HB3731 amends the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975 to modify the conditions under which an additional organization license for standardbred racing may be issued to a racetrack in certain Cook County townships. The bill keeps the existing framework that authorizes a new standardbred racetrack license in Bloom, Bremen, Calumet, Orland, Rich, Thornton, or Worth townships, but adds a restriction: before the bill’s effective date, that additional license may not be issued within 35 miles of another existing organization license unless the person controlling the nearby racetrack gives written consent. That consent must be filed with the Illinois Racing Board when the application is submitted.
The bill also preserves the Racing Board’s application review process, including the 21-day review period and the ability to reject or require amendments to noncompliant applications. If approved, the new licensee would receive the same rights as existing Illinois racetracks, including eligibility for inter-track wagering, inter-track wagering locations, an organization gaming license with up to 1,200 gaming positions, and internet wagering on horse racing. The measure is effective immediately.
Impact
HB3731 would narrow the circumstances under which the Illinois Racing Board may issue the additional Cook County standardbred organization license by adding a 35-mile proximity restriction tied to written consent from an affected racetrack operator. In practical terms, it affects licensing authority under Section 19.5 of the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975 and could limit where and when a new standardbred facility may be approved. It does not create a new licensing program, but it changes the conditions for one existing, geographically targeted license opportunity and preserves the downstream gaming and wagering rights associated with that license if granted.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and industry-specific rather than broadly controversial in the available record. The bill is framed as a targeted adjustment to an existing racing-license provision, suggesting support for clarifying or protecting existing racetrack interests while allowing a new license only with consent when close to another track. No formal vote history or transcript comments are provided to indicate organized opposition or support.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the 35-mile radius restriction and the requirement that a nearby racetrack operator consent in writing before the new license can be issued. That condition gives existing license holders significant leverage over a potential new entrant and could be viewed as protecting incumbent racetracks from competition. Conversely, supporters would likely argue that the restriction prevents market overlap and respects existing investments in horse racing facilities. The bill’s Cook County-specific scope and its connection to lucrative gaming rights may also make the licensing decision economically significant for affected operators and local stakeholders.
Civil procedure: other; racing facilities and racetracks; provide immunity from nuisance claims. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2940a.
Civil procedure: other; racing facilities and racetracks; provide immunity from nuisance claims. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2940a.