There has been, and of course should continue to be, a lot of questions and speculation about which states will "opt-out" if a version of one of the current online gaming bills now before Congress actually becomes law.

While engaged in this discussion it occurred to me that this forum actually presents a good opportunity to try and obtain a good educated guess on the subject. All of us can provide insights into our local state politics that would otherwise be very hard to obtain. Perhaps with the use of our "collective wisdom" we can be the ones to generate a good list of states likely to opt-out or not. *

Ultimately I hope that together we can produce a better list of the potential opt-out states than anyone else has so far. Please do not be shy, all information is appreciated.

Skallagrim

* Those unfamiliar with what is meant by "opting out" should review this sticky: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...ls-faq-651375/

I will go first with my home state of New Hampshire.

I predict New Hampshire will never seriously consider opting out. Until the las few years, NH was a routinely Republican state. But our NH Republicans are mostly of the fiscal conservative type. Social conservative Republicans have never had much power here. We were the first state to create a state lottery. We make a significant amount of money by having our own state-run liquor stores (which generally undercut the prices of booze in our neighboring states). We have dog and horse tracks (in dire straits, but here nonetheless). We have permanent "charity" poker rooms (card rooms that are clearly legal so long as they donate a portion of the take to charity). And ideas relating to getting money from internet gaming have already been floated by politicians in this state. They have not been implemented only because of practical concerns, not principled opposition.

We also have no income tax and no sales tax. Accordingly, NH is always seeking new ways of generating revenue without actually having to pass a broad based tax.

But at only 1 and 1/2 million residents, we are almost certainly too small a state to have a decent in-state-only online poker room.

We have gambling opponents, of course. But most of them are merely of the "dont put a casino in my neighborhood" type. The true "anti-gambling" folks in NH, either of the left-wing nanny-state type or of the religious-right type, are a small fraction of NH voters.

Bottom line: The NH Legislature would never turn down a revenue stream from federally licensed online poker or online gambling. The only way they might consider opting out is if they were convinced that the Federal money would be less coming in than what the lottery system (and other existing gaming) would lose from the competition. Since the numbers, certainly with respect to poker, are that the lottery and other gaming would lose zero, I do not see this happening.

So, first individual state prediction: New Hampshire would not opt out.

Skallagrim

Texas?

NJ???

I think Oklahoma is definitely an opt out state. Center of the ****ing bible belt, conservative ****ing christian republicans, all up in arms about the health care bill and "the over reaching federal government", and we have casinos here.

This ****ty state will almost certainly opt out imo.

My current home of California is likely to opt-out. While this makes no sense economically, if you examine this politically it makes perfect sense.

California is a 'blue' state, and I can't see that changing in the near future. The typical Democratic elected official (i.e. Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Jerry Brown, etc.) is of the nanny state variety. Their gut instinct will be, "we must protect our citizens from themselves."

Additionally, you saw yesterday the official from Commerce testifying. He basically said I'm against this because we're not getting any money from this pie. The California Indian tribes will be against this unless they get money from the pie. I haven't read the minutia of the proposed law (in any case, what's there today and what will be there after mark-up will be different) but the state will likely get something. Given California's budget deficit, that money won't be redistributed to anyone else.

California is dysfunctional politically. We have an estimated $20 billion budget deficit. The main reason that Democratic politicians in California looked at online gambling earlier this year was that they saw it as a way to raise money without increasing taxes. (It's nearly 100% certain that various Democratic constituencies will see cuts in funding in the next budget.)

If a Democrat is governor of California when this passes he'll be lobbied to opt-out by major Democratic donors. If a Republican is governor, it's likely the legislature would vote to opt-out (it's likely the California legislature will be majority Democrat for the near future). The opt-out provisions aren't certain at this point, but I suspect either the governor will be able to opt-out or the legislature.

Just remember, Democratic politics in California are dominated by public employee unions (which is going to be a big issue in the next couple of years as it's certain that public employees will see job losses and/or wage cuts in the next budget), Indian tribes, and Hollywood nanny-staters. I think that makes it more likely than not that California will opt out. I hope I'm wrong.

-- Russ Fox

A starting point would be the 14 states already not served by other skill games sites and the 2 others who are served but have the skill "card" games blocked, 16 in all.

obg

.....Site from the following states: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont. Additionally, the Site (a) DOES NOT offer card game Cash Competitions if you reside in, or access the Site from, Indiana or Maine,

Adapted from my post in the other thread:

I've said before and will continue to say there is no way Utah won't opt-out. It doesn't take a genius for anyone to figure that out. If an opt-out provision isn't in the bill you're likely to find the Utah delegation becomes very active in defeating the bill. In the house that probably won't matter. In the senate I suspect Orin Hatch would become a big problem. He might be anyway.

