Amusements and sports; Electronic Pull-Tab Device Act; approval; Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission; memory; secure location; operation or outcome; attributes; illegal entry; rules; definitions; terms; codification; effective date.
HB4309 creates the Electronic Pull-Tab Device Act and adds a new statutory framework for electronic pull-tab devices used in charitable gaming. The bill defines an electronic pull-tab device as an electronic touchscreen device that displays the result of a pull-tab game, accumulates winnings, and prints a voucher that can be redeemed for cash or used for continued play. It requires each device to bear an ABLE Commission-approved seal and bars devices from being used for games prohibited by the Commission.
The bill also sets detailed technical and security standards for these devices. It allows certain components such as bill acceptors, printers, and electromechanical buttons, but requires nonvolatile memory in a secure location, prohibits switches or other means of manipulation that could affect game outcomes, and bans a list of casino-like features such as spinning reels, pull handles, flashing lights, coin acceptors, and other attributes identified by the Commission. Devices must also be built to withstand forced illegal entry, with any tampering attempt generating evidence or an error code and suspending play until cleared. In addition, the bill limits the number of non-handheld electronic pull-tab devices at a charitable gaming premises to ten and directs the ABLE Commission to adopt rules to implement and enforce the act.
HB4309 amends the Oklahoma Charity Games Act’s definitions section to incorporate the new device category and related terms into Title 3A. By doing so, it would place electronic pull-tab devices within the state’s charitable gaming regulatory scheme and give the ABLE Commission explicit authority over approval, device standards, and rulemaking. The bill is set to take effect November 1, 2026.
The available legislative history shows little recorded debate or formal voting activity, so there is no clear evidence of strong support or opposition in the materials provided. The overall tone of the bill appears regulatory and technical rather than ideological, suggesting an effort to authorize or clarify electronic charitable gaming while imposing safeguards against manipulation and casino-style features. The main likely point of contention is whether the bill expands gambling in practice by allowing electronic pull-tab machines, even though it limits their design and number and keeps them under ABLE Commission oversight.
The bill would add new provisions to Title 3A governing charitable gaming and amend existing definitions in the Oklahoma Charity Games Act to include electronic pull-tab devices and related terms. It would give the ABLE Commission express authority to approve devices, set technical standards, determine whether a device is handheld, and promulgate rules for enforcement. Charitable gaming organizations, distributors, manufacturers, and device operators would be affected by the new compliance requirements, device limitations, and premises cap of ten non-handheld devices.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the text, the bill appears to have a generally cautious, regulatory posture: it permits electronic pull-tab devices but surrounds them with detailed restrictions intended to preserve game integrity and prevent casino-style gambling features. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials leaves sentiment indeterminate, though the bill’s structure suggests an attempt to balance expansion with control.
The most likely point of contention is whether electronic pull-tab devices should be allowed at all in charitable gaming, since opponents could view them as a step toward broader electronic gambling. Another possible concern is the degree of discretion given to the ABLE Commission, including authority to identify additional prohibited attributes and determine whether a device is handheld. Supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s safeguards—memory requirements, anti-manipulation rules, tamper resistance, and the ten-device limit—as evidence that it is narrowly tailored and not a general gambling expansion.