Legislators across the United States have had a busy start to the year, especially with multiple gambling measures gaining traction in many states. Texas lawmakers are no exception, with two bills, namely House Joint Resolution 134 (HJR 134) and House Joint Resolution 137 (HJR 137) emerging as of mid-February.
Introduced on the floor of the House by Rep. Sam Harless, HJR 134 seeks to amend the Texas Constitution to allow sports betting. On the other hand, HJR 137 aims to legalize and regulate both sports wagering and casino gambling in the state.
According to the text of HJR 134, multiple organizations will be permitted to offer retail sports betting services. These organizations permitted under the proposal are:
Professional sports team existing in Texas by January 1, 2025.
Sports organizations that have hosted a PGA Tour event by January 1, 2025.
Class 1 racetracks operating in the state by January 1, 2025.
Nominees of any one of the above entities.
To successfully legalize sports betting in the state, either measure has to be passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Afterward, Texans will vote on the measure in a public ballot in November.
The last time the Texas Legislature met, it considered a resolution similar to HJR 134. And while the measure passed the House with a 100-43 vote, it did not garner the support of enough Republican legislators to scale through the Senate.
Should both current bills fail to progress, the next opportunity to legalize sports betting in the Lone Star State will be 2027, considering that the Texas Legislature sits in odd years. Unsurprisingly, the proposals have started to draw opposition.
Detractors of sports betting in the state believe that legalizing sports betting will worsen the spate of gambling addiction in the state. Besides, the current proposals do not have comprehensive tax provisions like those from the previous years. This issue has led many to doubt if the bills can deliver on the promised revenue benefits.
“Sports gambling and casinos are economically regressive, scholarly studies show, because they produce nothing of external value,” one of the major opponents, Texans Against Gambling, posted on X. “They do not spur long-term economic growth. Instead, they hinder it. Keep Texas, Texas.”
Sports Betting Alliance president Jeremy Kudon released a statement thanking Abbott for his support, saying it “echoes what we’re hearing from Texans.” He added: “They want the opportunity to vote on legalizing sports betting and putting in place a strong, regulatory framework that protects consumers and boosts revenue in the state.”
Interestingly, it appears the charge to legalize sports betting has just as much support as it has dissenters. As a show of support to efforts to regulate the wagering industry in the state, Governor Abbott revealed to the Houston Chronicle that he is not in opposition to sports betting.
“I don’t have a problem with online sports betting,” he mentioned on the podcast. “The reality is that I’d be shocked if there were not some Texans that do it already. It’s a very common practice, and it seems to be part of the entertainment that goes along when you’re watching a football game, especially pro football or other types of sports and things like that. I don’t have a problem with that.”
An alliance of major sportsbooks across the country including DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM has also thrown its weight behind Rep. Harless’ bill.
“We appreciate Rep. Harless introducing this constitutional amendment,” Karina Kling, spokesperson for the Texas Sports Betting Alliance said. “Right now, unregulated sports betting is happening across the state, putting consumers at risk and costing Texas millions in lost tax revenue every year.
“It’s time to let Texans take control and decide if they want a strong, regulatory framework for sports betting — just like the 39 states that have already moved forward.”
Texas remains one the very few states in the US with an anti-gambling stance, permitting only the Lottery, pari-mutuel horse racing and charitable bingo. Supporters can only hope that one of the bills before the House achieves the intended effect.