The Massachusetts House is preparing for a debate Thursday on legislation that would legalize sports betting in the state, a vote that would then move attention to a Senate where leaders appear more ready to deal with sports wagering than they were was last session.

House Speaker Ronald Mariano's office sent an updated schedule to agents on Monday informing them to be prepared at Thursday's formal session to debate a revised version of Rep Dan Cahill's bill (H 506) to legislate sports betting.

Cahill's costs was redrafted in the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies and reported out positively by the committee over the weekend. The bill (H 3974) might be further altered by the House Ways and Means Committee before it hits the floor Thursday.

At least 30 states, including surrounding Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and New York, have actually licensed gamblers to position legal bets on sports in some fashion because the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2018 ruled that the nearly-nationwide restriction on sports wagering was unconstitutional and gave states the ability to legislate the activity.

Meanwhile, illicit betting continues to attract gamblers in Massachusetts.

"We value the difficult work by members of the legislature to bring legalized sports betting to the citizens of Massachusetts. As we found out last month, a frustrating majority of citizens support keeping the income produced by sports wagering in the Commonwealth," Plainridge Park Casino and Encore Boston Harbor stated in a joint statement.

Both business have expressed an interest in hosting sports betting, and referenced a survey they commissioned which found 61 percent of the state highly or rather supports legal wagering.

"We look forward to working with lawmakers on this essential issue and getting it across the goal as soon as possible," the declaration read.

The Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies polled its members on various variations of sports wagering legislation over the weekend, with a bill from Sen. Eric Lesser being sent to the Senate and the redraft of Cahill's costs (H 506) being shipped to the House.

Though the details might shift in the Ways and Means redraft, the House bill as reported by the committee would put sports wagering under the Gaming Commission and allow gambling establishments, the slots parlor and simulcasting facilities, in addition to horse racing tracks, to look for licenses to take in-person wagers.

They might also have in between one and three mobile sports betting platforms. Mobile-only operators might likewise look for licenses, and all bettors would have to be at least 21 years old and be physically present in Massachusetts.

That's all in line with the position of House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who said earlier this year that he supports sports wagering legislation that "produces in-person and mobile gaming licenses that will bolster existing casinos and racing facilities."

In-person bets would be taxed at 12.5 percent and mobile wagers at 15 percent under your house costs. An additional 1 percent tax would be imposed on wagers put on events in Massachusetts to be dispersed proportionately between the centers that hosted the events to be used for "sports betting security and stability."

Wagers would be enabled on the outcome of college sports contests, but not on the efficiencies of individual college professional athletes. Whether to permit bets on college athletics has been a recurring theme in the three years that lawmakers have actually spent thinking about sports wagering.

"If we do not consist of college sports we will not be able to bring folks into the regulated market and far from their current platforms," Sen. Brendan Crighton said last month. Crighton's own own bill would not permit bets on Massachusetts colleges or universities "out of deference for our higher education organizations" that oppose betting.

Supporters of legalizing sports betting are singing about it and straight-out opposition to the concept is far more rare.

Lots of individuals and groups, however, oppose some sports betting - like wagers on collegiate contests - and others focus more on guaranteeing steps would remain in place to alleviate the social and public health effects of legal wagering without explicitly supporting or opposing its legalization.

Your house legislated betting as part of an economic development bill last session, however the Senate never really engaged on the topic.

The Senate appears more prepared to dive into a real debate on sports betting this time around, though its timing stays unsure. Just like many policy areas, the most likely course of action is for your house to pass its bill, then the Senate to debate and pass its own variation, and after that for a six-member conference committee to work out a compromise version that could win approval from both chambers.

Gov. Charlie Baker, who would be asked to sign any sports wagering costs the Legislature passes, has submitted his own costs (H 70) to legalize the activity and has consistently composed $35 million in sports wagering earnings into his annual spending plan propositions.

Source: Telegram & Gazette