My prediction: Utah will opt-out

Idaho, however, is a different animal. Understanding Idaho requires thinking of it as having 3 distinct regions. Although the whole state tends towards conservative each region has a significantly different political and cultural makeup.

The southwestern part of the state is much like Utah for the same reasons. However it is much easier for a local elected official to go his own way and the opinions/attitudes of the people aren't nearly as lockstep as in Utah.

The northern part of the state has more in common with Montana and the Eastern parts of Washington and Oregon. Yes, they tend to be very conservative. The "freaks" from Idaho to make the national news (white supremists and the "shootout at Ruby Ridge") were in this region. But you'll notice I don't mention religion. This part of the state is one where TE's political message is going to be understood and generally find agreement.

The remaining portion of the state in the southwest is the part I generally describe as being "uniquely Idahoan" (whatever that may mean). It's also the area with the most population. While I don't have as good a feel for the politics in that area I believe it is generally going to be conservative, but not as slanted to the religous right as the SE or as prone to extreme views as the north.

To this I would add that Idaho has a lottery affiliated with Powerball, several indian casinos (without table games), and limited pari-mutel racing. Their basic gambling law would be very poker friendly *except* that in the list of "casino games" assumed to be predominated by chance they include poker along with the usual suspects (craps, roulette, etc). Poker is also fairly popular here. Law enforcement's approach to poker appears to ignoring it except for raked games. Even then they are sometimes aware of games and choose to look the other way.

My feeling is that Idaho could easily go either way. I think the sticking point will be the gambling law that specifically outlaws poker. If the governor has to make a decision in a short amount of time he may choose to opt-out due to the current law. This is especially true if he gets pressured by the religous factions to do so. I'd put our chances as too close to call as things currently stand.

However, if a move to drop poker from the current gambling law to explicitly make social poker legal was attempted and suceeded I think it would change the equation. That would remove that as something for the governor to hang his hat on and be able to say "I didn't have a choice" if he decides to opt-out. It would also move much of the debate from what might be a controversial situation to one that is just a minor tweak to the law (literally removing 1 word). It would also educate lawmakers about poker in advance of having to make an opt-in/opt-out decision. Under this scenario I'd put our chances of not opting-out at 70% although it could be higher or lower depending on the specific federal law passed - higher if poker only - maybe lower as it currently stands.

My prediction: Idaho is too close to call at this time.

Russ,
I'm surprised you think that California will opt-out given its current fiscal crisis. It's also the unquestioned center of internet commerce in America, so it's likely that a lot of the infrastructure would set up in California.

I agree it makes no sense economically for California to opt-out. But take a look at the major Democratic politicians in the state and ask if any of them support the current measure: Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein oppose online gambling. At yesterday's hearing, Congressman Baca (D) was against it.

The key (as usual in California politics) is money. Unless the Democrats' special interests are paid off, the Democrats will be against it 'for the sake of the kids.' I hope my cynicism is misplaced...but I don't think that's the case.

-- Russ Fox

I agree wrt california federal politicians, but as I understand it (and I'm definitely talking out of my ass here), california's state politics is currently basically overwhelmed with fiscal paranoia.

Edit: As lawdude pointed out, they're even considering legalizing weed for tax revenue.

This is dead wrong.

In fact, prominent California Democrats, with the notable exception of Feinstein (who is a Senator and who wouldn't participate in the opt-out decision), are very good on civil liberties issues. They did not oppose the creation of the lottery, did not oppose Indian gaming, did not oppose increases in slot machines, etc. Jerry Brown, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, in particular is pretty libertarian on social issues and has been for his entire political career. This "nanny state" stuff comes right out of extremist right-wingers in the California Republican Party, who are extremely unpopular. California is NOT a tea party state, outside of Bakersfield and Orange County. Heck, legalized marijuana is 50-50 to pass here.

I suspect whether Brown or Whitman is elected governor, we aren't opting out. Not only that, but California Democrats will continue to be the majority party and reasonably friendly to civil liberties, and the only Republicans who can get elected to statewide office will be those who are also reasonably friendly to civil liberties, such as Ah-nold and Whitman. Nothing to worry about here, except that there are a few tea party types in Orange County who wrongly think that anyone left-of-center must favor a socialist utopia.

Since they are likely not represented here I'm going to take a shot at two other western states based on more limited knowledge. If anyone thinks they have a better handle on them I'll defer to superior knowledge.

