Speaker Husted raises key issue about gaming devices

HOW WE SEE IT

Legislation proposed by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and Attorney General Marc Dann to prohibit cash payouts from so-called games of skill has hit a roadblock in the Ohio House of Representatives. Speaker John Husted, R-Kettering, says he is opposed to the bill because it would legalize slot machines and games of chance — which are now illegal in Ohio.

Husted has a point — which was made clearly by former Attorney General Jim Petro, who said that the machines, such as Tic Tac Fruit, are gambling devises. There are an estimated 50,000 gaming machines all over the state, in stand-alone establishments, bars and private and social clubs.

The measure being pushed by the governor and the attorney general would ban cash payouts from electronic amusement machines and disallow vouchers from units to be turned in for cash. They also want prizes to be limited to $10 or less or aggregate vouchers of $600 or less. Tobacco, liquor or lottery or bingo cards could not be awarded to winners.

Recently, Speaker Husted offered this observation in voicing his opposition to the legislative initiative: "I don't believe that they're legal now. I believe they already are illegal. ... This is an unnecessary debate. They should just enforce the law."

The governor and the attorney general must be prepared to respond to the issue raised by Husted — and to show that the distinction they're making between games of chance and games of skill is based on law — or else the bill they're pushing will be dead on arrival.

Uniform standard

Dann contends the measure would set a uniform standard on the amusement machines — something his office and law enforcement could apply when determining if a device is chance- or skilled-based.

But even with such clarification, there is still the million-dollar question: How will the state ensure that cash payouts are not being made? As the statewide ban on smoking in public places has clearly shown, enforcement is the major challenge.

Given that gaming machines can be found in private and social clubs, would law enforcement not have to secure search warrants before entering such establishments? And, would a police officer not have to observe a payout being made before citing the owner?

Last month, in announcing that gaming machines around the state would be inspected to determine if they are legal, Dann discussed the proliferation of such devices:

"This explosion has occurred because there's no clear standard as to what constitutes a game of skill that belongs at Cedar Point or Chuck E. Cheese's or a game a chance that belongs in Las Vegas or one of the states that allows gambling."

In November, Ohioans rejected a ballot issue that would have legalized slot machines at seven locations statewide.

If nothing else, House Speaker Husted, through his opposition to the Strickland-Dann bill, has served notice that this issue will not be rammed through the General Assembly. Full-blown committee hearings are warranted, with experts in the gaming and amusement industries being brought in to explain the difference between games of chance and skill. The attorney general and others should also have to reveal how they would enforce the no-cash payouts law.