Originally Posted by Kevmath
In this situation, isn't the "technical correction" coming from the various amendments that need to be voted yea or nay?
My understanding is the technical correction is coming from the committee head that has already approved the bill. So he's basically saying "we are sending this bill to the House floor, but making these technical changes". In this case, basically saying that the offending section 36 wasnt designed to affect online wagering so the language should be changed.
EDIT: To be clear, this may still need a vote, but is basically a formality since its coming from the committee chair saying "hey this is what we meant to say".
An amendment seeking to explicitly legalize online poker or make poker a skill game would be, of course, more than a formality. So Id rather not deal with any amendment that deals with Section 36 without just striking it as a technical correction. It puts MA players in at least some jeopardy.
We should, of course, support and lobby heavily for the Wallace skill game amendments. Those would be huge, huge wins.
The skill gams