WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 308

Relates to allowing Nassau County auxiliary police to have police batons

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Rhoads

The bill lets the Gaming Commission authorize Category 2 licensees to add up to 30 table games and 250 extra slots (to 1,500 total) subject to municipal approval and hearings.

REFERRED TO CODES
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 308

Summary — S.308 (2025): "An Act protecting the Commonwealth’s gaming industry"

Note: The bill text submitted for S.308 is a Massachusetts bill presented by Senator Rebecca L. Rausch amending Chapter 23K (gaming). Some accompanying metadata in the packet (other sponsors, title referencing Nassau County police batons, committee names) appears inconsistent with the bill text; this summary focuses on the bill language as filed in the Massachusetts General Court.

Purpose

To permit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (the Commission) to authorize existing Category 2 gaming licensees — who currently may operate no table games and up to 1,250 slot machines — to host a limited number of table games and additional slot machines upon meeting statutory and local-approval conditions. The change is intended to provide flexibility to Category 2 facilities and to support the Commonwealth’s gaming industry.

Key provisions

  • Replaces the current definition of “Category 2 license” to restate it as permitting operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines (subject to further Commission determinations).
  • Adds a new subsection (Section 11(d)) giving the Commission authority to consider allowing a Category 2 licensee to host:
    • Up to 30 table games; and/or
    • Up to an additional 250 slot machines (i.e., potentially increasing slots from 1,250 to as many as 1,500 for that licensee).
  • Conditions for Commission consideration:
    • The licensee must submit a request.
    • The host municipality must approve and certify approval (Mayor & City Council or Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting).
    • The Commission must hold two public hearings (one in the host community).
    • The Commission must find the request meets the requirements of Section 9 of Chapter 23K and that authorization is in the Commonwealth’s best interests.
  • The Commission’s grant of authorization is discretionary (“absolute and sole discretion”).
  • Any authorization is not equivalent to licensure and automatically terminates if the Category 2 license is not renewed (per section 20(f)), or if the license is terminated, surrendered, or suspended.

Who would be affected

  • Category 2 licensees (slot parlor operators) seeking to expand offerings.
  • Host municipalities (must formally approve and will host at least one public hearing).
  • The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (new discretionary review and public process role).
  • Local economies, workers, and potentially competing gaming establishments (including Category 1 properties).
  • Residents and stakeholders concerned about gambling expansion and associated social impacts.

Procedural status / timeline (as provided)

  • Introduced: January 29, 2025 (filed in Massachusetts Senate as S.308 presented by Rebecca L. Rausch).
  • Referred to relevant committees (records show referrals to Codes and to Economic Development & Emerging Technologies; hearings were scheduled/rescheduled for November 2025).
  • Current formal status in the packet: REFERRED TO CODES.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Economic: Could increase revenue, employment, and municipal receipts where expansions are approved.
  • Competitive: May alter the competitive balance between Category 1 and Category 2 facilities.
  • Regulatory: Creates a conditional, non‑license authorization process and strengthens municipal input and public hearings.
  • Social: Expansion of table games and slots may raise concerns about problem gambling, requiring attention to responsible gaming measures and community impacts.
  • Legal/administrative: Because authorizations are discretionary and not licenses, affected operators would still be bound by license renewal and Commission oversight; authorizations terminate with loss/non-renewal of the underlying license.

If you would like, I can produce a one-page comparison showing current Chapter 23K limits vs. the proposed allowances, or draft possible municipal approval language for local officials to consider.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.