The Florida House recently passed a stripped-down version of the Senate’s gambling bill, indicating in the final weeks of the session the two chambers will have to negotiate a compromise. It’s the second consecutive session during which lawmakers have attempted to merge opposing views on gambling. Conservatives, who make up the majority of the Florida House, want to limit gambling, while Florida Senate moderates want to expand it.
If the House and Senate reach an agreement, the state could realize $3 billion over seven years in guaranteed revenue from the Seminole Tribe–the same financial agreement Governor Rick Scott reached with the tribe in 2015, which the legislature failed to ratify during the following session. In that version of the compact the Seminoles could offer craps and roulette. The House bill wants the increased revenue without the added games. Another difference is that the House bill applies Seminole money toward education and the Senate directs it to general revenue.
The tribe has indicated, however, in a letter to both chambers and to the governor’s office, neither bill would pass the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, because each demands too much money from the tribe without giving it enough in return.
State Senator Bill Galvano, sponsor of the recently passed Senate bill SB8, said, “I stand firm in the Senate position and will not negotiate against myself.” His bill authorizes slot machines in counties where voters approve them; regulates fantasy sports; and allows racetracks and jai alai frontons to decouple lie events from other gambling; and gives Miami-Dade and Broward counties each an additional slot casino.
In the House, state Rep. Mike La Rosa, sponsor of H7037, said, “Areas that don’t expand gaming have the most potential for negotiations from our side,” adding the House effort “erects a firewall against the expansion of gaming in the future” with “no more loopholes.” La Rosa stated it’s a “very good assumption” that granting slot machines to counties that have approved them by referendum would not pass the House. In response, Galvano said, “That position will most likely be a point of contention that will impact the overall negotiations.” House Speaker Richard said he “couldn’t guarantee we’ll ultimately have a final resolution.”
Meanwhile pending lawsuits could impact negotiations. In one case, the Florida Supreme Court could allow dog and horse racetracks in eight counties to add slot machines. In another case, after a compact provision allowing the Seminoles an exclusive deal to offer blackjack at several of its Florida casinos expired in 2015, state officials argued the tribe had to stop offering blackjack, but the tribe sued and won the first round in court. Also, a Leon County circuit judge recently ruled “pre-reveal” games that look like slot machines cannot legally be defined as slots. The Seminoles claim the games violate the compact and would entitle them to not pay any more slots money to the state.
“Everybody realizes that inaction is not working. We have this ambiguous unpredictable state of flux out there,” Galvano said.
