Presidential Primary Voter Privacy; Legalizing Sports Betting
[Music] I will call the meeting to order of the state government policy finance and Elections Committee today being Tuesday March 3rd 2020 and so members of the committee very glad to have you here today we are going to be going on to hear hopefully the two bills that we have before us the 30 482 voter privacy bill and then also 1894 and so members will be doing that but prior to that though we have circumstances today that we have just found out that the secretary of state office their precinct Finder has failed today very very disappointing to hear that this is a tried and true system been around for a long time has functioned and hit very high volumes we have funded the Secretary of State fully given him an operational increase including IT so why this should be happening with all of that is a real big puzzle and we need answer to those questions the Secretary of State very disappointed notified us just a few minutes ago that he would not be here according to his statement it's all hands on deck I just want to say all hands on deck means the Secretary of State is a leader of the office should be on deck here to this committee and to be able to answer the questions on behalf of the people of Minnesota who want to know what is going on in the secretary stock state office that we have this kind of failure on such a tried-and-true system so very disappointed that he won't be here and be able to respond to that and also most importantly to the people of Minnesota they want to know why this is happening and other questions that we have so with that members we're actually going to go a little bit more into this issue even though the Secretary of State is not here we've asked him to reconsider and certainly during this committee time should he arrive we will be glad to give him opportunity personally to address that I just want to say that the issue here fundamentally is a the precinct finder in the Secretary of State system but not only that was redirecting people to supposedly trusted sites that were partisan and the statement today was that this was an employee who just did this that really how can an employee just redirect and get into IT and do all of this that's it's a very concerning issue especially in this time of security and AM plumbing was given already in May of last year so we'll there are several avenues by which we would want to take a look at this and get some answers but for the record we really felt that as a committee that we'd like to ask some of these questions as well so members are there madam chair okay senator Newman you to that point madam chair if I may perhaps it would be a good idea and just my suggestion we do have in our packet a copy of I maybe a Twitter and uh but I just wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to read into the record specifically what I guess what I would call electronic poll poll of pushing and read it into the record so that we have something significant that is contained in the record other than a bare allegation that the Secretary of State is redirecting folks who are looking for their polling place to a bold progressive website well senator Newman you've got a good start why don't you continue okay this is a document that is contained in our you know our packet and it says that the Minnesota Secretary of State poll Finder is redirecting at least some users to a site urging votes for quote bold progressive candidates end quote citing heavy traffic here's the page I got when I tried a few ago and and what in block letters is vote for bold progressive candidates on Election Day election day is Tuesday November 8th it's important to think about your plan to vote studies show that you are more likely to make it to the polls if you actively make a plan to vote earlier in the day so fill out the form on the right to make a plan now after you make your plan click on our message to share on Facebook and Twitter that you are supported supporting bold progressive candidates today and it would it would just seem to me madam chair that this kind of push polling by the Secretary of State or frankly any elected official is absolutely improper and I'm I'm really really surprised that the Secretary of State would take this kind of this kind of action and I would certainly like to hear from the Secretary of State as to why this have this was done because I think it's improper thank you Thank You senator Newman and I would agree with that this has the seems to be definitely campaigning using public resources and that is not acceptable by statute I appreciate your bringing that up senator Newman senator Lane thank you madam chair Minh just told me that they had tried to get onto the website and they just got the cursor going round and round and round and round because the website was overloaded and my understanding is it's the Secretary of State had found other places that had a like poll finder to use and said okay did you have not have this thing just spinning spinning spinning we can redirect it automatically not by ill will to particular sites that are also leading people to know where they can vote and my comment to this is why don't we get that extra hava money too Secretary of State's so that he can read have a greater server space so there's a greater bandwidth so that there can don't no need to have other places and when this oversight is over overloaded we need that site not overloaded especially come election day in the fall we need to take care of this now this is a hint of something that we need to take care of let's just take care of it Thank You senator Lane I would remind you though senator Lane that the funding to the Secretary of State last year was a nine hundred five thousand dollar operating increase which goes to fund all the needs of the office this precinct Finder has previously worked with a much greater volume and in addition the hava funds were also provided and so i think that there is also been a large amount of money already provided senator westrom madam chair the news of this website not working and redirecting voters to a partisan websites is very disturbing so i concur with your comments i'm glad to hear from your comment from the response from the Secretary of State who was very worried about the Russians last year when they came in and asked for the money at least he has acknowledged that it's happened in his own office apparently not the Russians so we're at least narrowed down to where the problem maybe has come from Thank You senator westrom I was intrigued by the fact that it didn't go there are many many sites that might have a precinct finder but it would uniquely just happen to be this one and that's concerning senator rest thank you madam chair we you know we have a practice in in the Senate when we're referring to one another not to question not to question our motives and it seems to me that one of the things that you're not whereas previous speakers who would seem also appears at this hearing is supposed to be press conference that we haven't looked at exactly what the Secretary of State said about the situation that occurred today and simply because a system has not been overloaded before doesn't mean that it's not overloaded can't be overloaded today back twenty years ago nobody thought that the telephone system in state office building could ever be overloaded but indeed it was when the when the twin stadium bill came up it was totally inoperable so that does happen and the Secretary of State has you know he's responsible for his own behavior hey I get that however they did have a breakdown there and their designated emergency precinct finder if you will it's a designated one is Google and that's where people were directed I didn't hear any of you in criticizing secretary Simon mentioned that voters or potential voters or information seekers were first erected there and then the error came indeed from a staff member who directed them to inappropriately to this bold progressives group that also besides their political message their partisan message also had a precinct finder the amount of time that that access existed was 17 minutes let's just keep that in mind as soon as the Secretary's upper staff or himself discovered that it was immediately made inoperable so is it a it is on error obviously is an error in this secretary has apologized for it and I'd like to remember that he is a person of great integrity that runs our election systems honestly perhaps more honestly than a number of secretaries before him and that we we need to hold him accountable certainly but not to