A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 2 of section 53-06.1-01 and subsection 3 of section 53-06.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of an alcoholic beverage establishment and the permissible locations for gaming.
SB 2373 would revise North Dakota’s charitable gaming laws by narrowing and clarifying where certain games may be conducted and by redefining what counts as an “alcoholic beverage establishment.” Under the bill, an alcoholic beverage establishment would mean a licensed premises where alcohol is sold and dispensed by employees and consumed on site, while expressly excluding liquor stores, gas stations, grocery stores, and convenience stores. The bill also updates the gaming-location rules that apply to licensed organizations and permit holders.
The measure would generally limit games such as electronic pull tabs, pull tabs, punchboards, twenty-one, paddlewheels, poker, sports pools, and electronic quick shot bingo to hours when alcohol may legally be dispensed, and in most cases to designated 21-and-over areas within an alcoholic beverage establishment. It also preserves certain existing operations, including gaming at sites authorized on or before January 1, 2023, and a limited exception for a bingo hall authorized on January 1, 2025, that is owned by a licensed organization. Other provisions address site limits, age restrictions, electronic pull-tab device limits, raffle-board sales, and special-event gaming arrangements.
In practical terms, the bill would affect the state’s charitable gaming framework in Chapter 53-06.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, especially the rules governing licensed organizations, gaming sites, and alcohol-related venues. It would likely reduce ambiguity about which businesses can host gaming and under what conditions, while protecting some existing operators through grandfather clauses. The bill also appears to tighten enforcement by tying gaming activity more closely to alcohol-service hours and age-restricted areas.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is cautious and regulatory rather than expansive: it seeks to preserve some existing gaming arrangements while imposing clearer limits on new or expanded gaming in alcohol-related settings. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate positions or stakeholder testimony. However, the bill’s failure suggests it did not secure enough support to advance, which may indicate unresolved concerns about its impact on charitable gaming organizations, gaming-site operators, and businesses that host gaming.
The main points of contention likely centered on whether the bill was too restrictive for charitable gaming organizations and whether its new definitions and location rules would disrupt existing operations. Potentially affected parties include licensed gaming organizations, bars and restaurants, bingo halls, and businesses that are not traditional on-premises alcohol establishments but might otherwise host gaming. The grandfathering provisions suggest lawmakers were trying to balance regulatory tightening with protection for current licensees, but the bill’s failure indicates that balance may not have been broadly accepted.
SB 2373 would amend sections 53-06.1-01 and 53-06.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, changing the definition of “alcoholic beverage establishment” and revising where charitable gaming may occur. It would exclude liquor stores, gas stations, grocery stores, and convenience stores from that definition, restrict certain gaming to alcohol-service hours and 21-and-over areas, limit the number of sites and electronic pull-tab devices, and preserve some preexisting gaming sites through grandfather clauses. The bill would directly affect licensed charitable gaming organizations, permit holders, bingo halls, and alcohol-serving businesses that host gaming.
The bill appears to have been approached as a regulatory tightening measure with some accommodations for existing operators. Its text suggests an effort to clarify and limit gaming in alcohol-related venues while protecting certain established sites and organizations. Because no committee testimony or vote breakdown is available, the record does not show explicit supporter or opponent arguments, but the bill’s failure indicates it did not achieve sufficient legislative support.
Likely areas of contention included the bill’s narrower definition of alcoholic beverage establishment, the restriction of gaming to designated 21-and-over areas and alcohol-service hours, and the limits on the number of gaming sites and devices. Charitable gaming organizations and venue operators may have viewed the proposal as burdensome or disruptive, while supporters likely favored clearer boundaries and tighter control over gaming in retail and alcohol-related settings. The grandfathering provisions for existing sites suggest lawmakers were trying to mitigate disruption, but the bill still failed.