The Rhode Island House of Representatives may reconsider a bill to criminalize online gambling for 18 to 20-year-olds, even though they can legally play the same games at the state’s retail casinos. The bill had been voted down in committee, but lawmakers are being pressured to give it a second chance. If it were to become law, it would be a move against the grain, as there are efforts in other states like New Jersey to decriminalize underage gambling and replace punishment with treatment.
Rhode Island is unusual for having set the minimum age for its retail casinos at 18 while imposing the more usual 21+ requirement for online gambling. No other state with legal online casinos sets a different age than the one stipulated for retail gambling. (Michigan’s tribal casinos allow players 18 and up, but that’s because state law doesn’t apply on tribal land.)
The Rhode Island State Police are the main force behind the bill, which the House Judiciary Committee shot down 7-5 in a vote last week. Some committee members said it was unnecessary to criminalize young adults in this way.
Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island and the Public Defender’s Office, similarly argue the legislation’s contradictions will create legal confusion. Instead, they recommend civil penalties similar to those under consideration in New Jersey. They also call for increased education.
According to The Providence Journal, Rep. Cherie Cruz and others echoed the concerns ahead of the House Judiciary Committee vote that rejected the bill.
Opponents urge focus on harm reduction
At a March hearing, Megan Jackson, the Public Defender’s Office legislative liaison, told legislators the proposed law offers cause for concern.
While we understand the need to regulate online gambling activities, our primary concern lies with the proposed creation of a new misdemeanor for iGaming for individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 …. [when] the legal gambling age in Rhode Island is currently set at 18 for all other purposes.
Jackson further noted that creating a “separate misdemeanor” for young adults may lead to confusion and difficulty navigating the legal framework.
Rather than criminalizing digital gambling for individuals aged 18 to 20, we suggest considering alternative measures that focus on education and harm reduction, such as punishing such conduct as a civil offense with a required education component on problem gambling.
While it is rare for a bill backed by House leadership to be defeated, most of the judiciary committee members shared Jackson’s concern.
So, why is a defeated bill being reconsidered?
Committee Chair Robert Craven told The Journal the bill is under reconsideration to allow police superintendent Col. Darnell Weaver (or an emissary) to argue in its favor.
Craven added that the age limit was critical to online casino and sports betting legalization as an offset to concerns on the impacts on phone-addicted youth.
We don’t want kids doing this.
Questions about the legality of a revote
Still, the plan to “reconsider” the defeated bill ruffled feathers on Friday, including those of House Minority Whip David Place. In the aftermath, Place questioned whether a revote is permissible under state law.
Place, who voted nay on the legislation, said Mason’s Rules of Order require that the “reconsideration” happen at the committee’s next meeting.
However, House spokesman Larry Berman said the legislature’s rules allow the bill’s reconsideration.
Rule 12 … allows committee members to move for reconsideration of any vote taken as long as the bill which was subject to the vote remains in possession of the committee (it does) and that the motion is made by a member voting in the majority.
It is our understanding that several members who voted in the majority will support a motion to reconsider. In addition, at least two members who missed the vote have indicated they would like the opportunity to participate in a vote.
Berman noted that the House follows its own rules. He added that it only falls back on Mason’s when the House rules are silent.
That is clearly not the case in this instance.
About the Author
