Charitable gaming constitutional amendment laid over after debate over scope and oversight

House Concurrent Resolution 1001, a referral measure that would repeal portions of the constitution governing charitable gaming and allow the General Assembly to set oversight by statute, was laid over for further consideration after extensive, often contentious testimony.

Representative Ricks, presenting the measure, said the constitutional provisions governing charitable bingo date from 1958 and have not kept pace with modern fundraising needs for nonprofits. "Charitable bingo has long served as a vital fundraising tool for nonprofits and community organizations across Colorado," Ricks said, and the measure would move administrative flexibility to statute while preserving the core principle that proceeds support charitable purposes.

Representative Sukhla, a co‑sponsor and longtime member of a fraternal organization, said small local clubs rely on bingo revenue to fund scholarships and veteran services and that modernization could stabilize their fundraising.

Opponents—Peggy O'Keefe and Commissioner Steve O'Dorisio among them—urged caution. O'Keefe described HCR1001 as "a wolf in sheep's clothing," arguing the resolution's language could permit broader "games of chance," eliminate licensing requirements and allow electronic pull‑tab devices or other slot‑style machines outside the regulated gaming towns. "The fact that the state can provide oversight to this industry does not mean that it can require licensing," O'Keefe said, citing precedent distinguishing oversight from regulation.

County Commissioner Steve O'Dorisio told the committee that putting certain gaming authorities into statute could limit local zoning and enforcement tools, creating risks for neighborhoods that have experienced problems with illegal gaming operations.

Supporters from charitable organizations and fraternal orders testified that the resolution would help preserve local nonprofit funding, citing declines in participation and administrative rigidity; industry witnesses explained that many operational rules already exist in statute and that sponsors seek administrative flexibility rather than expanded casino‑style gaming.

Committee members questioned whether the resolution's language could open the door to electronic pull‑tabs or other devices and whether statutory oversight could be interpreted by courts as weaker than current constitutional language. After more than an hour of testimony and follow‑up, the chair laid HCR1001 over for a future hearing so members could review technical questions and proposed amendments.