SB 472 California Senate · 2013-2014 Regular Session

Gaming: licenses.

Summary
The Gambling Control Act provides for the licensure of certain individuals and establishments involved in various gambling activities, and for the regulation of those activities, by the California Gambling Control Commission. The act makes any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of the act for which a penalty is not expressly provided guilty of a misdemeanor. The act requires every person who is required to hold a state license to obtain the license prior to engaging in the activity or occupying the position with respect to which the license is required, except as specified. Existing law requires every person who, by order of the commission, is required to apply for a gambling license or a finding of suitability to file an application within 30 calendar days after receipt of the order. This bill would instead require the application described above to be filed within 45 calendar days after receipt of an order of the commission. The act also provides that, if the owner of a gambling enterprise is not a person, the owner is not eligible for a gambling license unless specified persons involved in the enterprise obtain a gambling license. Existing law authorizes the commission to exempt specified limited partners in limited partnerships from the licensing requirements described above solely for the purpose of the licensure of a card club located on the grounds of a racetrack that is owned by a limited partnership that also owns the racetrack. This bill would instead authorize the commission to exempt specified limited partners in limited partnerships from the licensing requirements described above solely for the purpose of the licensure of a card club located on any portion of, or contiguous to, the grounds upon which a racetrack is or had been previously located and horse race meetings were authorized to be conducted by the California Horse Racing Board on or before January 1, 2012, that is owned by a limited partnership that also owns or owned the racetrack. Existing law provides that a person is deemed unsuitable to hold a state gambling license to own a gambling establishment if the person, or any partner, officer, director, or shareholder of the person, has any financial interest in any business or organization that is engaged in a prohibited form of gambling, whether within or without this state, except as specified. This bill would exempt from these provisions a person who is licensed or had an application to be licensed on file with the commission on or before February 1, 2013, has a financial interest in a business or organization engaged in gambling prohibited by state law that was closed and was not engaged in prohibited gambling at the time the person was either licensed or had filed an application to be licensed with the commission, and has a financial interest in a gambling establishment that is located on any portion of, or contiguous to, the grounds on which a racetrack is or had been previously located and horse race meetings were authorized to be conducted by the California Horse Racing Board on or before January 1, 2012, that is directly or indirectly owned by a racetrack limited partnership owner, as defined. The bill would require an exempted person described above, within 3 years of the date the closed business or organization reopens and becomes engaged in any form of prohibited gambling, as specified, to either divest that person's interest in the business or organization, or divest that person's interest in the gambling enterprise or gambling establishment for which the person is licensed or had applied to be licensed by the commission. The bill would also require an exempted person to inform the commission within 30 days of the date on which a business or organization in which the person has a financial interest begins to engage in any form of prohibited gambling, as specified. The bill would also make it unlawful, during the 3-year divestment period, for any cross-promotion or marketing, as defined, to occur between the business or organization that is engaged in any form of prohibited gambling, as specified, and a gambling enterprise or gambling establishment, as described. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would prohibit, during that 3-year divestment period, any funds used in connection with the capital improvement of the gambling enterprise or gambling establishment from being provided from the gaming revenues of either the business or organization engaged in prohibited forms of gaming. The bill would also provide that if, at the end of the 3-year divestment period, a person has not divested his or her interest in either the gambling enterprise or gambling establishment or the business or organization that is engaged in the form of prohibited gaming, the exemption would not apply to that person and that person shall be deemed to be unsuitable to hold a state gambling license to own a gambling establishment if the person, or any partner, officer, director, or shareholder of the person, has any financial interest in any business or organization that is engaged in any form of prohibited gaming, whether within or without this state, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Sep 2013
Senate Passage
Apr 2013
Assembly Passage
Sep 2013
Signed into Law
Oct 2013
Introduced Feb 21, 2013 Signed Oct 11, 2013
Floor votes · Senate Apr 11, 2013 · Assembly Sep 4, 2013

How they voted

330
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 34
Apr 11, 2013
D Democratic25
24 Yea 1
96% Yea
R Republican9
9 Yea
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
29
Key actions
11
Committee
12
Amendments
1
Oct 11, 2013
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 11, 2013
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 24. Noes 6. Page 2365.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 10, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 2320.)
upper
Sep 6, 2013
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on G.O. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 2169.) Re-referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
Sep 6, 2013
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Sep 5, 2013
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Sep 4, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (56-1-6)
assembly
Aug 21, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 21).
lower
Aug 14, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Aug 7, 2013
Lower · Passed
Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Aug 5, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
Jun 27, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
May 16, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
lower
Apr 11, 2013
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (33-0-1)
senate
Apr 9, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 465.) (April 9).
upper
Mar 11, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Jerry Hill
Jerry Hill
DDemocratic
CA
13