the point where the we don't accept that it was a mistake and that as soon as it was acknowledged it was corrected and you certainly can and I'm sure you will disagree with me on my assessment but speaking on behalf of my constituents I am glad that the secretary did turn to Google for a the designated alternative source it in terms in times of a breakdown in the system and and I hope that they will accept his apology for making that diversion and correcting that diversion that other one totally unacceptable that he corrected it within 17 minutes thank you madam chair Thank You senator roast I think the question that that comes for me is how can somebody in the office be able to make that decision and be able to be in such control of an IT system so we'll work on that I have not heard of anybody doing anything other than asking questions about what materially happened 2016 was an extremely heavy traffic for precinct finder used 2018 as well and in this year we have another one so it isn't just that regard it is in regards to two recent elections as well Senator Jasinski thank you madam chair I just want to say I think this is completely unacceptable and I'm just curious if there's any legal ramification for the secretary its office or the employer there that made that decision I don't know if anybody can answer that and if maybe staff but again this is is completely unacceptable for the state of Minnesota for this to be done and to redirected to a site like this Thank You senator Jasinski one of the things that was also reported is that on one of these sites that they were required to give personal information such as their email address as a condition of getting into the precinct finder what we're finding is just that reports like this are just beginning as people have had experience with this and are coming forward so one of the things is that was stated was that these are supposed to be trusted sites usually in a trusted site situation you have an agreement ahead of time you know what you're redirecting people to you have an understanding of what that site is supposed to do the messages they have trusted sites means you have vetted them you know what they are and you have done that work ahead of time to just link to something that has not gone through that process is a question that I have how did anything even get the title of supposed to be a trusted site and do they have actual agreements most often in these cases they have agreements as well would like to understand and know what those agreements were and also were they allowed to collect data as well most these places do collect that data and that makes the difference as far as Minnesotans want to know about that data what was included variety those issues and also what was a full list of these redirected websites we're getting reports of different ones so we really need to know more completely what what is there one site two three four the by the people responding and calling in there's that question senator Corinne thank you madam chair I agree completely with your statements in regards to the importance of this process and in the scrutiny that we're going to have to hold the Secretary of State accountable we really need to figure out how this redirection occurred and that it would rain we go to a very partisan site in addition to its about trust and transparency we've fully funded the Secretary of State and we've received they've received the whole chunk of how the money last year but last year election result reporting went down in November and this is happening now how are we going to know that the systems of work in our next election in November which is going to be stress all of our systems Thank You senator Quran one of the other things that's important that I want to make sure that we just consider this in a just a larger context that last year during a municipal election the election night reporting system also had issues and problems so this is showing kind of a little bit broader pattern that I think we need to delve into more carefully and find out what's what's the underlying situation especially since there was full funding and additional funding that by this time and we were told was certainly able to get in place and work on that I think that's that kind of situation is going to be very important to consider senator wrest you want to yes thank you very term you mentioned a number of other sites other than the one that the secretary mentioned himself and the designated site when there is a problem on the Secretary of State's website is Google's nonpartisan voting information project that's a designated site do you have a problem that those of you that have been talking about well all these sites do you have a problem with the contract that exists for that site and if you could name the other sites other than this bold progressive one I'm I'm ready to write the names of those sites down thank you madam chair Thank You senator arrest that is not what I said that I had names of other site has been reported and there's some confusion and all I want is for the secretary of state to clear that up this secretaries Vedas Annette senator rest one-at-a-time were a committee I'm just asking the Secretary of State to just clarify that and assure the Minnesota people of that and just get that information I just think that's important to do that senator Newman I'm jarem I'm a little surprised to hear the defense of this action and I wonder you know what kind of reaction would be if the Secretary of State had directed folks for purposes of a poll finder to say the Center for the American experience and urged people to vote for conservative candidates I candidly would think that that would be improper also but perhaps we wouldn't hear the defense of the Secretary of State's actions so vehemently senator Jasinski did ask a question about you know is this is this an illegal activity or is it are there any laws being violated and keeping in mind that this is something that came about just before we came down here so we haven't had really much of a chance to look at any legal of violations but we did find one that and I'll give you the site if you want to look at it it's 211 B point zero nine to 11 B point zero nine prohibited public employee activities and it says that an official of the state and I'm reading between the lines here an official of the state may not use official Authority or influence to take part in a political activity and I and I would say that without much of a stretch the Secretary of State's office has taken part in a political activity by redirecting people who want to vote and find their polling place to vote for a specific class of voters and so there may be more laws in the books that are applicable to this situation but so far given the fact that we've only known about this for about a half an hour that's the best that we can do so far thank you madam chair Thank You senator Newman senator coats and skis thank you madam chair I just hope that we seize this opportunity to get it right by the general election and maybe this will be the wake-up call that we all need to realize that our election system is pervious to people getting in there and making decisions for us and so let's take this opportunity and seize at night I hope this doesn't get missed by anybody while we talk about a million-dollar system like the secretary of states voting office we got a clock in the back of the room that's 30 minutes off and so we've got this fifty dollar clock that can't keep the proper time and we're talking about millions of dollars of technology that can't get it right so along with that clock I think I have faith in the Secretary of State's office and in this committee that we'll probably get this right Thank You senator quads insky senator Jasinski Thank You minature just to follow up to this our sight did not get hacked this was an employee of the Secretary of State that redirected these people to this site correct so we didn't we're not talking about getting hacked in the system or something like that this is an employee of the Secretary of State's office that redirected to this site it's not getting hacked in from outside the internet or something like that Thank You senator Jasinski so we have people process and procedures on this is an issue here and we need to just go forward but members we have two other bills on the agenda today so we're going to end the discussion and go to do the important business that we have on our agenda so at that Senator Quran you can take the senator Kiffmeyer when you're ready would you like to move your bill Thank You mr.
