Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1996 01:12 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 358 - DOG MUSHING CONTESTS/GAMES OF CHANCE Number 2273 CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that some of the concerns expressed about HB 358 in a previous hearing had been worked on by his staff and the Division of Charitable Gaming. He said a committee substitute had been submitted to committee members. Number 2290 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA moved to adopt CS HB 358 for discussion purposes. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 2309 DARIO NOTTI, Legislative Intern, Office of Representative Ivan Ivan, sponsor of the bill, presented the committee substitute for HB 358 and outlined the changes. He explained that the only changes were in Section 2. The first change was a specification that the games of chance must be operated by dog mushers' associations, to ensure that proceeds would go to the cause intended. The second change was a definition of the three elements of chance specifying that the first element was the primary determinant, with the second and third elements being tie-breakers. The third change was to drop the 200-mile minimum, amending it to include any race recognized by the Charitable Gaming Division. The purpose of this was to include the entire sport and to avoid an inference that it was special legislation. Number 2417 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN referred to page 2, section (B), lines 6 and 7, and asked if the "primary determinant of success" was the winner. MR. NOTTI affirmed that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to "primary determinant of success," saying he read it in terms of the three different elements. One element would be primary, being the winning person or the winning time, for example; that would be how the prize would initially be awarded. However, if there were a tie, the second element would be used; if there were still a tie, the third element would be used. Representative Elton said he had not read it as necessarily being the winning musher, but rather that each race would have to specify the primary determinant of success, whether it be time of finish or another element. TAPE 96-11, SIDE B Number 0002 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked if the primary determinant of success was defined either in the bill or in statute. DENNIS POSHARD, Director, Charitable Gaming Division, Department of Revenue, replied no, he did not believe "success" was defined anywhere in statute. Neither was "winner." Certainly, he said, there would be other choices of words that may read better. He thought there were not many other ways to interpret the bill other than the interpretation provided by Representative Elton. Mr. Poshard felt that the "primary determinant of success" in the contest, meaning whether or not a person won, would be the first element; the second element would be the secondary determinant of success and so forth. He added that was how he himself read the bill and that was how the Charitable Gaming Division would interpret it. The division would certainly ensure that contests were structured in that manner, he added. Number 0056 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that CS HB 358 was a good committee substitute. She noted that it addressed all the problems people had testified about and that it was a good bill for the dog mushing associations. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed with Representative Nicholia. He then brought up an issue for the purposes of discussion, saying he was not sure how he felt about it. He referred to the elimination of the 200-mile restriction; he expressed some discomfort with the notion that some junior mushing events might be the subject of gambling by adults. Number 0099 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA responded that she had grown up around dog mushing and had been a junior dog musher herself. In all the races she had been to, she had never seen bets placed on junior races. CO-CHAIR IVAN commented that in looking at Iditarod-qualifying races of 200 miles and more, there were quite a few; they were looking for ways to assist in the fund-raising efforts. He said they had conceded to include, for example, the Fur Rendezvous races in Anchorage, which were a 25-mile, three-day event. The smaller races occurred in small communities, which did their own fund- raising. Number 0167 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN said he had the same question the last time around. He wondered, if there was an 18-year-old running in a dog race, or a 17-year-old, what the public perception would be if betting was allowed on that race. He also wondered if there were limits in the mushing association. He added that it was probably a public perception issue and that it made no difference to him one way or the other. Number 0189 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he assumed the Charitable Gaming Division would adopt regulations or a permit application. He explained his experience with dog mushing was more urban, including organized races for juniors in the Mat-Su Valley. He was more concerned about races organized for children and juniors than about an Iditarod race or Iditarod-qualifying race that might have juniors in it. He asked Mr. Poshard if it were possible, in the permit application, to specify no betting on races designed and organized for the benefit of junior mushers. Number 0237 MR. POSHARD responded that the division could adopt regulations, but he had concerns about the difficulty of doing that within the gaming industry. The more clearly it was spelled out in statute, he said, the better off they were. If the committee wished to set an age limit for betting or prohibit gambling on a junior mushing race, Mr. Poshard preferred that it be addressed in statute. However, the division certainly could adopt regulations. Number 0266 CO-CHAIR IVAN said before proceeding further, he wanted to have Vincent Usera from the Department of Law address that issue. VINCENT USERA, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, agreed with Mr. Poshard that if the committee wanted to set an age limit, it would be best done in statute. He explained that there was a question at times whether a particular regulation exceeded statutory authority. Statutory authority for adopting regulations in general was extremely broad for charitable gaming. However, there was still a question. It would be best to place any restrictions in the statute itself. Number 0308 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Usera to expound on his feelings about the technicality of a 19-year-old or 17-year-old actually running in a race where there was betting going on. MR. USERA asked if the question was whether it was legal or not. CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN clarified he wanted to know if the law precluded it. MR. USERA specified that the law did not say one way or the other. One might have moral objections, but the law itself did not address the issue. Number 0331 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether the salmon classics were restricted by age. MR. USERA replied no, he did not believe so. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned why it should be done for dog mushing. MR. USERA continued, saying if a seven-year-old boy caught the biggest fish in the derby, he got the prize. Number 0357 MR. POSHARD explained that the only age limits in statute that dealt with charitable gaming activity were: 1) a person had to be 19 years old to play bingo and 2) a person had to be 21 years old to play pull tabs. Those were the only statutory or regulatory age limits that had been established. None of the other contests, including the Nenana Ice Classic, had any age limitations placed there by law. Number 0378 MR. USERA pointed out there was a distinction, which he thought important here, between the age of the person playing the game and the age of the person who was the subject of the game. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Usera if "juvenile" was defined in statute elsewhere and, if so, what that definition was. Number 0400 MR. USERA replied no, not in the charitable gaming statutes. There was a definition of "minority," he said, which was the age of 18. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON mentioned again that he was not sure how he felt about the issue. However, he suggested that, for example, the committee could, on page 1, line 14, in Section 2, do something while defining contests. For example, the language could read, "contests, conducted by a dog mushers' association, except dog mushers' contests restricted to juveniles". That would preclude people from betting on the three-dog children's races, for example, without precluding them from betting on the Iditarod if there was a 17-year-old in that race. Number 0441 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she had a problem with that because they were not putting restrictions on salmon and snow machine classics. She foresaw the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit from dog mushers. Number 0466 CO-CHAIR IVAN pointed out that HB 358 was trying to allow dog musher organizations to raise funds in order for the mushing contests to be held. Small, junior dog races were not at the site of the main event, he said. They were on the side and held one or two days prior to the main event. As far as he saw, those races would not be involved in the placing of bets. Number 0508 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded to Representative Nicholia that he was not trying to restrict the game of chance so that people under 21 years of age could not buy a chance. The notion that bothered him, he said, was adults betting on kids' races. He felt that put too much pressure on kids. He agreed that it might not be a problem. However, there was nothing in the bill to stop that, either. Number 0543 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN clarified that in no way was he trying to be discriminatory. That was the furthest thing from his mind, he added. While they might all be lumped together in the bill, there was a difference between catching a salmon and having two people vying against each other and trying to pick out who would be the winner of those two, be it dog mushers or boxers in a ring. Perhaps it was a moral feeling, he said, but he viewed them as different. Number 0603 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed with Representative Nicholia that if they made a substantive change such as the one they were talking about, it would be discriminatory. He believed that in the snow machine classic, for example, people could now bet on a driver of 16 or 17 years of age. Perhaps they should look at changing the parameters, he said. He agreed that adults should not be betting on juveniles that participated in any one of the races. Fishing derbies were entirely different, he added. He agreed it would be discriminatory if they just carved out dog mushers. However, they had a broader perspective to consider, one they had already basically allowed to occur. Number 0647 MR. NOTTI said he thought for the top-of-the-line races, such as the Iditarod, the Yukon Quest, the North American and the Fur Rendezvous, participants had to be 18 years old. However, for other races, 17-year-olds were allowed. He envisioned that the betting would be on the bigger races, with tickets sold a month or six weeks prior to the race. He did not see it as being like at a horse race. For the junior races, he said, the kids signed up the day of the race or the day before. He did not envision having betting booths where a person could sign up right until the start of the race. He saw this more as buying tickets six weeks before the big race, with the big names drawing the ticket sales. He thought they would not go to the bother of printing up tickets for $100 worth of tickets. "I may be wrong," he added. Number 0740 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded he was not sure Mr. Notti was wrong. However, he wanted to present a scenario involving an organized children's racing group in Anchorage. He wondered about the possibility of parents wanting to fund the group and financing it by selling bets on the races. This would be a situation where a adults would be betting on kids, which he did not want to see happen. He added that he did not know that it would happen but nothing in HB 358 prevented it. Number 0797 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN referred to Representative Kott's comments and said he tended to agree that it would be discriminatory to only place the restriction on dog mushing. What they were really discussing was a much broader concept of law, he said. He stated he would favor moving CS HB 358 out as it was. If they wanted to address the overall issue of betting on minors, that should be brought back as a second bill addressing everything done in the state that was now considered betting, whether it involved minors or not. Number 0843 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he would not make an amendment. However, he was not sure he saw it being any more discriminatory, for example, than limiting betting to races longer than 200 miles. Number 0862 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he shared the concerns. He suggested that if a race held in Anchorage had betting opportunities on minors, there would be a public outcry. Number 0891 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN moved that CS HB 358 move out of committee, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, CS HB 358 moved out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|