Your detailed look at what’s moving, what isn’t, and why
Following a three-session moratorium on gaming legislation due to fears of the optics of considering such legislation in the midst of a stealthy federal grand jury investigation into the intersection of the gaming industry and the General Assembly (that left some pondering the seeming legal impossibility of a conspiracy of one), the logjam broke during the final week of January with a pair of bills considered during lengthy hearings in the House Committee on Public Policy and a separate pair in the Senate Committee on Public Policy.
As of press time, however, only one of those bills had made it to the floor calendar (and actually crossed the Rotunda), and there appears to be considerable uncertainty about the road ahead and who will control the fate of the legislation.
The bill with legs is SB 209, authored by Sen. Kyle Walker (R) of Indianapolis, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Public Policy. This legislation would allow electronic pull tab games and devices, and electronic pull tab systems in charity gaming. The measure passed the Senate Wednesday afternoon on a bipartisan 37-13 vote. Eleven Republicans were joined by two Indianapolis Democrats, Sens. Greg Taylor (D) and Fady Qaddoura (D) in opposition. The bill’s House sponsor is House Committee on Public Policy Chair Ethan Manning (R) of Logansport.
Well-received by veterans service organizations (VSOs), the Walker legislation caps the number of electronic pull tab devices in a facility or location. The measure passed the Senate Wednesday afternoon on a 37-13 vote after more than 45 minutes of debate, with opposition focused on whether this was an expansion of gaming or would lead to further future expansion; whether it might pit charity gaming entities without an annual gaming license against those with more limited opportunities; if there were sufficient guardrails and regulations to ensure propriety; and if a few bad apples in the industry should spoil opportunities for others.
One aspect of the debate will likely resurface going forward – perhaps in the 2026 session after some time for reflection (and analysis of numbers).
Concern was expressed from both sides of the aisle about too little money being returned to charitable entities compared to the money received and retained. What surprised us was that some of the solons who raised these concerns were among those who had voted a few years ago to loosen restrictions on distribution of proceeds, including the amount retained by the organization. There appears to be sentiment to crack down on what Sen. Liz Brown (R) of Fort Wayne described as “the wild, wild, west” of charity gaming.
In one of the earlier of our 1,000 issues to date, we covered the concerns about how some of the larger operators seemed to be returning a meager amount of money to non-affiliated entities . . . and how lawmakers changed the law to require more funds to be spent on unrelated organizations. More recently we’ve followed complaints about proceeds being unduly restricted, and Sen. Alting is looking to advance legislation that would effectively allow charity gaming groups to face fewer restrictions in how they spend their gains.
If you’re betting on one of the big four gaming bills to make it to the finish line, Sen. Walker’s SB 209 is the one with a favorable early line . . . but is still likely to face some sharp pencils in the House.
Conspiracy theorists suggest to us that SB 209 is on a greased track to passage as part of a deal that will see the House derail iGaming in return for the Senate putting the kibosh on a casino license transfer to Northeast Indiana.
Note that Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray (R) of Martinsville, a self-professed gaming skeptic, voted for final passage of SB 209 on Wednesday afternoon.
The House counterpart to SB 209 is the more wide-open HB 1433, authored by House Committee on Public Policy Chair Ethan Manning (R) of Logansport. Rep. Manning removed eTab language from his comprehensive iGaming bill, HB 1432, and changed the eTab focus to HB 1433.
HB 1433 would allow electronic pull tab games and devices, and electronic pull tab systems in charity gaming, as well electronic raffle technology, including as a web application. Importantly, the bill would also authorize eTab games, devices, and systems in Type II gaming. After several years of restrictions on use of charity gaming proceeds by an organization (prompted by suspicious self-spending), a qualified organization would be free to use the net proceeds from an allowable activity for any lawful purpose.