chair I move Senate file 30 482 Thank You senator Kiffmeyer to the bill Thank You mr.
chairman so in regards to Senate file 34 82 just stepping back just a little bit in regards to a presidential nomination primary so this is a political party process and it is also includes the rules of the national political parties as well so while we conduct this today as there is by the way all across America right now we have I think it is about 13 states that are having the Super Tuesday wasn't really expecting Minnesota to make news this way though but as we go through this recognizing that the presidential nominating process Minnesota is one of many states where it will end up in a nominating convention this summer so each political party goes through this process Minnesota used to be a caucus state we also had a presidential primary 1992 which was repealed in 1999 and we are taking another go at it today but some of the same issues may be there in regards to the process so one of the things that is very important is voter privacy making sure that we have that in place and so my bill today takes another step as we have done so today but realizing that the opportunity for our national delegates to be seated is very very important we want to be part of the process this summer and we need our national delegates to be seated for those conventions so that their votes can be cast and be part of the choosing for each political party so with that mr.
chair what I have here is incentive file 34 82 is applying chapter 13 privacy to the presidential nomination data now chapter 13 is also used to protect the data some of the most sensitive data in the state this would add the presidential nominating primary data to be protected by the same law other areas currently protected by chapter 13 include education data public health data welfare data foster care data sexual assault data child care data mental health data and Social Security number data if you breach the privacy restrictions of chapter 13 for any of this data it carries a misdemeanor charge as well up to fifteen thousand dollars in fines for each person who shares the data and each piece of data they share publicly what that means is I have five hundred pieces of data we're violated in this way that would be up to $15, 000 in fines for each piece of the data times five hundred them so this is a very steep price I think probably the largest ever placed in regards to any election data like this so the bill itself just talks about the chair of a major political party must not disseminate data on the list required to be maintained under paragraph a except for uses related to elections and political activities and only two persons designated by the chair of the major political party or to the major political parties National Committee any person who receives data from a chair of a major political party under paragraph B must not disseminate the data maintained on the list any person who violates the subdivision is subject to the penalties and remedies in sections 13 as I've mentioned before and this section is effective the day following final enactment so members we have applied the strictest of voter data protection through this bill and I ask for your support thank you senator Kiffmeyer and with that looks like we have a few test-fires if secretary office the Secretary of State doesn't appear anybody's here from the crateria states or what the reflect record reflect that and then i think our first testifier will be from the Minnesota Council of nonprofits welcome when you're ready please state your name for the record thank you hi my name is Ileana Mejia thank you I work at Minnesota Council of nonprofits miss Mejia good afternoon chair Curran and members of the committee my name is Ileana Mejia and I'm the public policy advocate for the Minnesota Council of nonprofits many of you have spoken with my colleague Marie Ellis about voter privacy she asked me to let you know that her absence today is not a reflection about how strongly she and MCN are working to protect a voter privacy rather she had another commitment Minnesota Council of nonprofits or MCN is a statewide membership organization representing over 2, 200 nonprofit members our members are heavily invested in strengthening their communities and one way we do that is through engaging in energizing nonprofits and their communities around voting we are hearing from some members who have chosen to not vote in today's presidential primary out of concern that information about their party preference could become public our 501 C 3 member organizations are required by law to remain nonpartisan and the idea that the voting record of their leadership or their staff could be used a hassle or discredit them as a having a chilling effect on primary participation these members join other populations who may not vote today because of the data privacy concerns Catholic priests as you might have seen in the news last week nonpartisan state staff nonpartisan elected officials like Mayors small business owners and many more but you already know this because you're hearing it from your constituents the deadline for not disenfranchising voters in today's election has passed but there's still time to ensure voter privacy by enacting legislation before the date that the Secretary of State needs to provide the party preference list of the parties limiting voters data that is shared with the political parties has strong bipartisan support the bill being heard today Senate file 34 82 however does not go far enough to protect voters privacy we urge you to pass a final bill that includes at least these two pieces first either purge the data that has already been collected or protected with stringent safeguards to ensure that it can only be used for the intended purpose with that must come penalties for violation of the privacy of the state's voters second we urge you to include in the legislation the opportunity for voters in the future primary elections to opt out of having their party preference information included in any database this should include a way for people who are voting in today's primary to tell the Secretary of State's office to not include their party preference and the data shared at the parties thank you and please support a thriving democracy by ensuring datas privacy thank you miss Mejia so we have next testifier from the League of Women legal women voters when you're ready please state your name for the record Thank You mr.
chair my name is Nick Harper I'm the civic engagement director for the League of Women Voters of Minnesota mr.
chair the league is here today to say that we appreciate the interest in protecting voter privacy but we we are afraid that this bill does not sufficiently protect that privacy we'd like to note that the the party chairs under this law could give the voter party preference information to any person the party chair could give it to a political action committee unions trade associations candidate campaigns there's no limit on who could receive the data there's also no accountability to the party chairs if something were to happen to that data from the person we pass that information on to and we are also a little concerned because theoretically under this bill as League reads it the public could be designated by the public chair by the party chair to receive the information which would allow the data to be published we also think that designating that the data can be shared for any political purpose is incredibly vague broad and open to interpretation as you all know recently there was a Supreme Court case of a law in Minnesota about political apparel and the Supreme Court stated that political was a very broad term and vague term we're afraid that this is the same situation for this law and that the data could be used for essentially any purpose because almost anything could be considered political we're afraid that as the Council on Foundations and Council of nonprofits have testified to this could be used to hassle or to out leaders Foley on therapy leaders religious leaders business leaders nonpartisan government staff nonpartisan elected officials and more we are also afraid that the data could be used to negatively impact worst relationships or business relationships or even to screen employees during employment application process we're afraid that the data could be used to send intimidating mailers to voters and we're also concerned that the data could be used to engage and commit and partisan gerrymandering so we appreciate the interest in voters privacy but the the use of political for political purposes is a little too broad and leaves the data open to be misused we think that house file thirty sixty eight which is a bipartisan bill that is now on the Senate's hands better addresses voters concerns and voter privacy while also ensuring that voters voices are heard thank you mr.
