A bill in the New Hampshire legislature could grant local municipalities the power to reject charitable casino licenses in their area, a power currently wielded only by the state. House Bill 737, which has bipartisan support from eight sponsors, cleared the House on March 20 and is now under review by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
The committee held its first hearing on April 2 and is scheduled to meet again on April 16. If passed, the bill would take effect on July 1.
New Hampshire does not have full-scale commercial casinos. Instead, its 12 gambling establishments operate under the umbrella of charitable gaming, with a portion of their revenue going to local causes. The casinos offer bingo-based games and historical horse racing machines, though an effort is afoot to replace the latter with true slot machines.
Last year, the Salem Planning Board approved Cordish Companies’ Live! Casino plan at The Mall at Rockingham Park site, despite public safety concerns. If HB737 becomes law, it could enable municipalities to tackle those concerns directly, allowing local voters to have the final say on whether casino projects like Live! move forward in their communities.
Bill gives control to voters but won’t affect current licenses
HB737 would give cities, towns, and unincorporated areas the authority to ban games of chance through a local vote. If enacted, the bill would also prohibit the New Hampshire Lottery Commission from issuing charitable gaming licenses in any municipality that has either voted to ban gaming or has a pending vote.
Residents could initiate the process by submitting a petition. In towns, the petition needs 25 votes, while in cities, it requires 5% of registered voters. The ban question would then be put on a ballot, and the municipality would have to hold a public hearing. If voters decide to ban games of chance, the bill allows the flexibility to reverse that decision by following the same process.
Existing operators or applicants before the petition date won’t be affected. That’s unless they’ve ceased operations for over two years or an applicant fails to open within four years of receiving a license.
Also, even if a municipality votes to prohibit games of chance, local leaders can pass an ordinance allowing a limited number of charitable gaming events hosted by local nonprofits annually.
Debate over local control in retail casino development
The discussion of how much municipalities should have a say over retail gambling varies from state to state. For example, when Virginia approved plans for five retail casinos, it left it to voters to decide whether to allow them in their communities. While four locations received approval, voters in Richmond rejected a casino twice. That resulted in the state choosing another location in Petersburg, which voters approved last November.
Meanwhile, Arkansas has faced a complex battle over who decides whether to build new casinos and where to locate them. In 2018, voters passed Constitutional Amendment 100, directing the Arkansas Racing Commission to issue licenses for four casinos. Three of those casinos are now operational. However, controversy erupted over the fourth license, designated for Pope County. In 2018, 60% of the voters in the county opposed casino gambling.
Last year, a group called Local Voters in Charge proposed a ballot measure that would give local voters the authority to decide whether they want a casino in their community. The proposal also sought to revoke the license awarded to the Cherokee Nation for its planned Pope County casino.
The Cherokee Nation challenged the measure in court. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, allowing the initiative to proceed. In the November 2024 election, more than 55% of Arkansas voters approved the measure. That meant revoking the casino license for Pope County.
About the Author
