House State Affairs rejects new anti-gambling bill, 9-8

On a 9-8 vote today, the House State Affairs Committee refused to introduce a new anti-gambling bill aimed at targeting tribal gaming and any other slot machine-like operations and putting limits on the state lottery. Backers of the measure, led by former state Sen. Grant Ipsen, argued that gambling leads to addiction, homelessness and suicide, and proposed inserting the Idaho Constitution’s wording banning simulated slot machines into five sections of state law along with other restrictive language.

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, questioned whether some of the bill’s wording regarding banning games that provide coupons that can be exchanged for “cash or cash equivalent prizes” might outlaw the type of kiddie games used at Chuck E. Cheese and similar operations, where kids exchange tickets for small prizes after playing various types of video and skill games. The sponsors said they didn’t know.

Rep. James Holtzclaw, R-Meridian, said, “I was sitting here reading this bill, and obviously most of us know what the Constitution says. Unfortunately there’s inconsistencies throughout the state of Idaho when it relates to the Constitution. This is a huge policy change. And I feel that Mr. Ipsen really hasn’t involved all the stakeholders. I felt like some of the answers weren’t clear. … Another thing, what about the compact? What about what the people want? I thought we decided this years ago.”

After Idaho instituted a state lottery, sovereign Indian tribes within the state were entitled by federal law to have their own gaming operations, under compacts negotiated with the state. They did so, and Idaho voters in 2002 passed a voter initiative specifically authorizing current tribal reservation casino operations. Those operations have been repeatedly upheld in federal court.

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, said, “This is something we struggled with already very heavily last session. If this is going to be addressed, we should begin it a little earlier in the session and have a full-blown discussion about it, rather than trying to rush it at the last minute.”

Rep. John McCrostie, D-Boise, moved to return the bill to its sponsor rather than introduce it; his motion passed 9-8. Here’s how the vote broke down:

Voting in favor of the motion, to reject the bill: Reps. Batt, Sims, Barbieri, Holtzclaw, McMillan, Smith, Jordan, McCrostie and Wintrow.

Voting against the motion, and instead wanting the bill introduced: Reps. Loertscher, Andrus, Luker, Crane, Palmer, Bateman, Cheatham and Nielsen.