House panel rejects constitutional change that would loosen rules for charitable bingo, lotto and raffles

The State Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee considered House Concurrent Resolution 1001, a legislative resolution to send a constitutional amendment to the ballot narrowing charitable‑gaming language to "bingo, lotto and raffles" and allowing the legislature to set administrative details in statute.

Sponsor Representative Ricks said the measure is intended to preserve traditional charitable bingo while letting the legislature set practical rules (for example, whether workers may receive modest pay or how long an organization must be in existence before qualifying). "This is traditional bingo, and that's where it stays," Ricks said, arguing the change would prevent the need to return to the ballot for routine administrative updates.

Opponents said the amendments remove key constitutional guardrails. Representative Espinosa and others cited concern that striking the constitutional 5‑year requirement and allowing nonmembers or paid staff to operate games could open the door to abuse and to expansion of gambling under the guise of nonprofit fundraising. "Taking away the five years and allowing paid administrators — when those two things hit together, that sets this up for a very bad situation," Representative Bottoms said.

Legislative counsel Joe Payne joined the discussion to confirm that the adopted amendments were intended to tie the resolution back to the constitutional subsection that restricts games to cards and traditional formats and to avoid enabling slot‑style or electronic devices. Payne noted existing statutes and rules would still govern administration until the legislature acted, but members said the constitutional change would give future legislatures wide latitude.

After debate and a series of sponsor amendments (L001, L002, L003) — all adopted — the committee voted on the resolution as amended. The motion to advance failed on a roll call (the clerk announced the motion failed on a vote of 8 to 3). The committee then agreed, without objection, to postpone the resolution indefinitely in a reverse roll call.

Members opposing the resolution cited the prior ballot history (voters had rejected related measures) and public‑safety concerns over expanding gambling opportunities. Supporters said the ballot route simply asks voters whether to let the legislature make technical updates rather than forcing repeated ballot measures.

The resolution did not advance.