After public policy passage, the bill was recommitted to the House Committee on Ways and Means . . . but had not shown up on that panel’s calendar as of press time amidst talk suggesting that the measure would be sidelined to avoid an inevitable bevy of Second Reading amendments. Those amendments were expected from those who want to expand distributed gaming opportunities beyond Type II and charity gaming to include proprietors of for-profit establishments. Key House players seem to be comfortable with letting 1433 languish in favor of SB 209, particularly after seeming antipathy to gaming expansion in the Senate that has percolated beyond just leadership ranks over the past few years.
The Big Kahuna (or e-kahuna) is Rep. Manning’s HD 1432, the long-anticipated iGaming bill. This measure could be the key step on the path to the top echelon of House leadership that many envision for Manning, and it enables him to bring lots of money to the table to help fill significant budget holes.
“I don’t think it’s good policy to chase revenue,” Senate leader Bray reiterated following the gaming bill hearings. “I think you have to decide what the right policy is and then maybe the revenue comes,” the long-time gaming skeptic explains. “But if you’re chasing revenue that way, you’re probably not making good policy decisions.”
Still, he and House Speaker Todd Huston (R) – who was at the helm of the last major piece of gaming legislation to pass, the complex 2019 omnibus bill – understand that the gaming industry, competition from nearby states and online, and consumer dynamics have changed over the past several years. “We just can’t stand still,” suggests Speaker Huston. “Like any … industry that is an important component of our state, there should be continual discussions about what ends up happening.”
“Obviously, gaming is a big industry in the state of Indiana … a challenging industry, but an industry that’s very helpful to the State of Indiana,” Sen. Bray adds.
And, following a few years with a break from gaming legislation – and, as a result, taking the temperature of the public on the topic – it may be a bit more difficult than it had been back in the Day for leaders to read the room, and they may be falling back on reliance on their old lists of pluses and minuses.
There’s also a wild card, as one observer tips us: The potential for convicted former Rep. Sean Eberhart (R) of Shelbyville to be released from federal prison while the General Assembly is still in session, offering a living, breathing reminder of why a moratorium on gaming legislation was imposed . . . and raising questions about why others involved in the admitted conspiracy have not (yet?) been prosecuted.
Eberhart’s current release date is slated for May 14, but it has already been accelerated in recent months from June 8 . . . to May 29 . . . to the current May 14.
Regardless – or perhaps because – of all this, it’s still a heavy lift given the Senate antipathy toward expansion and iGaming.
The key components of Rep. Manning’s HB 1432 would authorize iGaming for the Hoosier Lottery and for the 13 current commercial casino license owners (using a three-skin approach similar to that of sports wagering) and the Native American casino. A license fee and renewal fees are outlined along with a new tax rate (and an increase from 9.5% to 20% for online sports wagering taxes; some 97% of all sports wagering is online). There are a number of assorted changes made as well, including to distribution of revenues and authorizing lottery courier services, but Rep. Manning is trying to focus attention on his revamped plan for funding and operating a new problem gambling services program.
HB 1432 is also awaiting placement on the Ways and Means agenda. While time is running short and Ways and Means agendas are running long, there’s always a way for one more bill to be added if there’s the will . . . and the fact that the measure was moved out of Public Policy before the end of January should also help. However, as we noted, there could be a leadership lock on this bill paired with SB 293.
Despite the ease with which SB 209 and HB 1432 sailed through committee, important enough concerns linger among legislative leadership, casino operators, and lawmakers from casino host communities about the prospect of expanded “video gaming” and the potential for a House floor amendment juggernaut that would launch Indiana on an Illinois-like path to slots in every mom-and-pop establishment that anything could be scuttled at this point – or even in the second half of session if alliances fray or leadership wavers.
Those fears are dismissed by Public Policy Chair Alting during Third Reading debate. In his inimitable style, Sen. Alting tells colleagues, “This bill is kind of overrated right now on the bogeyman in the closet.”
Paring back eTabs – even to the point of just prohibiting cabinet-type devices in a legalized milieu – may prove difficult after the groundswell of public support in committee and the affinity that solons have in particular for veterans service organizations in particular.
