In a recent convergence of legislative minds, the Minnesota House Taxes Committee turned its attention to critical concerns surrounding the state’s burgeoning wagering legislation. Committee members raised significant questions regarding the role of horse racetracks and the negotiation of terms for the state’s 11 tribes, debating the merits and drawbacks of proposed amendments to House File 2000 (HF 2000) – a bill that has yet to be put to a vote and currently awaits further consideration. Chair of the Commerce Finance and Policy Committee, Representative Zack Stephenson, convened an informational session to dissect the details of the wagering bill, emphasizing the importance of ongoing discussions about the legislation’s future trajectory.
Stephenson has been instrumental in amending the bill, carried over from the previous session, enhancing provisions to include a twofold increase in the tax rate and regulations covering daily fantasy sports – a burgeoning sector within the gaming industry. His negotiations have brought about a collaboration between the state’s charitable gaming foundations and the tribes, an accord that is now integral to the revised bill.
However, amidst these forward strides, committee members articulated their unease about several aspects of the proposal, with particular focus on the racetracks and the vision of legal wagering within Indian territories. Addressing the contentious topic of historical horse racing (HHR), Stephenson made his position unequivocal that any suggestion of including HHR would find no favor in his committee.
“I just want to be clear that in no universe will a bill leave this committee with historical horse racing,” Stephenson remarked, drawing a firm boundary on the issue during the proceedings.
Representative Ann Neu Brindley commented on the finances involved, indicating the $625,000 tagged for racetrack purses was insignificant, calling the amount “pennies.” Her statement highlighted the disquiet over perceived inadequacies in the fund allocation, suggesting larger financial commitments were necessary for meaningful impact.
Amidst these discussions, the tribes’ gaming monopoly manifests as a prevailing dynamic, not being keen to support any measure that would dilute their exclusivity by allowing tracks to host sports betting. The challenge for legislators, as demonstrated over the past four years of proposition shaping by Stephenson, has been to reconcile the horse tracks’ interests with the tribes’ insistence on exclusive rights.
Representative Tim O’Driscoll raised another complex issue, inquiring about possibilities of leveling the playing field for tribes or defining parameters for their business associations with commercial operators. O’Driscoll expressed concern that smaller tribes could be disproportionately disadvantaged in comparison with more substantial tribal entities, proposing mandated revenue sharing among the tribes.
Stephenson refuted this approach, reasoning that, unlike physical gambling establishments, the geographical location of tribes is inconsequential in the digital era. This enables any tribe, irrespective of its size, to forge partnerships with operators big or small.
A compelling example of such a partnership comes from Michigan, where upon legalizing online sports betting, the Bay Mills Indian Community, situated a significant distance from major urban centers, established a successful partnership with DraftKings, a major player in the sports betting market.
Further, Stephenson espoused the sovereignty of tribes, deeming it beyond the legislative scope to dictate with whom tribes choose to partner for their gambling and sports betting operations.
Simultaneously, another bill, SF 3803 (previously 1949), is making its way through the senate, though it too faces stagnation amidst legislative procedures.
With the Minnesota legislative session slated to conclude on May 20, and absent a crossover deadline constraint, the dawn of legal sports betting in the state seems tantalizingly close yet is held at bay by the need for consensus amidst diverse interests and perspectives.