Harper thank you is there anybody else who would like to testify on this though all right senator Kiffmeyer okay with that we have center lane we have o request a roll call roll call requested roll call granted senator westrom mr.
chair to the testifier so what what is your position on caucuses in in our state because that information similarly is shared with the parties have does your organization taking a position against caucuses for the caucuses which is still part of our process but what is your position on that mr.
Harper Thank You mr.
chair and thank you senator westrom for the question obviously voters are still encouraged to participate in the political process however the way that this data is collected and distributed is different than caucus lists caucus lists are only shared within the party so I think and there's no government interaction for example taxpayers don't pay for that data to be collected that's all run by the parties so it's important to note that this process is important to protect because there is government process involved and that we should be ensuring that voters trust our elections process senator westrom any violent mr.
Harper I think this is a this the choice to the to move to the president's primary was a choice by both parties I think yes mr.
chair you are correct that it was a decision by both parties to move to that I think my under the league's understanding is that the intent was to open access to to voters since the caucus only happens on one day at a very specific time in a very specific location that was not very accessible to voters so they wanted to open up the process which is great but also it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that voters can trust our elections process Thank You mr.
Harper's literally like sooner yeah I just respond to that I would say this that yes one of the things that the party said let's have a longer voting time and do some of those things I was true but the parties have also said that their ability to know for sure that Republicans are choosing the Republican nominee Democrats are choosing the Democrat nominee that having access to these lists to be sure that that is happening and also for those political purposes that was a part of that the original bill had total public access senator Ross knows it very well because she chief author we also have a situation where we have the voter privacy protections that were put in place last year that was agreed to by both major political parties that is not the case this year because the thought is that we are jeopardizing our ability to seat our national delegates by going back on an agreement in regards to giving up the precinct caucus process and instead going to this so I think we have a situation here where we are recognizing that this is a political party process and in the past folks went to the Republican or the Democrat or whatever major party that had those caucuses but the end result was part of nominating a presidential candidate not just to be a voice it was also to be a part of getting all the way through to that national convention I think senator senator helene thank you mr.
chair I believe senator Kiffmeyer went through with sections 13.
0 eight and thirteen point zero nine as places for penalties and remedies but my concern is that there is very little in this bill that actually reached the point of being considered a violation worthy of any penalties or remedies and I understand that this presidential primary is really for the national parties and I did not vote for or agree with this kind of open of the opening of the data having to choose a one party or the other to get a vote to get a ballot I did not agree with that back when we did that several years ago but I do understand that the national parties want to be able to have integrity in their voting so that they need to know who is actually voting for their presidential nominations and that is the data that we were to distribute to them individually so that each party could know who voted in theirs to see if it was an election of integrity however what we have here and I don't believe that this bill changes it is that it doesn't protect voters from having their political affiliation disseminated to all the party chairs and it doesn't prevent them from getting it out to most any use and most any person all they have to do is say sure why not I don't believe that this bill is at all as tight as I would like it knowing that I didn't want it to go out in the first place but I understood the parties needed to know their own voters in their own ballot this bill does not go far enough to protect the voters in my opinion very carefully I thank you mr.
chair I appreciate that will always consider all of your comments but I do want to mention that why is this particularly important to us is that I remember helping out in a political party process and we had at that time I believe it was the September primary we had endorsed candidates for constitutional office at that time we had a state treasurer state auditor secretary state and the Attorney General in that open primary where we didn't have individual ballots we had a situation where the endorsed candidates were knocked off the November ballot because of crossover voting it was a concerted effort to have it be that the endorsed candidates in that primary so I remember that and that political party if this was within our state being able to have the folks on the ballot in November it was a great disappointment and a very serious situation and not intending to be here today where in our presidential selection process which this year maybe there's not so many or any choice in regards to the Republican ballot and there is more so in the Democrat belt but in the future that could change and so the goal was to make sure that we protect us from potential mischief by having the data be open to the political parties that they would be able to be assured of folks choosing their nominee that's just a real backbone of a process and a system that we have but that historical event certainly weighs heavily Thank You senator Kiffmeyer see no further questions would you like to move your bill yes mr.
Chairman I move Senate file 30 482 to be recommended to pass and be referred to the Judiciary Committee senator Kiffmeyer e-news our e-news our motion to move sent a file of 30 482 recommended pass and re-referred to the judiciary committee roll call has been requested and roll call was granted please take the role senator Kiffmeyer aye senator Korean I send another Carlson no it's another spuds inscape senator Howe senator Jasinski I send another Lane no another Neumann yes it's another arrest it's another westrom the the motion carrying the vote is six in favor and four against motion carries senator Chamberlain we'll be ready to hear you in one moment okay members we have a bill before us today Senate file 1894 this is an informational hearing so we will retain this in our committee but we wanted to give an opportunity to have a opportunity for the bill to be heard so with that Senator Chamberlain welcome to the committee thank you sorry to come on the tails of this little election dust-up that you had to deal with but maybe we can lighten the lighten the mood a bit senator Kiffmeyer okay are you ready for me to go yes mr.