Montana

Montana already has widespread gambling. A lottery, poker only card rooms (where Annie Duke got her start), and small slot/video only casinos in every truck stop, some hotels, and stand alone. They tend to be independent thinking and want the federal government to leave them alone. (A lot like I depected Northern Idaho only moreso.) On the positive side we've got a gambling culture and a population with a live and let live attitude. The downside is the potential that it could be spun as "the federal govenment getting into our business." Again, TE's message that this is the small government solution, could gain traction to counteract that. There are entrenched gambling interests that might object. However on balance I think they're more likely to opt-in.

Prediction: Montana opt-in

Wyoming

Also conservative like Montana although not nearly as anti federal government. Although there is some gambling (limited pari-mutel) there is no state lottery (Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, and Colorado all thank them for this). Social gambling is common and in at least some of the state nightly unraked poker games happen in the open in local bars with no one challenging it. However other parts of the state have had local authorities shut down free bar leagues - these have been in the most populated cities. I'm not familiar with the current state budget situation although historically Wyoming has kept their taxes much lower than other states and I don't believe they have a state income tax. Teachers get paid a living salary. Most of the state budget comes from taxes on oil and mining. The potential money they might receive for their small population isn't going to sway them much either way. While a close call I'm inclined to think they'll opt-in.

Prediction: Wyoming opt in

I agree with all of this. I would also add that to the extent California makes any progress on an intrastate site prior to a federal licensing regime being put in place, whatever small chance that California had of opting in may go away entirely.

Also, I think that if Meg Whitman gets elected in November, we will at least have a slim shot of opting in based on the fact that she will not be beholden to the tribal governments, although with a democratic-controlled Legislature the odds are still strongly against us. If Jerry Brown gets elected in November, it is a near certainty he will bow to pressure from tribal governments and opt out.

I think you make a fair point regarding California not being a nanny state. However, i think you underestimate the power of the tribal governments and their sway on the Democratic leaders. Do you really believe that with Brown as governor and a Democrat-controlled Legislature they are going to vote to opt in when all the tribes will be aligned in opposition to that?

1. I suspect that the same political forces that made Indian gaming immensely popular (to the point where the voters overrode legislative decisions to curtail it) will make Internet gaming immensely popular as well. There's no reason to think that the Democrats are going to override public opinion.

Indeed, we have a cycle in this state whereby politicians do things, they get chastened by the voters, and then they fall in line. This happened with property taxes, the Lottery, three strikes, Indian gaming, and medical marijuana. At this point, I suspect there are very few people in the legislature, and no major party gubernatorial candidates, who are going to want to take a political bullet for Indian tribes.

2. I am not, actually, sure that Indian tribes will be opposed. I saw the hearing yesterday and it sure didn't sound like it-- rather, it sounded like they wanted a piece of the action and are willing to negotiate, which suggests that they can be bought off.

FWIW, it's my understanding that states will automatically be opted in. They'd have to explicitly choose to opt out. So, the question isn't "will the state legislature vote to allow online poker in their state" but rather "will the state legislature bother to consider opting out and if they do bother to consider opting out, will they succeed." It'd be cool if a mod could edit a clarification about that in the OP since it's really important.

Really? I don't remember offhand, but the only tribal interest at the hearing I remember was from the Mohegan tribe in CT. I missed some of the hearing so maybe I missed something. I don't think you can assume the CA tribes would feel the same. However in the hearing in the CA house there was only 1 tribe for and all the others against. The for was because they thought they could be the monopoly site. Those against because they were afraid they'd be giving up their share of the pie.

FWIW, the Mohegan tribe rep mentioned a tribal coalition to start a poker site. That would be a pretty sweet solution to the problem of tribal interests being opposed to the bill and wanting opt outs.

That's right. And she also said that she was not opposed in principle to legalized Internet poker, but had concerns about how the bill was structured (i.e., whether Indian tribes had a fair chance to compete). She also actually rebuked a Republican who said that Indian casino workers would lose jobs if a licensing bill was passed, saying she was not at all sure that this would be the case.

CT is down with the poker due to tha tribes will want a piece.I'm moving to FL and they were already talking about intrastate gaming so they are in.I pretty much think if your state has a strong southern accent or people wear a cowboy hat everyday you're pretty much ****ed.IMO

One thing can be said, These are exciting times to be an internet poker player that's fo sho

Easily the most entertaining part of the hearing.

Colorado

We have gambling in casinos, lotto, multi-state lottery, horses, off track betting parlors and social exemptions for poker games. We have revenue issues, as well.

I think that Colorado is a pretty solid opt-in state.

California:

As a Californian, I agree with lawdude's interpretation over Russ's and pianospike's. Money is just soooooo much more important these days than an sort of nanny protectionism here. Try and tell the California people that they could have a goldmine in income from online gaming but decided not to so welfare programs will be cut further, more teachers will be fired, education costs will go up, etc, etc, and then see how they react. hint: they won't be very happy

Prediction: California opts in