As more states take a peek at Internet gaming legislation, I figure we should have a state development containment thread.


Mod added cliff notes:
NOTE: updated cliffs now available here.

State Legislation Passed
Legalization:
NV (poker only, operated by NV casinos)
DE (online gaming, including poker, operated by the DE Lottery)
NJ (online gaming, including poker, operated by Atlantic City casinos)
Prohibition: WA, UT

Note: for timeline of passed legislation above and links to the legislative text, see:
U.S. Online Poker & Gaming Legislation History

State Legislation Pending
Legalization: CA, HI, IA

Other states that had legislation pending in 2011/2012 that didn't pass. (Possibly to be re-introduced in 2013/2014.)
Legalization: DC (legislation passed but repealed), FL, IL, MA, TX

States that had legislation pending in 2013/2014 that didn't pass.
MS

States known to be considering introduction of IGaming legislation
Legalization: CO, CT, KY, MD, ME, NH, NY, OH, PA
Prohibition: MI

And of course we already have CA, FL, IA, NJ, and NV.

NY? AFAIK, their only current interest is in selling lottery subscriptions online. But I can certainly be wrong. Link to some news item?

Washington D.C. steps back from Internet gambling launch

Add Maine

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/1...lawmakers-say/

Any news on Mass? Is it currently being studied? and if so is there an ETA or timeline?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...dered-1153066/

This article only mentions that NY is looking at internet gambling. Like I said before, yes, they would love to sell lottery tickets online (NY's lottery is a real cash cow). But that is a far cry from i-poker.

Are you wanting to limit thread discussion to internet poker betting? Or is it okay to post about internet betting on lottery, racing, sports betting, casino games, etc.?

Imagine that, States are moving to expressly legalize, license, and derive revenue from online poker, without enabling legislation being passed on the Hill.

Is this trend going to be the subject of testimony on February 9th on the Hill ? If so, what will the PPA say ? Is it going to discuss a "need" or call for federal legislation to "control" this outbreak of movement at the State level ?

Latest news out of Iowa -- According to a Des Moines Register article posted 01/17/2012:

"State Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls, said Tuesday he believes a recent U.S. Department of Justice opinion will allow Iowa to enter agreements with other jurisdictions that have approved Internet gambling, including Washington, D.C. and Nevada, and possibly some foreign countries."

"Danielson said he plans to draft a bill soon to legalize Internet poker in Iowa, and he expects it to be considered this session, although he doesn’t have a timetable yet."

Unfortunately connecticut seems to be backing away for now. Here is the text of an article from the local paper.

Legalized online gambling looking less likely for Connecticut
Published: Thursday, February 02, 2012

HARTFORD — Despite a recent U.S. Department of Justice opinion that appeared to allow states to roll the dice on Internet gambling, online poker will not be coming to Connecticut any time soon.

State Rep Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven, said in his opening remarks at an informational hearing on the subject held Thursday by the legislature’s Public Safety and Security Committee that no legislation was planned in that committee for the coming legislative session, and that a recent conversation with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy led Dargan to believe no bills would be proposed from the governor’s office.

And according to testimony from Assistant Attorney General Bob Clark, for Internet gaming to come to the state, legislation would be required.

The U.S. Justice Department issued a memo in response to an inquiry late last year from the states of Illinois and New York that was interpreted by many to open the doors for Internet gambling. But Clark testified otherwise.

“All the Justice Department opinion did was to eliminate one layer of uncertainty,” about certain types of online gambling, he said.

The opinion does make it possible for Connecticut to consider online intra-state gambling, so long as it complied with regulations set forth in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, though making online gambling legal, even solely within the boundaries of this state, would require legislation.

When state Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, an outspoken critic of the proposal to legalize Internet gaming, asked Clark if “we could have online lottery in Connecticut without passing legislation,” Clark replied in the negative.

“Probably not,” he said.

The Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes, which operate the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos, however, would like Internet gaming to come to Connecticut, and told the committee that such an enterprise could be safe, legal and lucrative.

