Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
South Dakota Mobile Sports Betting Amendment (2022)
| South Dakota Mobile Sports Betting Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2022 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The South Dakota Mobile Sports Betting Amendment was not on the ballot in South Dakota as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022.[1]
Measure design
This ballot measure would have authorized the South Dakota State Legislature to provide for mobile or electronic sports betting, within or outside of Deadwood, as long the casino offering sports betting had severs located within Deadwood.
Text of the measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article III, South Dakota Constitution
The ballot measure would have amended Section 25 of Article III of the South Dakota Constitution.
The following underlined text would have been added:[1] Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
§ 25. The Legislature may not authorize any game of chance, lottery, or gift enterprise, under any pretense, or for any purpose whatever provided, however, it shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law, bona fide veterans, charitable, educational, religious or fraternal organizations, civic and service clubs, volunteer fire departments, or such other public spirited organizations as it may recognize, to conduct games of chance when the entire net proceeds of such games of chance are to be devoted to educational, charitable, patriotic, religious, or other public spirited uses. However, it shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law a state lottery or video games of chance, or both, which are regulated by the State of South Dakota, either separately by the state or jointly with one or more states, and which are owned and operated by the State of South Dakota, either separately by the state or jointly with one or more states or persons, provided any such video games of chance may not directly dispense coins or tokens. However, the Legislature may not expand the statutory authority existing as of June 1, 1994, regarding any private ownership of state lottery games or video games of chance, or both. The Legislature shall establish the portion of proceeds due the state from such lottery or video games of chance, or both, and the purposes for which those proceeds are to be used. SDCL 42-7A, and its amendments, regulations, and related laws, and all acts and contracts relying for authority upon such laws and regulations, beginning July 1, 1987, to the effective date of this amendment, are ratified and approved. Further, it shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law, roulette, keno, craps, wagering on sporting events, limited card games, and slot machines within the city limits of Deadwood. Further, the Legislature shall authorize by law wagering on sporting events by individuals located within and outside the city limits of Deadwood, by means of a mobile or electronic platform, so long as the mobile or electronic platform is offered by or in partnership with a licensed casino and has its servers located within the city limits of Deadwood. The entire net Municipal proceeds of such roulette, keno, craps, wagering on sporting events, card games, and slot machines shall be devoted to the Historic Restoration and Preservation of Deadwood.[2]
Background
2018 Supreme Court ruling on sports betting
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case, Murphy v. NCAA (originally Christie v. NCAA), regarding the legality of a law implementing New Jersey Public Question 1 (2011). On May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the federal government could not require states to prohibit sports betting, thereby overturning the federal ban on sports betting and allowing states to legalize sports betting if they wish.[3]
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) and Murphy v. NCAA
- See also: Murphy v. NCAA
Murphy v. NCAA (originally Christie v. NCAA) was a case about the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and dictates that Congress cannot commandeer state governments to enforce federal law. The question, in this case, was whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibits states from authorizing sports gambling, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine.[4]
The United States Congress passed PASPA in 1992. The act prohibited any governmental entity, including states, from sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing, and/or authorizing by law any wagering scheme on amateur or professional team games. However, PASPA contained certain exemptions. One of those exemptions allowed New Jersey to enact a sports gambling scheme if the scheme were written into law within one year of PASPA's enactment. At that time, New Jersey declined to implement such a scheme, and the one-year exemption under PASPA expired.[4]
Then, in 2011, New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution authorizing the legislature to legalize betting on the results of professional, college, and amateur sporting events.[4]
Based on the amendment, New Jersey passed the Sports Wagering Act of 2012. The law provided for regulated sports wagering in New Jersey's casinos and racetracks and established a state regulatory scheme for sports wagering in the state. Four professional sports leagues (the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (referred to together as the leagues) filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop enforcement of the New Jersey law, arguing that it violated PASPA. In response, New Jersey acknowledged that the law violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was therefore unconstitutional.[4]
States with sports betting
As of September 1, 2022, sports betting was legal, or laws to legalize had been approved, in 36 states and D.C. The following map shows the status of sports betting in each state.[5]
Sports betting ballot measures
As of 2021, five of the states to legalize sports betting did so through a ballot measure. All of the ballot measures were approved by voters.
| State | Year | Measure | Type | 'Yes' Percent | 'No' Percent | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | 2011 | Public Question 1 | Legislative | 63.91% | 36.09% | 
|
| Arkansas | 2018 | Issue 4 | Initiative | 54.10% | 45.90% |
|
| Colorado | 2019 | Proposition DD | Legislative | 51.41% | 48.59% |
|
| Maryland | 2020 | Question 2 | Legislative | 67.07% | 32.93% |
|
| South Dakota | 2020 | Amendment B | Legislative | 58.47% | 41.53% |
|
History of gambling in Deadwood, South Dakota
Gambling in Deadwood was legalized after the approval of citizen-initiated Amendment B of 1988. The measure was approved by a vote of 65% to 36%. The measure amended the constitution to authorize limited card games, craps, roulette, keno, and slot machines in Deadwood, with proceeds devoted to the historic restoration and preservation of Deadwood. The South Dakota Legislature passed legislation providing for gambling in Deadwood in the 1989 legislative session. In state law, "historic restoration and preservation" of Deadwood was defined to mean "Maintain[ing] its historical background, cultural heritage, and necessary supporting infrastructures."[6][7]
Voters in South Dakota approved Constitutional Amendment B in 2020 that authorized the South Dakota State Legislature to legalize sports betting within the city limits of Deadwood, South Dakota, with all net municipal proceeds dedicated to the Deadwood Historic Restoration and Preservation Fund. The measure was approved by a vote of 58.47% to 41.53%.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the South Dakota Constitution
To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority vote is required in both the South Dakota State Senate and the South Dakota House of Representatives.
This amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 502 (SJR 502) on January 19, 2022. Senate Joint Resolution 502 was passed in the Senate on February 8, 2022, in a vote of 18 to 17. All three Democratic members of the Senate voted in favor. Of the 32 Republican Senators, 15 voted in favor and 17 voted against. SJR 502 did not receive a vote in the state House.[1]
| Vote in the South Dakota State Senate | |||
| Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber | |||
| Number of yes votes required: 18 | |||
| Yes | No | Not voting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 18 | 17 | 0 |
| Total percent | 51.43% | 48.57% | 0.00% |
| Democrat | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 15 | 17 | 0 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 South Dakota State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 502," accessed February 8, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source.
- ↑ USA Today, "Supreme Court strikes down ban on sports betting in victory for New Jersey," May 14, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, National Collegiate Athletic Association et al. v. Governor of the State of New Jersey et al. August 9, 2016
- ↑ American Gaming, "Interactive Map: Sports Betting in the U.S.," accessed June 28, 2022
- ↑ Black Hills Knowledge Network, "IN HISTORY: Deadwood Legalizes Gambling in 1989," accessed March 9, 2020
- ↑ South Dakota Legislature, "South Dakota Statutes 42-7B-4," accessed March 9, 2020
 |
State of South Dakota Pierre (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
