Committee sends mobile sports-betting referendum to 40-day calendar amid tribal, social-harm and revenue debate

A House State Affairs committee debated SJR504, a joint resolution that would ask South Dakota voters whether statewide mobile sports wagering should be allowed by constitutional amendment and, if approved, regulated by state law.

Proponents — including representatives of the Deadwood Gaming Association, tourism groups and geolocation firm GeoComply — urged voter approval to capture out-of-state wagering revenue and to bring illicit offshore activity into a regulated marketplace. "Mobile sports betting already exists today, but it exists outside our regulated system," said Caleb Arsenault of the Deadwood Gaming Association, arguing the measure would "allow the voters of South Dakota to decide whether statewide sports betting should be legal through the city of Deadwood and in our tribal casinos." GeoComply senior adviser John Pappas cited company data showing roughly 55,000 sports-wagering accounts attempted geolocation checks within South Dakota in 2025.

Opponents — including tribal leaders and tribal attorneys — objected that the draft resolution, as written, lacks the specific statutory language and compact terms tribes need under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and Department of Interior guidance to conduct truly statewide online wagering on equal footing with Deadwood. "The tribes will not be able to do statewide online gaming like Deadwood does" without tailored language, tribal attorney Jennifer Hughes said, citing Department of Interior interpretations and the West Flagler guidance. Public-health, faith and treatment advocates warned legalization would increase gambling addiction and related harms; Michael Polley of the South Dakota Catholic Conference cited studies linking online sports-betting access to financial harms and higher bankruptcy rates.

Committee members debated amendments intended to address tribal parity; Representative Emery moved amendment SJR504b to provide tribal inclusion, but the voice vote failed. A later do-pass motion on the resolution failed (6 ayes, 7 nays); the committee then adopted a 40-first-day motion to send SJR504 to the calendar (11 ayes, 2 nays) for future consideration.