senator chairman we are ready for you to present your bill okay so I'm going to do this quick what a lot of folks were wondering what this amendments about and in short it's just it's a it's it's essentially an author's amendment we're putting the bill in the order and the shape in the form we wanted in we first heard this bill 1894 last March about a year ago of March 11th or 12th and tax committee Senator Chamberlain yes so sorry to bother you about we didn't have the amendment copies in our packets so you can go ahead and continue discussing your bill but we will put copies forward they're getting printed as we speak okay oh geez – not having that ready earlier for Thank You mr.
madam chair so it's amendment 89 so we first heard this last March so it's been some time and obviously things change so what we've done is we've incorporated changes and updated some language so it's essentially put in the form we want it so I'm going to run through it quick when you think about it those of you who are veterans here it's the layout is pretty standard but there are obviously issues within all of those pieces some people will be happy with and some people be unhappy with but here we go so the first part section one is just definitions section two in the definitions change a little bit from previously but again reordered a little more organized so definition section one section two is simply the sports wagering commission that is established the governor appoints in them there's vacancies and there's a process for filling vacancies and so forth Terms of Service and that goes all the way through others section three on page six that is applicability interaction with other laws for example you'll see that it talks about local laws and I'll get to that in a second local laws it does preemption on those that can zone it out they can't prevent the casino from operating things of that sort but that should not be a problem because this bill only allows licenses the issued to the existing federally recognized tribes and the two racetracks Canterbury and running aces up north section four is the operator license what it is you get it issuance eligibility of things of that sword in the eligibility is that tribes and the two racetracks section five on page 7 is parameters for the operation of sports pool how come a sports pool operate what can I do what can it not do what is prohibited types of wagers that sort of thing next section six page nine provides taxation structure for sports wagering we heard this piece in the tax committee last year incidentally is just high level is we tax the net revenue at six point seven five percent which is the same as Nevada and they've been doing it right for a long time page next section or on sections seven section 7 on page 10 reporting record-keeping and reporting requirements for the sports pool operators maintain the records annual reporting monthly reporting and the right of inspection authorizes the Commission Commissioner Commission to inspect when in one in Hawley one section eight page ten establishes Commission Authority for enforcing the chapter four violations and cooperation cease and desist letters it gives the Commission authority to oversee the casinos and their operations and finally sections 9 10 11 and 12 on the back pages it deals with money lost and recovery of debt conforming changes the Criminal Code and section 12 is conforming change to a criminal code – essentially they are not subject to the current law they will be outside of the current prohibition so that is a quick and dirty overview of what it is with that I have just a couple of comments and I'd like to yield the rest of my time to the testifiers if I may okay so again thank you all for taking time to listen to this and I'd like to thank the co-authors senator Senjem senator Miller center Housley and Senator Bingham again this legislation proposes to legalize sports betting in the state of Minnesota I believe we're at about 19 or 20 states so far of legalized sports betting across the country so far including our neighbor to the south Iowa where I fund 140 bucks about 8 months ago all right so I've gone through the 89 amendment was heard about a year ago original bill there's a couple major changes from the original bill and one is something I know senator Kiffmeyer most people love a summary rulemaking so that's in there and that is obvious reason that's in there is because once this were to be enacted then you want to get them up and running as quick as you can and then there's follow-up and processes and due process protection for others afterwards secondly the preemption of the local law that was not in the original but we have put it here so few comments some people have talked about you know they'll ask why do you want to do this number one you did fund the underground economy the under cronic economy crime sports betting right now is illegal city Minnesota it's estimated that across this country it's not a real tight estimate that there's about 150 billion to four hundred billion dollars of illegal gambling sports wagering in the country so legalize eNOS helps to fund that and shift it over secondly consumer protections so if they are doing it underground now they come out in the light to fund it and then we put some parameters and protections around the whole process and for those of you like money into the state coffers it could provide money for the state coffers and Taxation law enforcement and they don't have to deal with this stuff they move on to other things the Commission will be in charge of overseeing this and then in coordinating with law enforcement where necessary and lastly the just simple basic idea it's fun this is a very analytical data-driven profession and it is a profession there there's some degrees again some gambling which is purely luck fairly chance the lottery pull-tabs purely chance almost no thought process and then at all on the other end you have a lot of sports but there are pure chance pieces in sports betting too right they'll bet on coin flips at ball games or who/what Gatorade will they use to dump on somebody's head but even that has some analysis to it so well we have in sports betting the most sports betting is very analytical very analytical very data-driven very systematic and you can make money at this thing it is a business people have it and they would make a living at it there is one line of sports betting that they have a first in for hockey first period overs or runners they bet hockey scores in the first period for all these games they know that for instance if you look at the data many teams are about 70% scoring and they're right on on target with that so they can place a bet on that and they actually have about a 70% chance of winning that bet so this is not pure chance all the time there is something to it one more point some people are obviously concerned with the expansion of gambling and as you aware in Minnesota we already have the tribal casinos and that's available throughout the state the Minnesota lottery charitable gaming and even bingo at your local pub which is very popular our bar down the street from me stone's throw they'd be out of business that they couldn't do bingo no that's not real gambling in that sense because it doesn't go to the house but people are playing bingo and if that wasn't there had that bar would be out of business that doesn't apply for everybody of course so a lot of people are betting on this stuff outside of it there are billions and billions of dollars right now being roided in this state whether it's lottery charitable gaming the casinos or the underground betting or even bingo billions cholera it's billions I know we know this for a fact because the lottery and the charitable gaming take in a couple billion each and payout that much so finally I think the other concern is what's it going to do to the tribal casinos they they say they're opposed but this enhances their operations it does not harm them this is enhances them and we have agreed and we will protect those casinos we pass a law then if they want to take part then they enter into a compact for that according to federal law so we pass it then they add to if they want to do it enter in a compact an agreement with the governor in the state so madam chair and members I'll leave it at that and I'll let some testifiers share a few thoughts if I could Thank You senator Chamberlain members we've got about a max of 16 minutes and we have testifiers with jake grassle come forward and be the first and then would M Krishna also come forward and be ready to go and we're gonna time you you're going to have two minutes each to present and that's a max we have another committee is here at 3 o'clock so with that mr.
