The main sponsor of Florida’s Senate Bill – Senator Bill Galvano – has commented that the ruling of the State Supreme Court for constitutional gambling amendments created a necessity for quick actions on a reaching a gaming deal.
Last week, the Florida Supreme Court gave a permission for a proposed constitutional amendment of gambling legislation. Under the amendment, an exclusive right to decide the fate of casino gambling in the state would be given to local voters. Under the court’s ruling, the supporters of the gambling amendment would be required to gather enough signatures for the change to be made on the next year’s ballout.
The state’s legislature has been put in a complicated situation, considering the fact there are currently two proposed gambling bills in Florida, which seriously differ from each other. Galvano’s Senate gambling bill would expand gaming in Florida, while the House bill opposes the expansion.
Only two weeks before the legislative session comes to an end, the differences between the two gambling bills still remain. As mentioned above, the Senate and the House bill offer a completely different approach when it comes to gambling, and the pressure over Florida’s lawmakers mounts. Undoubtedly, negotiations are necessary in order for the proper balance to be found in the state, especially considering the recent count decisions and approved constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately, there was not much success on the first substantive meeting of the House and the Senate, as the two parties offered totally different approaches towards the gambling issue. However, they agreed that there is not much time for the issue to be reviewed over and over again.
The current session of the state’s lawmakers is set to end on May 5th, with the legislature trying to reach consensus and find the necessary balance on a bill that would have a massive impact on the gambling industry in Florida.
What makes the situation even more complicated is the fact that the local Seminole Tribe has opposed both bills. The lawmakers are focused on reaching a new agreement with the Tribe, which supports the offered roulette and craps games under the Senate Bill, but does not back the increased competition which would be available under this version of the bill. The Seminole Tribe also protests against the House Bill, and more specifically against the increased taxes that it would need to pay to the state.
So far, the Tribe has been exclusively offering card games under the provisions of a 20-year agreement in return to a guaranteed $1-billion payment that it owed to the state for a period of five years. However, that agreement expired back in 2015, but the Tribe has continued to offer the games. Late in 2016, a federal judge insisted that the state had violated the exclusivity agreement with the Seminole Tribe and since then the Tribe and the local legislature have been trying to reach a new deal, but for the time being the process has stuck between the Governor and the Tribe.
- Author
Daniel Williams
