SB 153 revises Montana’s laws governing video gambling machines by increasing the maximum amount that may be wagered on a single game from $2 to $4. It also raises the cap on free games or credits that may be awarded in a game from $800 to $1,199. The bill keeps the existing requirement that licensees pay cash for credits owed to a player as shown on a valid ticket voucher, and it preserves the Department’s authority to set a reasonable expiration period for vouchers by rule.
The bill includes a delayed effective date of January 1, 2026, and applies only to video gambling machine games placed into operation on or after that date. In practical terms, it would change the operating limits for newly deployed machines while leaving earlier machines outside the new application date. The measure amends Section 23-5-608, MCA, which is part of Montana’s gambling regulation framework.
Impact
If enacted, SB 153 would directly amend Montana’s gambling statutes by increasing the per-game betting limit and the maximum value of free games or credits on video gambling machines. The change would affect machine owners, licensees, and players, and would likely influence the design and payout structure of future machines placed into service after January 1, 2026. It would not alter the cash-out requirement for ticket vouchers or the Department’s rulemaking authority over voucher expiration periods.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed to unfavorable momentum despite some early committee support. It advanced out of committee and was taken up on the Senate floor, but it was ultimately indefinitely postponed and the motion to pass on second reading failed. The voting pattern suggests that while some lawmakers supported revising gambling limits, a larger group was unwilling to move the bill forward to enactment.
Contention
The main point of contention was whether to expand video gambling machine limits at all, with supporters likely viewing the higher wager and prize caps as a modernization or business adjustment, and opponents likely concerned about increased gambling exposure, regulatory implications, or social impacts. The floor votes show substantial opposition at the decisive stage, indicating disagreement over the policy direction even though the bill had earlier committee approval. The delayed applicability to new machines may have been intended to soften the change, but it was not enough to secure final passage.