Grasso would you go ahead madam chairman members of the committee senator Chamberlain my name is Jake Corral I'm here with citizens against gambling expansion I come before you today to provide some information on why we should say no to this massive expansion of gambling in our state many say why this is just for fun it's not gonna do anything it's going to bring this out of the shadows and put some money into our coffers I say that I say no because the risks far outweigh any potential benefit the Department of Revenue's projections on this or that this is going to bring in a dollar 30 per capita or roughly seven dollars and 25 cents or 7.
25 million per year however the estimated annual cost of a pathological gambler is $1200 and a problem gambler is seven hundred and fifteen dollars which based upon the Minnesota demographics for each is a cost to our state of a hundred and ninety seven million dollars in annual costs due to crime business employment cost bankruptcy illness social services costs family costs and abuse cos numerous times I've heard the reply to this it's entertainment surely sports gambling won't lead to problems it's just fun they say however it's been found that sports bettors have higher risks of problem gambling 5.
7 percent compared with adult adults at beck casinos lottery raffle tickets or private bets and it gets worse for the first time in our state's history we are looking to legalize online betting and gamblers who bet online have even higher problem gambling rates at 18.
2% 22 what are the loose some of these costs 20 to 30 percent of pathological gamblers have declared bankruptcy with average costs of thirty nine thousand dollars to creditors ninety pathological gamblers ninety percent gambled their paychecks and thirty percent reported over ninety or 75 to 100 fifty thousand in money borrowed from family members the cost go on but I want you to look at who these costs are gonna be borne by mr.
Brassel you need to wrap it up so they're gonna be borne by and that is our future our youth two and three UK teenagers where this was studied have been deluged by online advertisements almost half of these teenagers some companies making commercials while they watch sports as a good way to make money half of 16 year olds have found to have gambling apps on their phone four hundred and fifty thousand UK children between the ages of 11 to 16 bet regularly and 75% of children in the UK as young as eight could could correctly recall a sports betting brand repeatedly exposing them to harmful messages the costs are too high the gain is too little this is a massive expansion that we must say no to in the state of Minnesota Thank You mr.
Grasso next testifiers miss Cruz Nick again your name and title for the record and two minutes my name's Anne Krishna can the executive director of the joint religious legislative coalition which is made up of the Minnesota Council of Churches a Catholic Conference the Jewish Community Relations Council in the Islamic center of Minnesota and throughout our faith communities we see a lot of the things that you just heard mr.
grass will testify about unmanageable debt loss of savings loss of employment we know that those translate into very measurable social costs for things like people who need to take part in food stamps or medical assistance or direct cash victims who've had funds embezzled the burden on our criminal justice system with a lot of social costs as well that aren't measured the increased domestic violence divorces impact on families I want to point out there's no fiscal note in the bill it doesn't even attempt to take into account the social cost that will will result in what that will do for the cost for Minnesota but I want to really focus on two things under support what was just heard but we know there are a number of responsible gamblers in Minnesota we recognize that but we're particularly concerned about younger Minnesotans as we make this transfer from them playing video games to not being able to gamble anytime they want I want to make sure you're aware that Minnesota is in the small minority of states that would allow people to gamble at 8:18 so we have students who are in high school who are just starting college so that low gambling age particularly concerns us when we look at younger Minnesotans that we have high school and college age students that not only can gamble but would now be able to gamble on their favorite professional sports team on their college team that could gamble 24 hours a day in you know hopefully not in class but you know it's Google at home anytime so we're very concerned about that we're also very struck by the fact that this bill as noted is in a significant expansion both in terms of what can be bedded on what kinds of bets can be placed and how available betting is because it would now be available 24 hours a day it specifically authorizes words operators sports pool operators to have incentives for gambling so that's it that's you know we know that we're really trying to get these people more involved but the bill that's – does nothing to increase funding for assistance to those people who are problem gamblers who have gambling addiction it does nothing to increase funding for education of the dangers of gambling it does nothing to expand support for those families that are dealing with the impact of these issues so I think there's a lot of issues you still need to look at and and we are incredibly concerned about so we really urge you to vote no on the bill and thank you for the opportunity to testify thank you Miss Chris Nick next person on the agenda is Miss Susan Sheridan Tucker and then also mr.
John Paul II mr.
Paul er okay again say your name and title for the record you just have two minutes it goes fast i'm susan sheridan Tucker executive director of North Star problem gambling Alliance North Star problem gambling Alliance for the last 20 years has been the state affiliate to the National Council on problem gambling we're a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the lives of those affected by problem gambling through advocate see education training and research we are neutral on legalizing gambling this means we do not support or oppose any expansion of sport sports betting in Minnesota we will insist however that any measure affecting the availability of gambling must provide for those adversely affected by this activity and will oppose any bill that does not include those provisions unlike the bill introduced last session this version fails to set aside any money for treatment training prevention research and responsible gambling this is a huge missed opportunity for Minnesota to set a new standard for its gambling industry nor does it provide enough language to identify whose standards the new Commission will apply to address and prevent compulsive and problem gambling we are advocating four principles first ensure that any expansion legislation includes dedicated funds to prevent and treat gambling addiction to require operators to implement responsible gambling programs three identify the Commission the Commission should be equipped with tools and expertise to enforce responsible gaming requirements and four to conduct the necessary research so that we can measure the impacts of gambling in this state the National Council and NP GA were part of a the largest ever national study of gambling attitudes and experiences in November November of 2018 this survey clearly demonstrated that those who participate in sports betting are several times more likely to show problematic gambling behavior than those who limit their gambling to act current activities such as casinos and lottery I must caution you that we do not know whether this is because sports betting is inherently more risky than other forms because it appeals to those at the highest risk such as young males or because it is currently largely available through unregulated offshore sites that Nate make no provisions for safety or well-being for their customers regardless of this we must take action to minimize the risk and ensure the well-being of the Minnesota public so I would ask that you support the in the reintroduction of the Whomper set aside for funds from tax revenue to support Minnesota's problem gambling programs thank you thank you very much and so we'll have mr.
