Minnesota House Bill HF3337

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/18/25
• Refer: 5/18/25

Caption

Sports betting authorized if conducted by a horse racing track or Indian Tribe, certain tax required to be imposed on sports betting, and constitutional amendment proposed.

Summary

HF3337 proposes a Minnesota constitutional amendment to allow sports betting in the state, but only if it is conducted by a federally recognized Indian Tribe operating class III gaming under a tribal-state compact or by a state-licensed horse racing track. The amendment would also require the legislature to enact a regulatory system for sports betting and would direct that sports betting be permitted only as authorized by law. The measure further requires a 20 percent tax on sports betting, calculated on amounts wagered minus winnings paid to bettors. The amendment specifies that the resulting revenue must be divided equally among four purposes: substance use disorder programs, local charitable organizations supported by donations from licensed lawful gambling organizations, pari-mutuel horse racing purses, and the state general fund. The proposal would be submitted to voters at the 2026 general election.

Impact

If adopted, the bill would amend the Minnesota Constitution and create a new constitutional framework for legal sports betting, limiting authorized operators to tribal entities and licensed horse racing tracks. It would also require the legislature to pass implementing laws governing regulation, taxation, and enforcement, and would establish a dedicated tax structure and revenue allocation formula affecting state finance, gambling regulation, tribal gaming, horse racing, and public health funding.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the proposal appears generally supportive of legalized sports betting, but in a tightly controlled form that reflects an effort to balance competing interests. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes means there is no documented floor or committee debate in the provided materials, but the bill’s structure suggests an attempt to build consensus by pairing legalization with tax revenue for public purposes and by limiting who may offer betting.

Contention

The main points of contention likely involve who is allowed to offer sports betting and how revenues are distributed. The bill restricts commercialized sports betting to tribal casinos and horse racing tracks, which may be viewed as protective of tribal gaming rights and existing racing interests, but exclusionary to other potential operators such as casinos, online sportsbooks, or commercial gaming companies. Another likely area of debate is the 20 percent tax rate and the mandated split of proceeds among substance use disorder programs, charitable organizations, horse racing purses, and the general fund, since stakeholders may disagree over both the tax burden and the preferred use of revenue.