HB 540 revises Louisiana’s video draw poker laws by increasing the maximum number of devices allowed at several types of licensed establishments. It raises the cap from three to four machines at bars, restaurants, taverns, cocktail lounges, clubs, and certain hotel or motel lounges; from fifty to sixty machines at qualified truck stop facilities; and from three to four machines per facility in certain multi-facility buildings, with corresponding increases in total building limits. The bill also adds a new revenue-based threshold for qualifying for a fourth machine at alcoholic beverage establishments: the existing three machines must generate at least $100,000 in combined gross device revenue over the prior three consecutive months.
The bill creates new location restrictions for offtrack wagering facilities seeking video draw poker licenses, prohibiting licenses for facilities within one mile of historic properties, playgrounds, residential property, churches, synagogues, public libraries, or schools, while grandfathering facilities already licensed and operating as of January 1, 2025. It also defines “residential property” for this purpose and allows local governments without zoning ordinances to designate residential districts for enforcement. In addition, the bill establishes the Video Draw Poker Device Purse Supplement Subfund and directs certain excess video draw poker revenues into that subfund for distribution to horse racing and breeding interests, including thoroughbred and quarter horse purses, breeder awards, and racing-related organizations.
HB 540 changes several provisions in Title 27 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes governing video draw poker device licensing, placement, and revenue distribution. It expands the statutory device limits for qualifying businesses, adds a new revenue test for additional devices, imposes new siting restrictions on offtrack wagering facilities, and creates a dedicated treasury subfund for supplemental racing purse support funded by specified excess revenues. The bill therefore affects licensed alcohol-serving establishments, truck stops, offtrack wagering facilities, the Louisiana State Racing Commission, and horse racing and breeding stakeholders.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the House by 90-5, the Senate by 27-8, and then the House concurred in Senate amendments unanimously, 94-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition at final passage. The caption and vote pattern suggest the measure was viewed as a revenue and industry-support bill with limited controversy at the floor stage.
The main points of contention likely centered on the expansion of gambling devices and the new geographic restrictions for offtrack wagering facilities. Supporters would likely have favored the added machine capacity and the redirection of revenue to racing purses, while critics may have objected to increased gambling availability, the preferential treatment of racing interests, or the grandfathering of existing facilities. The bill’s revenue threshold for a fourth machine and the one-mile exclusion zone for certain facilities appear to be the key policy compromises balancing expansion with regulation.
HB 540 amends multiple provisions of Louisiana’s gaming statutes in Title 27 by increasing device limits for video draw poker licenses, adding a revenue-based eligibility standard for additional machines, and creating new prohibited locations for offtrack wagering facilities. It also establishes the Video Draw Poker Device Purse Supplement Subfund and directs specified excess gaming revenues into that fund for annual appropriation to racing and breeding entities, thereby changing how certain gaming proceeds are distributed and used.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support in both chambers, as reflected by large final passage margins and unanimous House concurrence in Senate amendments. The vote pattern suggests the measure was generally seen as a practical adjustment to existing video poker law and a benefit to affected businesses and the racing industry, with only limited opposition.
The likely areas of disagreement were the expansion of gambling device limits, the creation of a new revenue threshold for qualifying for a fourth machine, and the new one-mile siting restriction for offtrack wagering facilities near sensitive properties. Opponents may have been concerned about increased gambling access or the policy choice to channel excess revenues to racing-related groups, while supporters likely emphasized business flexibility, revenue generation, and support for horse racing and breeding. The grandfathering of existing offtrack wagering facilities and the local-government zoning provision suggest attempts to soften those concerns.