COLUMBUS, OH — Two bills introduced in the Ohio General Assembly aim to legalize online casino gambling, but legal experts say the measures may conflict with the state’s constitution, which strictly limits how and where gambling can occur.
House Bill 298, introduced by Representatives Brian Stewart and Marilyn John, and Senate Bill 197, sponsored by Senator Nathan Manning, would allow licensed operators of Ohio’s four casinos and seven racinos to offer online gambling platforms. Both proposals would also permit those operators to contract with third-party vendors to run their digital operations.
The Ohio Constitution, amended in 2009, authorizes only four casino locations in the state — in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo. It sets specific limits on the number of slot machines permitted and contains no reference to online gambling or internet-based casino gaming.
Attorneys familiar with state gaming laws have pointed out that placing bets from a personal device, such as a smartphone or home computer, does not appear to fall within the authorized casino locations described in the state constitution. Because of this, some argue that the General Assembly cannot enact online casino legislation without first pursuing a constitutional amendment.
The Senate proposal, Senate Bill 197, would also abolish the Ohio State Racing Commission and consolidate regulatory authority under the Ohio Casino Control Commission. Both bills propose taxation on online gambling receipts, with House Bill 298 setting the rate at 28%.
Support for and opposition to the proposals has varied across the gaming industry. Representatives from Boyd Gaming, which operates the Belterra Park racino in Cincinnati, have publicly stated that regulated online gambling could support their business. However, other operators, including Jack Entertainment and Churchill Downs, have voiced concerns, citing potential risks related to addiction, underage access, and a shift away from in-person casino visits.
Governor Mike DeWine, during a media briefing last week, commented on the broader implications of online access to casino games. He noted that, if legalized, gambling would be available around the clock to anyone with a smartphone, raising concerns about problem gambling and accessibility.
Legislators supporting the bills have argued that internet gambling is already occurring illegally across the state and that regulation could provide oversight and generate new tax revenue for Ohio.
As of early June, both proposals remain under consideration. No committee votes have been held, and no formal timeline has been announced for advancing either bill to a floor vote.
Whether either measure can move forward without a constitutional amendment may ultimately be decided by the courts, should either become law and face legal challenge.