Polly again state your name and title for the record and could we have Breanna Dora come forward and as soon as there's a chair go ahead and sit down madam chair Kiffmeyer and members of the committee good afternoon my name is John Paul II government affairs manager for a sport radar I appreciate today's opportunity to share a sport radars perspective but more importantly thank you to Senator Chamberlain and the other bill sponsors for your commitment to engaging stakeholders and listening to thoughtful views on both sides of this issue I'm here today to express support radar support for a regulated sports betting in Minnesota sport radar is truly a global company with more than 30 offices around the world including Minneapolis where we employ more than 300 Minnesotans in our US headquarters other than the best-kept secret in the Twin Cities business community sport radar is the leading global supplier for sports data intelligence we capture live in-depth play-by-play sports data and deliver it in real time to clients in media technology embedding sport radar supports more than 1, 000 companies in over 80 countries and is the official partner of the NBA NFL NHL MLB and NASCAR in addition to providing data solutions sport writers nonprofit integrity unit supports law enforcement gaming regulators in over 80 sports governing bodies in this capacity our services are used to monitor global betting patterns detect match-fixing and investigate sport corruption throughout support radars work with this broad range of stakeholders it is clear the regulated sports betting is not a threat to the games we love but rather a mechanism to further enhance visibility into a widespread activity that is woven into the fabric of our stats centric culture but only if we can channel this activity under the microscope of gaming regulators where consumer protections and problem gambling safeguards can be addressed to conclude given sport radars unique role in the global sports betting ecosystem including the 22 legal years 22 legal US jurisdictions support radars committed to assisting and educating relevant Minnesota stakeholders in pursuit of a legal sports betting framework that offers the utmost integrity protections and market competition I thank you for your time and what happily answer any questions Thank You mr.
poly with that we'll go to Mistura then also there are three other people who indicated they want to make comments with those folks come on up so we I see one coming forward here's two is there a third one okay all right we'll go to you next so mr.
poly if you leave the table we'll be able to get the the next testifier in place thank you very much so Mistura yes my name is Brienne dora shawol and I'm with the National Council on problem gambling madam chair members of the committee on behalf of the National Council on problem gambling and a seven million-plus Americans including the estimated 150 mm Minnesota adult with gambling problems I'd like to make you all aware of several concerns that NC PG has about the expansion of sports wagering the estimated current annual cost to Minnesotan families and communities from gambling related bankruptcy divorce crime and job loss is 72 million dollars within Minnesota mainly and criminal justice and health care costs we run a 24/7 365 national helpline in 2019 and cpg received two thousand two hundred and ninety eight calls texts and chats from Minnesotans that is not inclusive of your own local helpline number which I don't have access to that data we are neutral on legalized gambling and therefore I'm not going to take a position for or against any of your gambling bills we can never eliminate the disease of gambling addiction but we can and we must make better efforts to prevent and to treat it and I'd like to caution the members of this committee about a collision of three trends with the expansion of sports betting a vast increase in gaming advertising advances in technology including mobile and phone gambling and virtually an unlimited menu of betting opportunities far beyond game outcome or even player performance this amalgamation of advertising access and action is unprecedented and indeed everywhere in the world and Minnesota is no exception everyone who profits from sports betting bears the responsibility for gambling problems dedicating a portion or 1% of profits from gambling to mitigate gambling harm is an ethical imperative and an economic necessity the only way you're gonna maximize benefits from sports betting is to minimize problem gambling evidence presented by Williams vole Bergen Stephens indicates at any time there's an introduction of new gambling there will simultaneously be an increase in problems for that reason it's crucial that Minnesota fund research prior to the expansion of sports betting and at periodic monitoring to be conducted thereafter to support evidence-based data-driven responsive members sports betting legislation that allows internet mobile and online gambling like the one we're discussing today may further increase risk factors for gambling addiction yet this technology will also allow additional opportunities to enhance the response will be made forever thank you okay that was a wrap up okay but you can certainly make your concluding paragraph M thank you and there's gonna be a small but significant portion of gamblers who will experience negative consequences as a result of sports betting but together all stakeholders who profit from sports betting can implement measures to reduce that harm as much as possible even as sports betting expands across the nation thank you thank you mister ax okay we have three other testifiers again state your name for the record and if there's a group you're representing madam chair my name is Doug Franzen I'm presenting running aces harness track and we are testifying in support of the de amendment the bill as amended before you we want to thank Senator Chamberlain we've had a lot of meetings under his organization we've had a lot of meetings with our various tribal friends and we do we haven't come to a hundred percent agreement but I think where we have a disagreement is strategic and perhaps a little philosophical as opposed to substantive we've tried to address a number of the concerns you've had today in the de amendment the one that was inadvertently left out was a fund for problem gaming you've had several of your witnesses testified thus far that there should be a 1% set aside we on behalf of running Asus agree with that we think it should be there's also provisions in the de amendment to address those issues for example to wager on sports you have to physically come to a casino or a racetrack and you have to sign up there and the reason that is is that there are certain people who should not be participating in this people who are not of legal age identified problem gamers those types of things this gives us the opportunity us being the tribes and the racetracks to check identification to verify if they have an account which is like an advanced deposit common in sports betting it has to stay within this facility actually we see this bill as a solution to many of the problems you've heard thus far and there's an expression the Devils in the details but I think the answers in the details of Senator Chamberlain's bill first it's the bricks and mortar existing what you're doing is taking a game taking a betting opportunity that's as you've heard before largely taken care a lot largely conducted illegally in the state bringing it into legal framework in a regulated framework controlled where you can look at these problem issues it's a bricks-and-mortar first of all and i don't see that it's expansion of gambling I think it's a control of gaming and I would argue that it's something like this it is a very limited sports betting bill that Senator Chamberlain has and we support that likewise the mobile piece that's in there and I will say that behalf of running aces at least if the legislature decides not to do mobile that's fine with us too but we have experience with this through the Racing Commission coming to the legislature on advanced deposit wagering we know how to work it we know how it works and again any mobile under this bill is controlled by the casinos and the racetracks so what we're doing is actually restricting this and again I want to thank Chamberlain senator Chamberlain and excuse me telemarketers ok appreciate time is running out so thank you thank you very much and appreciate that our next testifier hi yeah check if Meyer members of the Committee on state government finance and policy and ethics thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today and Thank You senator Chamberlain my name is Pat Gibbs and I'm an attorney at the law firm or Carrington and Sutcliffe where we serve as national public policy Council for draftkings and FanDuel since that may 2018 repeal of the professional and amateur sports Protection Act a bunch of states around the country have acted to acted and considered act to allow for sports wagering within their borders and hopefully with careful consideration Minnesota can enjoy some of the successes that states like New Jersey Pennsylvania and Indiana have seen given the limited amount of time I'm just going to briefly discuss the current status of sports wagering in Minnesota and then discuss some of the consumer protection values that regulating the existing sports betting market could provide as well as offer the estimates for I appreciate that mr.
