Texas House Bill HJR49

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the operation of five casinos in this state by licensed persons in certain counties that have approved casino gaming to provide funding for prekindergarten programs; providing for the requirement of occupational licenses, the authorization of fees, the imposition of a tax, and the provision of criminal penalties.

Impact

The proposed amendment seeks to amend Article III of the Texas Constitution, particularly by adding a new section related to casino gaming. If passed, it could significantly alter the landscape of gambling in Texas, moving from the current prohibitive stance on casinos to a regulated framework that would permit limited casino operations under strict licensing requirements. Supporters argue that the bill could provide a much-needed revenue stream for educational programs, particularly in prekindergarten, an area recognized for its importance in early childhood development.

Summary

HJR49 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow the operation of five casinos in Texas, specifically in Bexar County, Dallas County, El Paso County, Galveston County, and Harris County. The bill outlines the requirements for licensing individuals to conduct gaming operations, the imposition of fees and taxes on these operations, and the allocation of net revenues to fund prekindergarten programs. The resolution aims to leverage potential casino revenues to enhance early childhood education funding across the state.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding HJR49 is the local option election requirement that mandates a majority of voters in each of the approved counties to favor casino gaming for any licensing to occur. This provision could lead to divided opinions among residents, with opposition likely to arise from those concerned about the social implications of casino operations, potential crime increases, and changes to community dynamics. Furthermore, critics may argue that the tax revenue generated might not substantially fulfill educational funding needs when compared to the potential societal costs associated with increased gambling access.