The next month, the voters of the five cities in the state of Nevada will decide on a ballot initiative asking the state to create a Casino Law for Nevada. If passed, it will create a new legal standard that must be followed by all licensed casinos when it comes to operating their businesses. In short, the new law would create a uniform set of rules that all licensed Nevada casinos must follow from the opening of their doors to accepting more money from new and existing customers. The five cities in the state are Las Vegas, Reno, Carson City, Treasure Valley and North Las Vegas.
So why is there a need for a Casino Law for Nevada, you might ask? Why doesn’t the current law already apply to all licensed gaming entities in the state? The answer lies in the fact that there are many differences among the different types of licenses that gaming entities get. For example, all people who wager at a casino in California have a right to sue if they are injured due to a mistake or accident within the premises of the casino. However, people living in the northern part of the state are not afforded this right. And the same goes for residents of Nevada’s Five Cities.
So why does the Gaming Commission feel the need to create a Law for Nevada soon after the implementation of the Law for Casino Gambling in 2021? The official answer is simple. Las Vegas and the other five cities in the state of Nevada want to take advantage of the strong tourist economy that will take effect in the next five years. The casinos will be able to attract more tourists to the state, therefore helping to increase the number of residents. Additionally, more tourists mean more revenue for the state’s residents as well.
In order to attract visitors, there has to be a strong infrastructure in place – excellent lodging, dining, shopping, entertainment, etc. To draw tourists to the state, the casinos must offer a great venue where locals can gather to enjoy the festivities. It is for this reason that the Law for Nevada was created. But if the law for casino gaming already exists as written, then why introduce another one? That question should be addressed by the members of the state’s House of Representatives and the Senate.
This is how the story goes in the state of North Carolina. A proposal to legalize casino gambling was passed by the state legislature in February, but it was challenged by the House of Representatives. The House majority leader, Republican Phil Berger spoke against the measure, saying that it was an attempt to legalize casino gambling across the board. He cited concerns such as raising revenue for the state by millions of dollars annually and destroying the traditional balance of payroll among the members of the legislature.
The opponents of the bill argued that the tax revenues would go to benefit only the developers and contractors who are building the new casinos. They further pointed out that the revenue generated from the tax must be offset by rate increases for property taxes. The House majority leader, Representative David Lewis, D-NC, said that the citizens of North Carolina do not have the right to vote for any increases in their income or in their taxes. His reasoning: the residents must first approve the appropriateness of the rate increase, before any increases in income or property tax rate can be made. In other words, he believes the citizens have the right to know exactly what they are getting into before they cast a vote.
The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Richard Burr, D-NC, said that although he did not like the way the House had voted on the previous casino gambling bill, he supported the new one. His biggest concern was that the previous bill had not gone through the appropriate legislative procedures and that therefore the residents did not have a chance to learn all of the facts before casting their votes. He further said that he believed the newly adopted bill for legalized sports betting will not go through the same type of review. As written, the bill will be an exclusive constitutional amendment that has to be passed two-thirds of both houses of the General Assembly and signed by the President before it becomes a part of the constitution. If it is ever brought up for a vote again, it would have to be done again with a simple majority vote. The only time this has happened since the adoption of the ObamaCare law was to remove a portion of the controversial section relating to medical bills from the bill.
Other states are considering passing similar bills as well. In an interview on Fox News, Representative David Bratley, R-VA, indicated that he is planning to introduce a casino gambling bill next year that will mirror the existing New Jersey law. He also indicated that he is planning to include a provision allowing residents to be able to gamble at online casinos if they so desire. However, it is unclear as to whether the state of New Jersey already has the rights to allow online gambling.