California online poker bill rescheduled for August

The bill is part of the 2015 attempt to regulate online poker in California but many observers suggest it remains unlikely legislation has any chance of passing this year.

The almost seven-year debate over internet poker in California has resulted from indecision over who should be allowed to participate in regulated online poker. Assembly Bill 167 was withdrawn due to lack of consensus between stakeholders and came after another poker bill, AB 9, was shelved due to a disagreement over inclusion of the horse racing industry.

A third bill, AB 431, has moved further ahead, already passing the GO and Appropriations Committees, and could be voted on by the Assembly at any point. But despite being the first online poker bill to have ever been voted on in California, let alone pass, it has been described as a “shell bill” due to its lack of detail and specific policies.

Leading issues each bill must address is whether to allow PokerStars in the market, as well as other bad actor clauses, but it’s the role of the horseracing industry that seems the principle dilemma. In a letter sent to Jones-Sawyer ahead of the bill withdrawal, a tribal coalition spearheaded by the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians expressed their position.

“The Tribal Governments shown on this letter write to advise you of our united opposition to your Assembly Bill 167,” said the letter, signed by six tribal leaders, “and any legislation that would expand the scope of gaming in California to grant internet poker licenses to horse racing associations or ease regulatory standards to accommodate actors whose past behaviour and tainted brands would erode the integrity of intrastate internet poker.”

After addressing these concerns, Assembly Bill 167 will be heard next month, when the legislature returns from recess on August 17. From then it will only have until September 11 to pass and be on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown before adjourning for the year. But without consensus on several leading issues, none of the three bills looks promising in 2015.