Alabama’s ambitious plan to legalize and regulate various forms of gambling, including a state lottery, casinos, and sports betting, has hit a roadblock in the Senate. The bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives last week, does not have enough support from senators to pass the required three-fifths majority.
What does the bill propose?
The bill, known as House Bill 151, is a constitutional amendment that would allow Alabama voters to decide on the fate of gambling in the state. The bill would create the Alabama Gaming Commission and the Alabama Lottery Corporation, and authorize up to 10 casinos, six of which would be open to a competitive bidding process. The bill would also legalize sports betting at in-person locations and through online platforms.
The bill is accompanied by House Bill 152, which provides the implementation details for the gambling platform, such as the tax rates, licensing fees, and distribution of revenue. According to the bill, casinos would be taxed at 24% of net gaming revenue and 95% of total gaming revenue, while sports betting would be taxed at 17% of net gaming revenue. The lottery revenue would be earmarked for educational programs, while the casino and sports betting revenue would go to the state’s general fund, mental health initiatives, health care, road improvement, and law enforcement.
Why is the bill facing opposition?
The bill faces several challenges in the Senate, where some lawmakers are opposed to gambling expansion on moral or religious grounds, while others have concerns about the location and number of casinos, the tax rates, and the impact on existing gambling operations in the state.
One of the main points of contention is the role of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the only federally recognized tribe in Alabama, which operates three electronic bingo facilities in the state. The bill would allow the tribe to operate four casinos, one of which would be on non-tribal land in the northeast corner of the state, near the Georgia border. The bill would also require the state to negotiate a compact with the tribe, which could grant them exclusive rights to certain games or regions.
Some senators argue that the bill gives too much advantage to the tribe, while others contend that the tribe should not be allowed to operate a casino outside their reservation. Some also question the legality and constitutionality of the bill, which would effectively grant the tribe a monopoly on gambling in the state.
Another issue is the distribution of casino licenses among the counties. The bill would reserve four licenses for sites in Jefferson, Greene, Macon, and Mobile counties, where there are already existing bingo or racing facilities. Two licenses would be awarded in Lowndes and Houston counties, where there are proposals for new casinos. The remaining two licenses would be subject to a competitive bidding process, with a minimum bid of $5 million and no cap.
Some senators argue that the bill does not provide a fair and transparent process for selecting the casino locations, and that some counties are being left out or disadvantaged by the bill. Some also suggest that the bill should allow for more casinos, or fewer, depending on their stance on gambling expansion.
What are the next steps for the bill?
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Blackshear, said he is optimistic that the bill can pass the Senate, but acknowledged that it will require some changes and compromises. He said he is willing to work with the senators to address their concerns and find a middle ground.
The bill needs 21 votes in the 35-member Senate to pass, and then it would need to be approved by the House again before going to the ballot in November. If the bill fails to pass the Senate, it would effectively kill the gambling expansion effort for this year, and possibly for the foreseeable future.
Alabama is one of five states in the U.S. that does not have a state lottery, and one of the few that does not allow any form of casino or sports betting. The bill’s supporters argue that gambling expansion would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the state, create thousands of jobs, and curb the outflow of money to neighboring states that offer gambling. The bill’s opponents argue that gambling expansion would have negative social and economic consequences, such as increased crime, addiction, and poverty.
