepstakes machines cannot legally operate in establishments that serve alcohol, citing law‑enforcement testimony and magistrate rulings.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to give a favorable report to legislation intended to close what proponents called a legal loophole allowing Internet sweepstakes machines to operate in places that serve alcohol.
The subcommittee chair explained the bill would clarify state law in Title 61 and Title 12 so that sweepstakes machines functionally similar to the old video‑poker devices cannot be deployed in bars, restaurants or convenience stores that sell alcohol. He told the committee some magistrates’ rulings and industry practices had created uncertainty for law enforcement and that the attorney general’s office and the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) had recommended a statutory fix.
Opponents on the committee criticized the timing and process, arguing that machine owners and affected businesses deserved a fuller chance to testify. "There are some people that actually are involved that would like to be heard," one senator said, urging that the committee carry the bill over so owners could appear. Another senator framed the dispute as a matter of personal choice about entertainment spending and warned against singling out a subset of operators.
Supporters pointed to law‑enforcement seizures and magistrate rulings upheld in seizures and noted SLED testified that machines seized were illegal gambling devices. The subcommittee chair said the measure is a targeted fix to stop creative attempts to replicate video‑poker‑style gambling under other statutory titles and that broader comprehensive reform could follow later.
After debate, the chair announced the committee vote was 17 in favor and 2 opposed, with a minority report expected from one dissenting senator. The committee will forward the bill to the Senate floor for further consideration.
The committee record shows a mix of technical legal argument and procedural disagreement about whether owners had adequate notice to participate in the subcommittee hearing. The bill’s sponsors argued the change is necessary to give law‑enforcement a clear statutory basis to act; opponents asked for more public input on the scope and sequencing of reforms.