“We are ready to enter this market, whether on an intra-state basis or an interstate basis,” said Chuck Bunnell, a Mohegan tribal representative. Connecticut currently has a binding agreement with the two tribes, providing them exclusive rights to operate slots and table games in the state, with a significant revenue to the government. Though it has diminished somewhat in recent years -- with Bunnell predicting a more precipitous decline as neighboring states open up casinos and slot parlors -- at its peak in 2007, that amount to the state totalled $430 million.

Representatives from both tribes told committee members that should the state seek to allow online gaming run by non-tribal-owned organizations, they would consider that a possible breach of the compact.

“We would vehemently oppose that,” Bunnell said.

In fact, Connecticut residents currently partake in online gaming.

Brooks Pierce, of Sportech, which owns and operates all 15 of the Off Track Betting parlors in the state, said betting on horse races online is not explicitly legal in the state, and his organization does not provide the service because of legal ambiguity his organization has been hoping to clarify. However, that, and an exclusivity agreement between Sportech and the state, do not prevent other, out-of-state organizations from allowing online wagering on horse races.

Anshu Kalhan, director of development for the Foxwoods Development Co., testified that there are currently 855 sites that “will take bets from Connecticut players,” and that he estimated $37 million was spent by state residents on illegal gaming in 2010.

“Online gaming is not a new venture in Connecticut,” Bunnell said. “It’s available today, just illegal and unregulated.”

Links to (most recent) state legislature i-poker initiative threads:

• California
• District of Columbia
• Iowa
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• Nevada
• New Jersey
• Utah
• Washington

I haven't been able to find threads for Florida, Hawaii, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, Delaware, or Maine.

thanks for this, will be following

• Florida
• Hawaii

^^^ Thanks.

I live in Georgia. It will be another 20 years before these bible-belt'ers even consider a poker bill.

But, solid thread, will be tracking.

Miiiiiichigan?

oh god please illinois please...........

I hope hope hope we can get an online poker decision in front of Rick Snyder. I'm a liberal and i voted against him but I trust he'll be the kind of republican that sees the benefits of ipoker outweigh the "downsides". I mean if he'll replace elected city counsels with CPAs to balance budgets I hope he'll jump on a big revenue-raiser for a big state by increasing the personal liberties of adults.

the only downside I could come up with (and I'm coming up with this) is since he's a former computer/Internet business executive he may have preconceived notions that online industries are too insecure to bother regulating.

but overall I'm confident in his determination to balance budgets.

and we've already got tons of charity poker rooms licensed across the state.

Michigan residents: Stefanie Murray from the Detroit Free Press responded to my post on their Facebook wall asking if there is a Michigan-specific connection to this.

See this post here.

Respond to her and maybe we can get some good press!

My fear is that Ipoker would be handled by lottery divisions in states, this scares the jebus out of me. No free market competition would all but garuntee high rakes and no RB deals.....this could spell disaster.

a lot of players have a fear that their next session will be the start of an uncontrollable 20bi downswing. the only thing we can do is get out there and do our best.

There might be states where it is the lottery or no i-poker at all. Half a loaf is better than none.

Many people seem to be looking at this backwards, I don't know where this fear developed that once a State begins offering poker that Congress doesn't have the authority to come in later and regulate the interstate commerce.

The one thing Congress can't do is the one thing everyone is shouting 'one time' for, which is to tell states that i-poker is legal within their borders.

We should not only be cheering for i-poker authorizations we like, but even harder for i-poker authorizations that we don't. The more dysfunctional intrastate poker is, the more likely congress is to 'clean it up'.

Some lobbyists want us to believe that the passage of a 'bad' state authorization bill will mean we will be stuck with bad i-poker in that state even after federal legislation, but all it really means is that the state has opted itself in to future federal legislation and that the companies signing the lobbyist's paychecks will be stuck with additional competition after federal legislation.

A 'lottery' state might never opt in to a federal bill, but if their lottery begins offering poker, they won't be allowed to opt out down the road when a federal bill is passed, so even the worst possible poker authorization bill should be deserving of a 'one time'.

Barring some kind of huge disaster, the federal government won't be bothered even looking at i-poker once a bunch of states set up their own laws. And "high rake" or "unbeatable games" aren't gonna qualify as being disasters in their mind.