Gibbs but you're gonna have to be very brief I will be very brief so according to an American Gaming Association and Ernst & Young estimate almost 1.
2 million Minnesotans wager over 2.
5 billion dollars a year on online sports wagering right now from illegal offshore accounts these are bets that bring in no tax revenue to the state and they offer no consumer protections to Minnesotans who may not even know that those sites are illegal given how accessible they are how well they are advertised online and confusion regarding the pass / repeal in order to take that out of the light or take that out of the darkness we're going to have to find an exam or we're going to have to create a model that's convenient for these people and so consumer protections in a well regulated market would include giving operators the ability to flag atypical wagers that could mean you know if I put in $5 every bet and then suddenly it's $500 the operator can go to the consumer and say did you intend to do this or is this not what you meant to do it could also from a broader standpoint give operators the ability to see the information that's going down on a macro level and alert the regulator hey we think something suspicious is going on some of the other consumer protections include fun protection as of right now those sites can't guarantee that they'll pay out whereas sites like draftkings and FanDuel have to there's also integrity protections such as age restrictions reasonable advertising restrictions self-exclusion programs including timing and amount payouts and keep in mind these existing markets do not have these protections and then finally in August 2000 nineteen eilers report found that competitive retail and mobile sports party sports betting marketplace could bring in as much as thirty million dollars a year to Minnesota that's assuming a ten percent tax rate the handle would be about four point eight billion and that's more than three times what a retail only model would provide so that's just kind of a surface level introduction to these issues thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify we're excited to be a part of this con this conversation and hope to be helpful in the coming months thanks thank you mr.
Gibbs our next testifier be our last testifier all right I don't see that testifier anybody else wish to speak other than Senator rest okay senator rest um thank you madam chair and you stamp three quick questions and I realize we're running out of time and if you'd like me to take the answers offline Senator Chamberlain that would be fine number one does this legislation reflect model legislation that operates in any in other states and has it been successfully implemented in other states following the model that you have here secondly I was looking for the language and delete everything amendment that limits the activity to physical presence at casino and casinos and racetracks and I'm just not following where that is and then thirdly I appreciated the comments of the mr.
Franzen that you left out inadvertently provisions for dealing with with problem gambling and I hope at some point you would share that information or that language back with this committee even though this is a an informational hearing thank you very much madam chair Thank You senator breast we have one more senator Howe and then senator chamber will give you closing remarks senator Howe well thank you mr.
Chu thank you madam chair senator Chamberlain I was just wondering why and I know we have a a gambling Control Board why isn't this part of that or why didn't we use that in in regulation of this that's the only question I have is is why'd we create another commission senator Chamberlain just quickly to that and I'll get to Senator arrest offline for her questions but to your point we we started that way but there was discussion on how best to control it with expertise and and to an extent with Senator Russell's point there is some modeling here after Nevada and other states so it was there but we thought it was better to have another organization control it Thank You Senator Chamberlain do you want to make a closing remark in addition or yeah quickly so thank you for the time appreciate it hopefully this will continue to move forward I of course disagree with some of the comments and appreciate the discussion I will make one thing clear that as mr.
Franzen pointed out it was an old trend a drafting error my part to misty we initially had the set aside for gambling problems that was initially in there but that was my fault for missing that and not getting in this draft secondly it is absolutely false this is not intended to expand online gaming the way we see online gaming mobile mobile betting eventually yes on phone because that's how you make money in this business no yes on phone but not online that's not our intent so thank you for the conversation we have I hope to continue this as the weeks and months go on in years but hopefully I would like to see this in Minnesota so we can join the rest of the country and taken part thank you very much for the time Thank You senator Chamberlain and Senator Chamberlain on those questions that were asked here today if you could send it out to all the committee members or send it to Christina our committee legislative assistant and she'll get it out to the committee members thank you very much that members are business senator Newman just curious uh is it the chairs intention to adopt the amendment or just lay the whole thing over no senator namond it was information only so we we sent it was a delete everything we use that as a basis for the discussion but not adopting all right with that member sarahburke being concluded we are adjourned [Music].