The money from expanded iGaming is enticing, but there are sufficient means from other sources to backfill the budget as lawmakers continue to work toward an effective compromise in the 2026 session . . . which could then mean expanded gaming would be able to bring in an influx of “found” money for the Fiscal Year 2027 budget.
The final big bill in the 2025 mix is SB 293, the legislation authored by Sen. Andy Zay (R) of Huntington to move the Ohio County casino license to New Haven – which would have carried a hefty $150 million transfer fee, thanks to Chair Alting.
There was no majority caucus position on the bill, we’re told, but leadership was uncomfortable with the fact that the lawmakers from the New Haven district (and area) were opposed to the measure pushed by Sen. Zay for their constituents and over their heated objections. That sentiment, we hear, was shared by other senators and even some House members, a scab effectively torn by Northeast Indiana grassroots conservative leader Cathie Humbarger of Fort Wayne during her committee testimony.
This uncomfortable reality was also raised by several of the local residents during their respective testimony. This seems to have violated an unwritten legislative more, and with hometown Sen. Tyler Johnson (R) of Leo becoming a bigger player within the majority caucus (and some seeking to marginalize Sen. Zay), the dynamics became even more important – despite the unwavering support of New Haven Mayor Steve McMichael (R).
Following more than 2½ hours of testimony – dominated by emotional appeals from many New Haven-area residents opposed to the $500 million investment – Chair Alting opted to pull the bill prior to a vote . . . a tactic that seems to have not been in the cards prior to the hearing.
That committee vote, we were told by multiple individuals who were keeping score, would have been as high as 8 – 2 in favor.
However, there was some significant behind-the-scenes drama as the hearing moved along, and Sen. Alting took time from the hearing to discuss the situation with leadership – before deciding to pull the bill without a vote.
Whether it was the local legislative prerogative; the seemingly strong local grassroots opposition; general discomfort over the concept of a move; a continuing leadership antipathy toward gaming and its growing tentacles; the opportunity to cut a deal with the House to kill the more objectionable measures – or most likely, a confluence of these factors – Sen. Alting felt compelled to abruptly end the hearing not only without a vote, but without discussion.
While the early conventional wisdom was that the casino move language could pop up in another piece of legislation, as a practical matter, it seems to be dead – despite one apparently off-target Fort Wayne media report that Full House was shifting its sights to Indianapolis.
With Sen. Aaron Freeman (R) signing on January 28 as an unlikely co-author, lots of antennae in the hallways immediately turned skyward and began speculating about the new downtown proposed soccer stadium site; space at the former GM Stamping Plant being redeveloped as the headquarters for Elanco Animal Health, Inc.; or even the Indianapolis Motor Speedway or adjacent land (which we posit as being advanced simply by forces who want to raise the blood pressure of Sen. Mike Young (R) of Speedway above the boiling point!).
A disheartened Mayor McMichael quickly said that while he won’t work to revive the measure, he hoped that it might be revived . . . but he appeared resigned to reality.
“I respect the legislative process and if the statehouse decides not to hear the bill or add the language to another bill, I am at peace with the process and have no regrets,” he initially responded to the vote. He later clarified his position. “I will not actively seek another home for the license relocation language but given the overwhelming support relayed to me by the citizens of New Haven, if another legislator wanted to insert language from SB 293 I’d consider supporting it,” Mayor McMichael explained.
However, a new option emerged on Wednesday, as Sen. Zay took over authorship of SB 43, previously a vehicle bill, suggesting approval from leadership for him to take a new route. SB 43 would mandate a study of relocation of gambling operations, with the Indiana Gaming Commission tasked with contracting with an independent, qualified gaming industry research firm to conduct a study to identify the top three regions in the state to which a person holding an owner’s license for a riverboat could relocate the licensed owner’s gaming operations.
The study would be required to include an analysis of:
(1) Projected annual gaming revenues and corresponding tax revenues.
(2) Impact on other casinos in the state and corresponding tax revenues.
(3) Patronage and gaming revenues from out of state visitors.
(4) Impact of a casino on the region’s tourism industry.
