In May 2018, the United States Supreme Court lit the U.S. gambling industry on fire. That was the month and year that they decided that the federal ban against sports betting and online gambling was unconstitutional. The ruling turned the issue of legalizing such activities to the legislatures in each state.
To date, thirty-seven (37) states have legalized some form of sports betting with another couple of states getting close to that point. What’s interesting is only seven (7) states have legalized online casino gambling. The seven (7) states that have successfully passed online casino legislation include Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. Given the size of this disparity, it begs the question, “Why are U.S. states reluctant to pass online casino gambling legislation?”
There are Issues
Of course, each state has the individual right to decide whether or not its residents will be allowed to use online casinos and benefit from things like no deposit bonuses at Limitless Casino. At issue is so few states have shown an interest in doing so. One only has to investigate the forty-three (43) states that have said “no” to date to realize there are three (3) main issues at play here. Let’s investigate these three (3) issues.
Never Gambling States
Right away, it would seem prudent to remove the two states that have shown little to no interest in allowing their residents to have access to any form of gambling. Those two states would be Hawaii and Utah.
In Hawaii, it’s a cultural issue. There is something about Pacific islanders that keeps them risk-averse and conservative when it comes to their money. In Utah, it’s a religious issue. Utah has a very large population of Mormons, a religious sect that does not permit followers to partake in any form of gambling. Since the state’s legislature is predominately Morman, it’s easy to understand why gambling legislation will likely never be introduced let alone passed in Utah.
Political Concerns
When dealing with state legislatures that are filled with representatives from both major political parties, there will inevitably be disputes and controversies. Online casino gambling seems to be a lightning rod for such issues.
In major states like Indiana, New York, and Texas, there are powers to be who don’t want to pass online casino gambling legislation without passing some kind of unrelated legislation at the same time. This has played out many times over the last 4-5 years.
Texas is a great example of how the political constraints are making it seemingly impossible to get something done on the online casino and sports gambling front.
What a lot of Texas politicians want is to change the state’s constitution to allow for a broader range of gambling activities, namely retail casino gambling in cities like Dallas and Houston. Opponents say no. It’s become clear that the legalization of online casinos and perhaps sports betting will continue to be held hostage until overtures are made to make retail casinos a reality in Texas.
This is just an example of how politics is blocking state residents in some states from getting access to online casino gambling. Similar issues exist in New York and maybe a dozen or so other states.
Block by Indian Tribe Treaties
This is the big elephant in the room. In major states like California, Florida, Oklahoma, and Arizona, each state’s respective Indian Tribes have a stranglehold on all forms of casino gambling. In large part, this stranglehold was served up in the form of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 as reparations for past bad deeds.
It’s no secret that operating retail casino resorts has proven to be a financial boon for hundreds of U.S. Tribes to the benefit of millions of native Americans. In California, Florida, and Arizona, the tribespeople live comfortable financial lives because of the un-taxed revenue that is brought in by retail casinos. It’s not revenue they are going to give up without a fight, and they fight hard.
It’s noteworthy that Tribal leaders in many states have representation in state legislatures. They wield enough power to kill online casino bills before they can even see the light of day.
It would be remiss to not mention that Tribes are often run by very astute and educated individuals. They are business savvy enough to know that even if they were given the sole authority to manage online casino gambling activities, it would hurt their retail casino business models. As of yet, they haven’t shown a willingness to sacrifice resort accommodation and entertainment revenue for a little extra casino gaming revenue. They won’t savage their own businesses.
Conclusion: If online casino gambling is ever to see the light of day throughout most of the U.S., major changes in attitude will have to proceed it. That’s not likely to happen anytime soon with individual groups having more interested in protecting their agendas.
About The Author
