Louisiana Senate Bill SB220

Louisiana 2019 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/27/19
• Refer: 3/27/19
• Refer: 4/8/19

Caption

Restricts the number of conflicting race meeting dates between certain race tracks. (gov sig)

Impact

The proposed changes in SB 220 are set to directly influence the existing regulatory framework governing race tracks in Louisiana. By limiting the maximum number of conflicting dates, the bill aims to reduce competition that arises from simultaneous racing events, which could potentially dilute attendance and revenue for the affected tracks. This measure is presented as a strategy to promote fairness and sustainability in the racing industry by encouraging tracks to collaborate rather than compete against each other on key racing days.

Summary

Senate Bill 220, introduced by Senator LaFleur, aims to regulate the scheduling of racing events by restricting the number of conflicting race meeting dates between certain race tracks in Louisiana. Specifically, the bill mandates that the Louisiana State Racing Commission may not license more than 32 days of overlapping race meetings for designated tracks, including Louisiana Downs and Evangeline Downs, as well as the Fairgrounds and Delta Downs. This legislative effort seeks to bring clarity and organization to the scheduling of races, thus allowing tracks to better compete and attract patrons without overlapping significant race days.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding SB 220 appears cautiously optimistic among industry professionals and stakeholders associated with horse racing. Supporters of the bill believe it will foster a more stable and prosperous racing environment by mitigating excessive competition on the same dates. However, there may be underlying apprehensions about the implications this bill has for track autonomy and revenue distribution, particularly among those who support more liberal racing schedules.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise regarding the perceived fairness and effectiveness of restricting conflicting dates. Critics of such a regulatory approach might argue that it could inhibit market competition and limit choices for consumers who attend races. Furthermore, the bill's restrictions may provoke debate between tracks that might favor more overlapping events to maximize revenue contrasts with those advocating for a more structured racing schedule. The discussions around this legislation could reflect broader issues of regulatory control versus market freedom in the state's horse racing sector.