(5) Impact on the horse racing industry.
(6) Impact assessment of a potential tribal casino in the region.
That study would be presented to the Legislative Council by September 1, 2025 . . . and presumably would answer all of the questions legislators may have, courtesy of an unbiased source (note that past IGC-contracted studies have been treated as the gold standard by lawmakers and largely as well by stakeholders).
“It is beyond time that the state strategically look into the performance and location of our gaming licenses in Indiana,” Sen. Zay tells WANE-TV in Fort Wayne. “I trust this independent study will help myself and my legislative colleagues work towards an amicable and sustainable solution for our state gaming licenses.”
Sen. Zay tells Marek Mazurek of Inside INdiana Business, “It’s still an underperforming license in an oversaturated market. I took up the mantle, but I think this is likely a conversation that will reappear before the legislature every year until a decision is made.”
In a Thursday morning interview with Kayla Blakeslee on WOWO 1190-AM in Fort Wayne, Sen. Zay elaborates on the context of SB 43 and his intent.
He says that new bill is “a study of what’s a good location. The vehicle bill itself is a tool of leadership, and I think that leadership is recognizing that Rising Sun, who of course was a bidder for the Vigo County gaming operation, made a due diligence effort with Mayor McMichael to come to New Haven. I think the recognition is that it’s an underperforming license, which we as a state are responsible for. And we’re responsible for moving that license. So, I think the reality is that Rising Sun is going to move and they’ve been trying to do their due diligence on that, and leadership recognizes that at this point, and I think they want to give them some guidance as to where would be good places for them to go.”
Zay acknowledges that Full House had determined New Haven was the right place to pursue under current circumstances. “A
business that’s going to spend a half a billion dollars does their own economic studies on where they want to be, and they thought they did. and they did have a good partner, credit to Mayor McMichael and going through the due diligence.”
Sen. Zay continues, “If that went through there would have been really no need for the study. But the fact is there was some consternation with that, and it was played out very publicly, so we know what that is. You know, it’s time to pivot a little bit. So, this is a little bit of a reset to look at what options and what alternatives are available to Rising Sun – and not specifically for them, but also for the state – and where we have an underperforming license and where we can help them, and assist them, guide them where potentially a move could be in the coming years.”
Will he use SB 43 to add the New Haven casino language as an amendment? “I will not. That’s above my pay grade. I don’t foresee that happening. I mean, it’s been pretty clear by the chairman of the committee and my leadership. So, I mean, I don’t think that’s the intent. I mean, I would go so far that I don’t think that’s the intent of the Senate leadership or the House leadership at this point, which is why the vehicle bill was used, and the study was brought forward.
Asked by Blakeslee whether it was inevitable that the casino would leave Ohio County and we’re only now debating when and tow where, Sen. Zay responds, “Absolutely. This may be hard for some people – and I want to be fully respectful – I get the naysayers, I get the moral crisis, I get the argument of addiction and all that. I really get that. But the gaming ship in Indiana sailed 30 years ago when we began down this path, and with that, we have 13 licenses that we’re responsible for. And when you look at the data, at the performance of these licenses — and it made sense, because remember we were doing this as riverboats when they first came out; heck, they had to have captains, and life vests, and sailing times and all that and they’re still doing that in these three down in Lawrenceburg, I believe. So this is still one of the original riverboats which has been down there for 30 years We need to do something, and we’re going to pivot with these licenses, we need to evaluate that and where they might be able to move to.”
Sen. Zay continues, “Maybe this began a few years ago, with the split in the Gary and Vigo thing in 2019 So, you know, it’s not new, it’s not crazy, it’s what we do. And it’s what we are charged to do [as] legislators is evaluate things like this, and in this case gaming licenses and whether they are performing. And doing that, we’re helping them along, I guess.”
The Zay II measure was recommitted from its original home in the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure to the Committee on Appropriations . . . but there was no hearing yet scheduled as of press time. He tells WOWO’s Blakeslee that he expects an appropriations hearing for SB 43 on Thursday, February 13.