Legislation must be sent to the opposite chamber by the end of Thursday in order for it to be considered this session. According to the Georgia general assembly website, the rules committee will convene at 9 am local time.
The package of bills — a constitutional amendment and a framework bill — both passed the higher education committee via voice vote. An amendment to bump the proposed tax rate in HB 686 to 24% from 20% also passed. The committee defeated an amendment to HR 450 that would have added igaming to the referendum that will go before voters.
The package of bills would legalise only digital sports betting. It would be on the November 2026 ballot, and the go-live date would be 31 July 2027. Should the legislation pass, it would create an open, competitive marketplace with the Georgia Lottery Corporation as the regulator.
Georgia’s professional sports teams plus Augusta National Golf Club, Atlanta Speedway and the PGA Tour would be eligible for licences. In addition, seven stand-alone licences would be available. The lottery would also be able to have a digital betting platform.
Trying to get more money for education
Representative Sam Park brought both amendments in the interest of raising more money for universal pre-K education. According to the text of HR 450, 85% of the first $150 million (£116.4 million/€144.4 million) in wagering tax revenue would be directed to funding the universal pre-K programme and the state’s HOPE scholarships.
Committee chair Chuck Martin voiced opposition to adding igaming to the constitutional amendment. Park said it would “potentially double the amount of revenue available” for educational programmes. According to the American Gaming Association, igaming operator revenue in New Jersey was more than $2 billion in 2024, compared to $1.2 billion for sports betting.
Martin said he wanted to learn more about igaming before backing a bill for it. Lawmakers around the country seem to agree with his sentiment. Three state legislatures have already killed igaming bills this session and Maryland lawmakers are at loggerheads on the issue.
With regard to the framework bill, sponsor Marcus Wiedower said the only difference between the 2024 and 2023 versions is that two-factor authentication was added and promotional activity was eliminated.
