State lottery? Bad bet as gambling bill dies in Alabama Senate
ALABAMA (WHNT) — If you are betting on Alabama getting a state lottery this year, the odds are not looking good.
As of now, this year's gambling package will not even be brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
'You're not a patient, you're a resident': State veteran-only nursing home provides resources, benefits
Alabama is one of only five states left in the country without a lottery. This year's bill would have created one and legalized other forms of popular gambling, like sports betting and casino games. However, Alabama lawmakers are not closer to making that a reality.
'We are suffering from gambling fatigue,' Atmore-area Sen. Greg Albritton said. 'Everyone is just tired of it.'
Albritton has worked on gambling legislation for several years. He said the legislature is missing out on an important opportunity to regulate it.
'The State of Alabama, I think, has a moral obligation to control this industry,' Albritton said.
Kaffeeklatsch 1920's machine produces one-of-a-kind roasts
Currently, several Alabama counties have legalized certain types of gambling that allow for dog racing and bingo halls. Albritton said he is concerned about the growth of these locally-regulated practices and other types of gambling are already happening in the state.
'Everybody that has access to a phone or a raffle ticket, they can do that right now,' Albritton said. 'It's available without constraint. That's a part of the problem.'
The state is also missing out on significant potential revenue.
In 2020, Gov. Kay Ivey put together a group to study gambling. The group found that the state had the potential to make between $510 and $710 million in revenue on gambling operations that would include a lottery, sports betting and casino gaming.
Albritton said, with two more votes, the Senate probably could have passed the gambling package this year.
'The problem is that we've got so many hands in this pie,' Albritton said. 'We've got so much confusion in on it. And so many people that don't want it to be controlled.'
Others, he said, find the subject taboo.
The last time Alabama had a lottery on the ballot was 1999, and it did not pass then. In 2020, the governor's study group found that 7% of Alabamians supported implementing a state lottery, but it appears this year's gambling legislation will not make it far enough for voters to be given the choice.
Albritton told News 19 he does not plan to introduce gambling legislation during next year's session.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Don't give Dan Patrick his THC ban. Here's a better way for Texas on cannabis
Sometimes, the Texas Legislature creates a mess that only it can fix. And unfortunately, the clean-up is often a mess of its own. So it is with a bill that would ban products that contain THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. It's an attempt to right a loophole in the 2019 state law that allowed a Texas hemp industry to develop. But the medicine is simply too strong. Gov. Greg Abbott should veto the bill and give the Legislature the chance to try again with precise, thoughtful regulation. How did we get here, with lawmakers wanting to dismantle something they essentially created a few years ago? In 2019, Texas needed a law to comply with new federal statutes on hemp, the non-intoxicating version of the cannabis plant. Legislators charged ahead, missing the distinctions among the chemicals that can provide a high. They also failed to ask enough questions about testing, including whether police labs had the capacity to determine the level of THC in a product and thus the difference between hemp (legal) and marijuana (still illegal). Still, a business opportunity was born, and Texas, as our leaders like to say, is open for business. Responsible retail shops boomed, but so did unscrupulous producers who offered wares that enticed children and didn't distinguish between a professional who would demand ID or a convenience store where somnolent clerks wouldn't even notice who was buying gummies and the like. Enter Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Before some lawmakers could even settle in their offices, he declared that a complete ban on products containing THC was the only option. He suggested that he would not negotiate and that if he didn't get his way, he would melt down the whole legislative session. He never said exactly how, but Patrick, who controls all the levers in the Texas Senate, could have held back one of Abbott's priorities, such as school vouchers, or even prevent passage of the state budget, which would leave no option but a special session. Patrick was never willing to entertain the obvious solution: more precise regulation with more robust enforcement. Texas could allow for the sale of low-level THC products without embracing a full-blown marijuana culture. The experience of legalization in other states has been fraught with problems. There's increasing concern that today's much stronger, much more available marijuana is incapacitating too many people — as well as creating alarm about possible unknown long-term health consequences. Licensed dealers can sell well-tested products in packaging that's unappealing to children. The state could bar corner gas stations or other generalized stores and businesses within walking distance of schools from dealing in THC products. It could create an agency to regulate them, funded through a tax on the products, or create such a function within an existing state entity. In other words, it could treat the substance similar to the way it treats alcohol. We all know that even with a regime of rules and enforcement, teenagers sometimes drink. A few, tragically, even die as a result. Few people would say that's sufficient reason to ban beer and wine. Heck, they are venerated Texas industries. Patrick gave away the game when, late in the session, he declared that cannabis producers and retailers 'want to kill your kids, and they don't give a damn.' It's the kind of pompous, self-righteous rhetoric that Patrick frequently uses to substitute for actual debate. And if someone else made similar remarks about, say, the gun industry, Patrick would be the first to get in front of a Fox News camera and decry it. The lieutenant governor declared it 'stupid' to even raise the comparison to alcohol — though, to be fair, few are more familiar with stupid rhetoric than Patrick. Patrick did eventually agree to expanding the availability of medical marijuana under the state's Compassionate Use Program. If Abbott signs that bill — and he should — conditions such as traumatic brain injuries and chronic pain would be among those added to the list that qualifies a Texan to purchase THC products. The state would add more dispensaries, too. In other words, through specific, careful regulation, Texas is steadily finding ways to get needed relief to those who can find it nowhere else. Someone alert Patrick: It can be done! We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section. • Letters should be no more than 150 words. • Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days. • Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions. You can submit a letter to the editor two ways: • Email letters@ (preferred). • Fill out this online form. Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Idaho senators should protect school choice in ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is now moving through the U.S. Senate, and conservative Christians are thrilled with many of the provisions that have been included so far. Although we don't yet know how the Senate version of the bill will shake out, it's worth noting that the version passed by the House late last month fulfills many of the pro-family policies made by the Trump administration. These include an expansion to the child tax credit for working families, tax benefits for adoptive parents and making permanent the Trump personal income and business tax cuts that fueled the above-average economic growth America experienced before the pandemic derailed international markets. However, one provision in particular that would improve educational access and outcomes for all students has flown under the radar so far. The provision would help more than one million students across the country access the educational support they need by creating special tax benefits for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations. It is modeled after the Educational Choice for Children Act, a federal proposal that has been introduced multiple times over the past several years and has earned the support of Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, as well as other conservative stalwarts like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina. Scholarship-granting organizations already exist in many states, providing scholarships directly to students for tuition, tutoring, special needs services, education technology and curriculum materials. The provision offers both a supplement and alternative for students in states like Idaho, which has already begun moving down the road to more universal school choice programs by offering a new $5,000 refundable tax credit paid directly to the private school and homeschool families. Some parents — particularly within the homeschooling community — have voiced concerns that new school choice initiatives, such as Idaho's refundable tax credit, might jeopardize their educational freedom. After all, government money usually comes with strings attached. When you take the government cheese, you have to step into the regulatory mousetrap. And even if those restrictions aren't imposed right away, the door remains open for future state and federal mandates. Importantly, the ECCA provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill addresses these concerns by making sure no government funds go to the organizations, schools, or families involved — thereby avoiding another opportunity for government regulation. Instead, the ECCA establishes tax incentives for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations, which then award scholarships directly to students. Because this is private money — not government dollars — families can freely choose the best educational options for their children without government interference. All of this explains why the ECCA is supported by homeschool freedom advocates, including the Home School Legal Defense Association. In fact, the ECCA model helps ensure that parents remain in control of their children's education, consistent with biblical principles like Ephesians 6:4, which commands fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Not only would the ECCA provision in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' help parents fulfill this biblical responsibility, but it would also expand educational opportunities for children currently stuck in failing public schools, no matter the state in which they live. Nationwide school choice which empowers parents while also protecting educational freedom is a high priority for Trump — and it should be just as high a priority for our legislative branch as they set education policy. With that in mind, we call on the U.S. Senate to keep the ECCA provision in whichever version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' they adopt. Our children — and their families — deserve it. Blaine Conzatti is the president of Idaho Family Policy Center.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 ways Trump's policy bill hurts Tesla
Elon Musk has been feuding with President Trump over a bill the president is championing that, among other things, cuts incentives for electric vehicles and solar energy that benefit Musk's company Tesla. Trump said Musk's vocal opposition to Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' is based on its elimination of incentives for electric vehicles (EVs). 'Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. … He had no problem with it,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars,' he added. While the bill may not be all bad for Musk – including preserving Trump's 2017 income tax cuts – it contains significant provisions that impact Musk's flagship company. It also rolls back green-tax incentives. Since he's stepped away of the Trump administration, the entrepreneur has been a vocal critic of the legislation, including lamenting that 'there is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar.' While the House narrowly passed its version of the bill in late May, it is facing hurdles in the Senate, where it is so far losing some momentum. Here's a look at the provisions that may be particularly impactful for the company – as well as other electric vehicle and climate-friendly energy companies: One major way in which the 'big, beautiful bill' harms Tesla is by making its cars more expensive. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act lifted a cap allowing manufacturers that had already sold more than 200,000 electric vehicles to once again be eligible for the $7,500 consumer tax credit. It also extended eligibility for the credit through 2032 The bill effectively made the cars $7,500 cheaper for consumers. But, the credits are cut in the GOP's bill. Without that credit, Tesla and other EV makers may make fewer sales. One major hurdle facing the adoption of electric vehicles is that they are oftentimes more expensive than gas-powered cars. However, Musk has contended when he was supporting Trump that he does not need the tax credit. Tesla Energy sells both rooftop solar energy and grid scale solar power – both of which are hampered by the Republican bill. The legislation axes tax credits for rooftop solar after this year. It also eliminates tax credits for any grid scale project that begins construction more than 60 days after the bill is enacted. Projects also need to begin producing energy by the end of 2028 to become eligible. These utility scale cuts are controversial even within the GOP and could face changes in the Senate. The legislation would eliminate a Biden-era regulation that forces the electric vehicle market to shift toward EVs. While Tesla is already all-electric, doing so could still impact its bottom line, as the way the regulations are set up, automakers either have to make their vehicles greener or purchase credits from automakers like Tesla that already outperform the regulations. If the regulation is weakened, traditional car manufacturers may not have to buy as many credits from EV-makers like Tesla. However, it's not clear whether this provision will make it into what's ultimately passed because it will first need to be approved by the Senate parliamentarian, which sets the rules for what types of provisions are eligible in legislation passed through a procedure that requires just 50 votes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
