Online casinos could be coming up for debate in Arkansas, as a state lawmaker has filed a joint resolution to amend the state’s constitutional rules about casino gaming. Although there are no specifics about the amendment yet, Sen. Bryan King has advocated for online casinos as a revenue stream and this is likely the beginning of that effort. The move would be welcome news for Saracen Casino Resort, the first of the state’s three casinos to have begun advocating for iGaming legalization and exploring its options for an app.
King introduced Senate Joint Resolution 8 (SJR 8), a proposal that is notably brief and vague:
The purpose of this joint resolution is to amend Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 100, concerning casino gaming.
The resolution does not specify what it seeks to change. However, King’s previous interest in online casinos as potential tax revenue indicates that iGaming could be in contention. The proposal’s first stop is the Senate’s State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee. If the legislature approves it, the resolution will go to voters as it requires an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution. That means that even if Arkansas legalizes iGaming, it could take a few years for it to become a reality.
Saracen rallies for iGaming, others oppose
Online casinos are not a new topic in Arkansas. Saracen Chief Marketing Officer Carlton Saffa has been a vocal advocate of iGaming for over a year. In March 2024, he sent a letter to the Arkansas Racing Commission asking for a rule change to allow iGaming. While Saffa is ready to discuss online gaming with the commission, the regulator has yet to grant him an audience. In the meantime, he has been actively discussing the benefits of iGaming with local news outlets.
Saffa argues that legalizing online casinos would generate significant tax revenue and help fund Arkansas colleges’ NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) programs. He has proposed allocating 50% of online gaming revenue to support NIL initiatives. In September 2024, he told KATV:
There’s this incredible bonus, and that is that we can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a week to fund the NIL needs at every college in Arkansas.
Beyond funding NIL programs, Saffa argues that legalizing online casinos will help curb the state’s illegal gambling market. According to him that includes props-style Daily Fantasy Sports platforms and sweepstakes casinos.
Oaklawn pushes back
While Saracen is an outlier in an industry usually resistant to iGaming legalization, its biggest competitor, Oaklawn Racing Casino Resort, is unconvinced. Like casinos in many other states, Oaklawn believes online casinos would cannibalize retail casino revenue, threatening jobs and tax revenue.
However, Saffa argues that Oaklawn’s stance is just sour grapes:
I believe Oaklawn’s opposition is based in the fact that the Saracen sportsbook books about three times as many wagers online as Oaklawn does. And I believe their objections are really a smokescreen based upon a fear of competing.
Online raffle bill could undermine Saracen’s iGaming push
Saracen’s pitch for iGaming legalization circles around funding NIL. However, another bill currently advancing through the legislature also aims to achieve that goal, potentially weakening the case for online casinos.
State Rep. RJ Hawk’s HB 1634 would allow colleges and universities to conduct raffles at sporting events online or in person. The bill is an amended version of a failed proposal, which Saffa opposed. The Saracen executive argues that raffles are a form of gambling and fall under casino gaming regulations. He believes casinos are best equipped to manage them as they have the technology, such as geolocation, to conduct them electronically.
However, the bill’s sponsors disagree and view raffles as nonprofit fundraisers rather than a gambling expansion. They believe they fall under current laws, without the need for amendments. While it doesn’t expressly prohibit casinos from conducting raffles, HB 1634 rules out third parties unaffiliated with colleges and universities from running them.
HB 1634 passed in the House with a 79-7 vote and passed through the Senate Insurance & Commerce committee.
About the Author
