Last week was the second major "funnel week" of this year's legislative
session. All Senate files that had been passed by the Senate and assigned to
a House committee had to be approved by a House committee by Friday or were
technically not eligible for consideration during the remainder of the
session. This is yet another way for us to manage the ever-growing list of
introduced bills in both chambers. Topics which fall under this funnel
include the statewide cable franchise bill, the expansion of the civil
rights code to include "sexual orientation and gender identity," and several
bills dealing with gambling issues. All of these made it through the funnel
by being voted out of committee. While many of these issues have received
significant media attention, not much has been said about the proposed
legislation dealing with gaming issues. As a member of the House State
Government Committee, I have the opportunity to spend considerable time on
the issue of gambling regulation since all of the bills dealing with this
topic come before the State Government Committee. One of the bills would
eliminate the requirement that gambling boats be located on water. In
reality, these boats are permanent facilities that in some cases simply
hover over a very small "bladder" of water, and are not placed on a
significant body of water. This is a marked departure from the rules that
went into effect when gaming boats were approved in the early 1990s. Over
the years, the restrictions on these facilities have loosened where today
they no longer cruise on water and often don't look like riverboats. Another
bill that made its way through the funnel would, over time, eliminate the
referendum required of the voters every eight years, regarding the ongoing
operations of a gambling facility. As an example, Prairie Meadows must go to
the voters of Polk County every eight years to receive an affirmative vote
to continue for another eight years. This bill would change that process.
Under the bill, if a proposition to operate gambling games on a riverboat or
in a casino has received an approval vote of 60 percent in two successive
elections within the county, the proposition to allow gambling would not
have to go before the voters in subsequent elections. After 15 years, if a
group of voters petitioned to have the issue placed on the ballot, it could
then be brought up for another authorizing vote. Proponents of this bill say
it is needed to help get long-term financing for capital improvements and an
eight-year window of time doesn't meet the guidelines of most financial
institutions.

And yet another gaming bill expands what can be considered legal gambling
during weekly card nights that take place at a veteran organization's
meetings and also allows for the awarding of cash prizes during annual game
nights for certain organizations. This bill goes much further than what has
been considered in the past and could be interpreted as a large-scale
expansion of gambling in Iowa.

So, what do you think about these three bills? Should we eliminate the
requirement that gambling facilities in boats need to be on water?

Should we reduce the number of referendums on gambling operations if a
county passes the referendum two consecutive times? And, should we offer
veterans groups and other nonprofit organizations the opportunity to enhance
gaming prizes? I'm interested in your thoughts on these, and any other bills
of interest to you.