Deadwood Sports Betting, Yankton Casino Advance

A measure allowing a referendum in 2020 on sports betting in Deadwood (l.) cleared the South Dakota Senate. Also, voters could approve a constitutional amendment granting a gambling license to a nonprofit group for a casino in Yankton. Nebraska and South Dakota tribes, however, claim a Yankton casino could steal business from their casinos.

Deadwood Sports Betting, Yankton Casino Advance

The South Dakota Senate recently voted 18-14 for Senate Joint Resolution 2, which would allow voters to decide in 2020 if Deadwood and tribal casinos can offer sports betting. The legislation now heads to the House. State Senator Bob Ewing said passing the resolution doesn’t mean the legislature endorses sports betting; it means they believe voters should decide. “Sports betting is and has been happening in our state for a long time illegally. It is illegal, so let’s correct that and make it legal,” Ewing said.

State Senator Jim Bolin said it was a “mirage” that Deadwood sports betting would raise significant revenue for the state. He noted the state Department of Revenue is concerned sports betting will bring in less revenue than the state will spend to regulate it. Bolin questioned the projected revenue figures because sports betting will not be a “cash cow” that will attract more people to Deadwood.

State Senator Troy Heinert noted projected revenue is an estimate. He said voters decided Deadwood could have casinos, so “If they want sports betting, let them have it,” he said.

The Senate State Affairs Committee also passed in a 5-4 vote Senate Joint Resolution 5, which would allow a casino in Yankton. The proposed constitutional amendment would ask voters to allow a nonprofit group one gaming license in Yankton. The measure will need 18 votes in the Senate for it to be added to the Senate calendar for discussion.

The nonprofit Yankton Area Progressive Growth wants to develop a hotel, entertainment venue and casino in the proposed Port Yankton project. Yankton Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Director Kasi Haberman noted Port Yankton could help boost tourism for the city and state.

Opponents include tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota who said a Yankton casino could steal business from their casinos in a saturated market. Yankton Sioux Tribe Vice Chairman Jason Cooke said a Yankton casino would be “very detrimental” to the tribe’s Fort Randall Casino, Hotel and Restaurant which employs 240 tribal members. The Santee Sioux Nation’s Ohiya Casino and Resort, located over the state line in Nebraska, employs 105 tribal members. General Manager Thelma Thomas said, “We’re facing 75 percent unemployment rates. Nobody was stepping forward to assist us so our families could be drawing a weekly paycheck. We created that.”

State Senator Craig Kennedy emphasized those promoting the Port Yankton casino will not profit from it, with most of the profits going to veterans services. “I’m proud of what our community is trying to accomplish to move itself forward despite the struggles that small communities in South Dakota face,” Kennedy said.

However, Heinert said the Port Yankton project would come at the expense of others. He said tribal casino dollars “go over and over and over in those communities” by funding essential programs. Those dollars won’t return if they go to the Yankton casino, he said.