The Alabama House of Representatives approved Tuesday a set of gambling bills in a bid to greatly expand the state’s gaming landscape. However, the legislative journey hit a snag in the Senate, where the proposed measures fell short of the necessary 60 percent approval threshold by one vote.
The House passed the compromise package with convincing margins. Notably, a vote on the constitutional amendment to permit gambling (HB 151) received a 72-29 endorsement, while the complementary bill outlining gambling regulations (HB 152) secured a 70-29 vote, with one abstention.
Subsequently, the Senate voted 20-15 in favor of endorsing the conference committee’s proposal, which was adequate for the purpose but lacked the essential 21 votes needed for ultimate passage.
Nonetheless, the legislative timeline affords the Senate an opportunity to reconsider the bills during the final four days of the 2024 session. Should the Senate greenlight the proposal before the session’s conclusion, Alabama voters will weigh in on the matter via an August 20 ballot.
“We adopted the conference committee report with less than 21 votes. It means you have to re-pass the bill. Before we had an opportunity to re-pass the bill, they moved to carry it over, and the body carried the bill over,” Senate Secretary Pat Harris told Alabama reporters, as per media reporters.
The genesis of the conference committee stemmed from disparate visions within the House and Senate regarding the future of gambling in Alabama. While the House advocated for comprehensive measures encompassing brick-and-mortar casinos, regulated sports betting, and a state lottery, the Senate’s stance was more restrictive, primarily authorizing the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to operate casinos and omitting sports betting provisions.
The resultant compromise legislation from the conference committee outlines a statewide lottery aimed at bolstering educational initiatives. Furthermore, it restricts electronic gaming to specific racetracks and bingo halls, with provisions for the governor to negotiate a gaming compact with the Poarch Band of Creek Indians. Notably, the absence of sports betting provisions in the finalized bill was conspicuous.
Despite endorsements from several House members lauding the compromise, dissenting voices emerged. Senator Dan Roberts (R-Mountain Brook) voiced concerns, suggesting that the proposed gambling expansion could disproportionately impact vulnerable individuals. Similarly, Representative Arnold Mooney (R-Indian Springs) remained unconvinced, arguing that the bill’s provisions still leaned too heavily toward gambling expansion.