The midterm elections certainly attracted a lot of attention over the past few weeks. There were a few ballot questions that may have a direct impact on the march toward sports betting legalization. Here’s a quick recap of the winners and losers when it comes to the legalization of sports betting.
Winner: Louisiana
Louisiana voters didn’t vote on legalizing sports betting in the traditional sense. However, they did vote to legalize daily fantasy sports (DFS) in 47 of the 64 parishes in the state. In those parishes, companies like DraftKings and FanDuel may soon be able to offer their contests online. There are a few hurdles to overcome, though. Louisiana is the first state to put this form of sports wagering into such a granular scale. This will be the biggest test yet of geofencing technology which enables states to make sure bettors are within their geographic limits. Personally I’ve been very impressed with what I’ve seen of geofencing technology. I’m sure a vendor will step forward to make this complicated setup work. Tax rates and regulations still need to be drawn up. In the big picture, this is a step forward toward real sports betting in the Bayou.
Loser: Florida
Florida voters had a ballot question which at first glance looked to enable its control of future gaming expansion in the state. Amendment 3 created an odd alliance of Disney and the Seminole Indian Tribe pitted against all the racinos in the state and an NFL team. The amendment was designed to “give Florida voters the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida.” If passed, all future gaming expansions in Florida would need to be initiated by a petition signed by no less than at least 8% of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election in the state. Furthermore, that 8% threshold must exist in at least 14 of the state’s 27 congressional districts. Then the matter appears on a subsequent ballot for a statewide election. This amendment does not include gaming on tribal lands.
Ah, that last sentence was the reason we saw family-friendly Disney joining forces with the Seminoles. Most voters didn’t realize they were voting to make the process of gaming expansion in their state arduous and nearly impossible. The amendment passed easily. Basically, the chances of more casinos in Florida is now about the same as a snowball’s chances in Miami. The Seminoles, which operate under a compact with the state, can and probably will move to modify their compact to allow sports wagering at some point. However, as we’ve detailed before, products without competition are seldom consumer-friendly.
Winner: Arkansas
The voters in Arkansas approved a ballot measure which authorizes expanded gambling at four locations in their state. One dog track near the border with Memphis and one horse track outside Little Rock. The other two locations will be full-service casinos operating outside Little Rock. It’s expected that the four locations will all have separate ownership which will hopefully foster some competition. No word yet on if mobile betting will someday be available for Arkansas residents. It will likely be at least a year before the first sports bets are placed in Arkansas. I’m moving Arkansas up in my handicapping of future states. It would now be at the top of the “Sometime 2020” list found in this post.
Loser: Federal Laws on Sports Betting
I’m not sure if this could be considered a winner or a loser. For those with a defined path of state regulation toward sports wagering, this is a winner. For those hoping for federal oversight of the industry, it’s a loser. With Congress likely in a state of deadlock for the next two years, a mildly divisive issue like sports betting won’t reach the debate floor. The same holds true for Internet gambling. Those who live in states where it’s legal have feared a modification of the Wire Act. That is far less likely now. There’s likely no repeal of UIGEA on the horizon, but there’s likely to be no usurping of state’s rights regarding it either. We are probably in the clear of any federal influence in sports betting until at least 2021 or 2023.
As always, a great place to keep up with the shifting landscape of legalized betting is right here on our map.
I wonder whether as a general rule, Republicans or Democrats are more in favor of the spread of legalized gambling. Virtually all casinos nationwide are owned by rich Republicans or big corporations (or faux-owned by Indian tribes), so i would expect Republicans to be vehemently opposed to anything that would threaten their gambling monopolies. On the other hand, maybe Democrats would be generally opposed to the spread of legalized gambling due to the fact that it is a tax on the poor. There are some communities in Pennsylvania that are being bled white because of their proximity to newly built casinos in that state.
One thing’s for sure. Nevada used to be the place where the country safely tucked away its vice and misbehavior. Now, Reno and Vegas don’t have a monopoly on gambling (not even close) and stupidly, they have destroyed their remaining competitive advantage as bargain vacation destinations. Hunter S. Thompson was right. Vegas is what the entire nation would be doing on Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war.
Reply
What does it matter to the elephants and donkeys as to who is more in favor of legalized gambling? The elephants and donkeys know that the states will be the big winners and they will continue to blood suck off of the public. More money to the coffers.
Reply
The Religious-Right conservative Republicans would be opposed to gambling expansions/sports betting.
Reply