July 12, 2005

Texas House Gambling Foes May
Send Conferees Orders on Bingo

By Mike Hailey
Capitol Inside Editor

Gambling opponents are concerned that an electronic bingo provision that cleared the Senate in the middle of the night would open the door to video lottery gambling across the state.

House conservatives - as a result - want to have the lower chamber's conferees on the property tax bill ordered to oppose the inclusion of electronic bingo in the final draft of House Bill 3.

The bingo provision would allow groups and organizations with charitable bingo licenses to set up electronic bingo machines. The games would also be permitted on Indian lands if the amendment becomes law. Senators tacked the provision to House Bill 3 as an amendment by State Senator Ken Armbrister after a heated exchange during the early morning hours on Monday.

Armbrister said the amendment would not be legalizing anything that wasn't already permitted in Texas. The Victoria Democrat said the provision would raise an estimated $75 million in revenues for the state next year and $100 in the following year.

But State Senator Jane Nelson sounded an alarm on the Armbrsiter amendment, calling electronic bingo "slot machines by another name." Nelson, a Lewisville Republican who's fiercely opposed to gambling, noted that electronic bingo machines are often called "BLT's" - or bingo lottery terminals - which Armbrister and other senators would attempt to add to the tax bill in a separate amendment following the discussion on bingo.

Nelson warned that electronic bingo could be a "trojan horse" that would lead to VLT's. "This is not old fashioned bingo," Nelson said.

Nelson offered a series of amendments designed to impose strict regulations on the new form of bingo and to reduce its profit incentive with a significant increase in the state's share of revenues generated by the new games. Nelson drew fire from Armbrister when she likened electronic bingo to video lottery, which she compared to crack cocaine.

When Nelson said she had evidence on the addictive nature of video lottery gambling, Armbrister challenged her to show it to him. "You can't impose your morals on the rest of the state," Armbrister said, his voice edged with anger.

The push for video lottery terminals has encountered more opposition in the House during the past two years than it has in the Senate. Hopes for a VLT bill evaporated during the regular session after key Democrats sided with conservative Republicans to block the VLT effort.

Armbrister conceded that he only had 16 votes for a VLT measure, which would ostensibly need two-thirds support on both floors. Despite the prevailing agreement that a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and a statewide election would be needed to legalize VLT's, video lottery supporters in the Senate tried an end-around the constitutional question shortly after the bingo debate ended.

Sponsored by State Senator Mario Gallegos, the VLT amendment failed on a deadlocked 14-14 vote when Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst refused to break the tie. But some gambling opponents don't think the fight will be over until the electronic bingo provision is dead as well.