Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/27/1996 01:30 PM Senate JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
        SB 277 GAMING: FERRIES, VIDEO LOTTERY & MISC                        
 SENATOR TAYLOR explained the proposed committee substitute: limits           
 those who may be able to utilize gaming permits and devices in the            
 state; prohibits funds from flowing to political entities, and                
 significantly narrows the definition of what constitutes a                    
 charitable organization.                                                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt CSSB 277(JUD) (version K).  SENATOR             
 ELLIS objected.  SENATOR ADAMS asked for a review of the changes              
 made in the proposed committee substitute.                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR stated the original bill would have eliminated                 
 pulltabs and replaced them with video lottery machines.  A previous           
 witness from the pulltab industry believed the introduction of                
 video lottery machines will eliminate the pulltab industry over               
 time, and because many charitable organizations did not want to               
 lose pulltab business, the section eliminating the use of pulltabs            
 was removed.  Nothing else in the committee substitute is different           
 from the original bill.                                                       
 SENATOR ADAMS if a permittee could contract out either the pulltab            
 or video lottery permit.  SENATOR TAYLOR affirmed the permittee               
 could not.                                                                    
 Number 231                                                                    
 SENATOR ELLIS believed video lottery gaming will expand the                   
 gambling industry in the state because video machines can be                  
 programmed to provide an array of games.  The California courts               
 have interpreted video lotteries as slot machines, and Native                 
 organizations use that interpretation as their statutory basis for            
 major casinos and mini casinos that have proliferated throughout              
 that state.  Regardless of the Native aspect, the escalation of the           
 kind of gambling represented by this bill is a significant                    
 expansion of gambling.  He questioned the move against such                   
 activity by the majority last year.  He asked Senator Taylor if he            
 agreed with the interpretation of the California court decision               
 regarding the operation of mini and maxi casinos.  In addition, he            
 asked if video lottery machines must be programmed to keep an                 
 electronic record of gaming activity, and whether the bill                    
 explicitly requires such records to be kept.                                  
 SENATOR TAYLOR replied it is his understanding the Division would             
 have the authority to impose that type of regulation.                         
 SENATOR ELLIS asked if the bill explicitly directs the Division to            
 do so.  SENATOR TAYLOR responded the bill does not order the                  
 Division to set up a recording device.  Regarding Senator Ellis'              
 first question, he responded the U.S. Supreme Court just rendered             
 a decision which says the states have retained the authority to               
 regulate casino gaming.  That decision is a direct reversal of the            
 lower court decision and will have significant ramifications on the           
 Native gaming casinos across the United States.                               
 Number 285                                                                    
 SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether Senator Taylor intended to require           
 recordkeeping by statute as opposed to regulation.  SENATOR TAYLOR            
 stated he would have no problem with that, and would take the                 
 suggestion under consideration.                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects