Get 125% / $2,500 on 1st deposit!
New players only. Exclusive Welcome Bonus of up to $2,500
Recently, Georgia senators took a key step toward legalizing sports gambling in the state when they voted 35-15 in support of Senate Bill 386. But the bill’s path is currently mired in a battle over a constitutional amendment, which raises questions about whether it will ultimately pass.
Although SB 386’s passage in the Senate indicates that there is widespread support for increasing legal gambling, there is disagreement about whether the legislation needs to be amended into the state constitution. In a separate vote, 34 senators chose to support the amendment requirement, which required the backing of at least 38 senators in order to pass.
This internal divide highlights the ongoing disagreement among Georgia lawmakers on the extent and method of legal gambling expansion, a recurring theme that has hindered similar bills in previous years.
Proponents of SB 386 argue that sports betting could be authorized under the existing framework of the Georgia Lottery, established through a constitutional amendment in 1992. This approach would earmark proceeds for prekindergarten classes and HOPE Scholarships, aligning with the original intentions of the state lottery.
Sen. Clint Dixon emphasizes the financial benefits, anticipating over $100 million in state tax revenue annually. Moreover, the bill proposes the gradual expenditure of the lottery’s $2 billion reserves, further enhancing funding for essential programs.
Nonetheless, a few senators support amending the constitution to reroute the money made from sports wagering to other uses, such need-based scholarships. Specifically, Democrats place a high priority on need-based scholarships and have a history of using their votes to influence legislation pertaining to gaming.
Sen. Bill Cowsert emphasizes the necessity for a constitutional amendment. He said, “My counsel would be don’t go spend this million dollars and start investing in this until you know this is constitutional. There will be plenty of challenges.”
The constitutional amendment need adds another level of complication to SB 386 as it moves to the House for additional consideration, creating concerns about the bill’s prospects and possible legal challenges.