Mixed Results for South Dakota Gaming Bills

The South Dakota Senate approved a constitutional amendment allowing Deadwood casinos to offer roulette, keno and craps. Voters will decide the issue in November. Senators killed a bill allowing casinos with hotel bars to sell liquor 24/7. The House voted against raising video lottery machines from 10 to 15 in licensed establishments.

The South Dakota Senate recently voted 25-10 for a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Deadwood casinos to offer roulette, keno and craps. The measure will go before voters statewide in the November election.

Supporters said the new games were needed to help Deadwood casinos compete with competition in neighboring states. Opponents said the new games will lead to more gambling addiction.

Meanwhile, the South Dakota House decided to maintain video lottery rules although legislation was proposed to boost the number of machines at licensed establishments from 10 to 15. Last month House members killed a bill that would raise the video lottery betting limit from $2 to $5.

State Rep. Dick Werner, a former member of the Lottery Commission, said the video lottery has brought in $2.2 billion in revenue to the state since it began in 1989. State Rep. Justin Cronin noted, “No one is going to stop gambling because this bill fails or passes.” Opponents maintained gambling addiction is a serious problem in the state and adding more gambling machines would cause more harm. “This state needs to get out of the gambling business,” said state Rep. Scott Ecklund.

Some representatives voted for the bill after South Dakota Lottery Executive Director Norm Lingle said he would ask the state Lottery Commission to organize a study of the financial and social impacts of problem gambling on the state. The last time the state ordered a comprehensive study on gambling was in 1998.

State Rep. Scott Craig, however, compared allowing the lottery to conduct the study to “the fox guarding the henhouse.” He urged colleagues to consider an independent study instead, which would not have “any predetermined outcome. If it arrives at truthful outcomes then those can be used for future legislation.”