A beforehand rejected proposal that might criminalize on-line playing for people beneath the age of 21 in Rhode Island has unexpectedly resurfaced and superior. One week after the House Judiciary Committee dismissed the invoice in a 7-5 vote, it returned for reconsideration and handed with a 10-5 majority, sending it to the House ground.
House panel reconsiders and advances rejected iGaming invoice:
According to the Rhode Island Current, the laws, launched by Rep. Gregory Costantino (D-Lincoln), seeks to penalize 18- to 20-year-olds who interact in iGaming, imposing a superb of up to $1,000 or a most jail sentence of 1 yr. This initiative, backed by the Rhode Island State Police, goals to amend the state’s 2023 iGaming regulation, which presently restricts on-line playing to people aged 21 and older.
Bally’s Corp., which operates Rhode Island’s solely two casinos, additionally manages the state’s sole iGaming platform. When the state legalized on-line on line casino gaming final yr, lawmakers raised issues about defending minors and younger adults, significantly these in highschool, main to the upper age threshold.
The abrupt reversal on the invoice’s destiny adopted a procedural transfer beneath House guidelines permitting reconsideration by a majority-side committee member whereas the invoice stays in committee. This time, Rep. Jason Knight (D-Barrington), who initially voted in opposition to the invoice, made the movement to revisit it.
“Although it’s unusual for a bill to go up and down then come back, it’s not unheard of,” Knight informed Rhode Island Current following the vote. He later defined his vote flip, saying it aimed to craft laws “that would make everyone happy.” Other members who reversed their positions included Rep. Julie Casimiro (D-North Kingstown) and Rep. Marie Hopkins (R-Warwick).
Chamber spokesman Larry Berman confirmed that such procedural reversals are uncommon however allowed. “Rule 12 … allows committee members to move for reconsideration of any vote taken as long as the bill … remains in possession of the committee,” he defined, noting that at the least two members who missed the primary vote wished to take part within the new resolution.
Pushback grows over prison penalties:
The renewed momentum behind the invoice has met robust resistance from civil rights advocates and lawmakers involved about equity and proportionality. Megan Jackson, legislative liaison for the Public Defender’s Office, voiced issues concerning the inconsistency in Rhode Island regulation, which allows in-person playing for 18-year-olds but proposes criminalizing their on-line exercise.
“Rather than criminalizing digital gambling for individuals aged 18 to 20, we suggest considering alternative measures that focus on education and harm reduction,” Jackson testified in March. She proposed treating violations as civil infractions, related to underage consuming or tobacco use, coupled with training on drawback playing.
Rep. Cherie Cruz (D-Pawtucket) echoed these issues, stating that younger adults might unknowingly break the regulation whereas playing on-line—even from inside a authorized on line casino setting. “You could even be inside the casino and you’re violating the law,” she famous.
Cruz was joined in opposition by fellow Democrats Edith Ajello and Leonela Felix, in addition to Republican Rep. David Place. Cruz argued for civil fines as an alternative of prison penalties, a sentiment the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island has additionally supported.
However, Knight dismissed comparisons to different substances, stating, “We’re not talking about cannabis, alcohol or tobacco. We’re talking about gambling — it’s a different public policy question.”
Future unsure as invoice heads to House ground:
Despite the renewed committee approval, no date has been set for a full House vote. The companion invoice within the Senate, launched by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence), was reviewed by the Senate Committee on Gaming and Labor in March and stays beneath additional examine—an ordinary step for brand spanking new proposals.
Committee Chairman Robert Craven (D-North Kingstown), who voted for the invoice and presided over each hearings, stated House guidelines don’t enable full debate throughout reconsideration. While a Rhode Island State Police officer attended Tuesday’s assembly, no extra testimony was given.
Sgt. Ernest Adams of the State Police’s Gaming Enforcement Unit had beforehand testified in March, describing the invoice as “essential” for upholding the age restrict for on-line playing.
The sudden return of the invoice, posted for reconsideration on Friday, April 25—simply earlier than the funeral of Senate President Dominick Ruggerio—sparked procedural questions. Rep. Place cited Mason’s Rules of Order, which he claimed required reconsideration on the subsequent assembly, not later. But Berman affirmed that House-specific guidelines supersede Mason’s except in any other case silent.
