Hawaii’s journey towards digital sports betting took a significant step forward on March 13, when the state’s Senate Joint Committee on Economic Development and Tourism and Commerce and Consumer Protection unanimously moved HB 1308 forward. Despite this approval, the bill, which would allow four digital sports betting platforms but no retail locations, continues to face opposition from various stakeholders. Of the nine votes, four were made “with reservations,” signaling a cautious but forward-moving approach.
While the bill has already passed in the House, and now through one Senate committee, it remains a subject of intense debate. Key concerns raised during committee discussions included the potential for gambling addiction and whether the revenue projections from legalized sports betting would hold up. Testimonies from industry giants like BetMGM and DraftKings aimed to allay these fears, offering figures like $10 million to $20 million in potential tax revenue, assuming a 10% tax rate. Yet, the opposition remains vocal, with several government agencies and native Hawaiian groups expressing reservations about the social impacts of gambling.
Opposition from Government Agencies and Local Groups
The bill’s progression has faced significant pushback from government agencies, including the Department of the Attorney General, the Department of Taxation, and local Hawaiian groups. Deputy Attorney General David Williams expressed concern about the social consequences, citing studies that linked legalized gambling with increased credit card debt, bankruptcy rates, and domestic abuse. According to Williams, these negative effects could exacerbate issues in vulnerable families and communities. 
Brandon Maka’awa’awa, vice president of the Independent & Sovereign Nation State of Hawaii, also raised alarms, questioning the lack of a comprehensive study on the impacts of legal gambling. He argued that proceeding without the study was “irresponsible policy making” and cast doubt on the projected revenue figures, which he believes do not align with the reality of legal sports betting’s economic impact.
Revenue Projections and State Comparisons
In terms of potential tax revenue, BetMGM’s director of government affairs, Jeremy Linum, suggested that Hawaii could expect $10 million to $20 million per year with a 10% tax rate. For context, Maine – population 1.4 million – collected $6 million in tax revenue in its first year of digital sports betting under a similar tax rate. Similarly, West Virginia, with a population of 1.77 million, has generated an average of $5.8 million annually from its sports betting market, which has been live for over four years.
However, not all states have seen the revenue anticipated by proponents. Boyd Gaming highlighted that many states of similar size to Hawaii, which have implemented sports wagering, experienced revenue “often less than anticipated,” making it challenging to sustain regulatory oversight and responsible gaming initiatives. These concerns have led some committee members to question whether Hawaii’s infrastructure is ready to handle the complexities of a regulated sports betting market.
Key Adjustments and Amendments to the Digital Sports Betting Bill
Despite the opposition, committee members like Chair Lynn DeCoite expressed the need for a broader discussion on the topic. DeCoite noted that addressing the issue upfront is essential, making several administrative changes to the legislation, including adjusting which agency would oversee regulation. Senator Donna Mercado Kim, while voicing concerns, acknowledged that illegal gambling is already occurring in Hawaii and requested an amendment directing some of the proceeds from legalized sports betting to be allocated toward education.
As the bill progresses through the legislative process, it’s clear that the conversation around Hawaii’s potential for digital sports betting will continue to evolve, with key discussions around revenue expectations, social impacts, and the regulatory framework set to dominate future debates.
Photo credit: Freepik
