Tri-County representatives split on historical horse racing machine bill heading to Governor's desk
Feb. 13—FRANKFORT — On Thursday, after an emotional and nearly three-hour debate, the Kentucky House of Representatives voted 55-38 to send Senate Bill 120, a bill aimed at securing the legal status of wagering on historical racing machines, to the desk of Governor Andy Beshear, who previously endorsed the bill.
With a Standardbred racing facility expected to make its home in Corbin along with a sister facility in Williamsburg, the Tri-County area's state representatives were split on the decision.
Senate Bill 120 stems from a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that stated at least some forms of historical race wagering did not meet the standard for pari-mutuel wagering. The ruling originated from a dispute between racing interests and The Family Foundation, a conservative group that opposes expanded gambling. The foundation argued that historical horse racing machines do not meet pari-mutuel wagering standards under Kentucky law while attorneys for racing interests have insisted that historical horse racing is a valid form of wagering.
Opposition arose after one of the state's historical racing venues, operated jointly by Keeneland and Red Mile in Lexington, closed temporarily.
During Thursday's debate, Tri-County representatives Rep. Tom "O'Dell" Smith (86th District) and Rep. Derek Lewis (90th District) both voted "yes" to Senate Bill 120 while Rep. Robert Goforth (89th District) and Rep. Shane Baker (85th District) voted against the passage of the bill. Rep. Regina Huff (82nd District) was not present during Thursday's debate but indicated that she would have voted "no," if she had been present.
"I didn't vote because I wasn't present yesterday (Thursday)," Huff said. "I have been commuting to Frankfort daily this session, something I have never done before. Yesterday morning, we inquired with friends and other members regarding road conditions and I discussed it as well with a member of leadership early yesterday morning as well, and was advised by all not to try it. I will vote when I return Tuesday. I asked for input regarding this vote on Facebook, sent survey, and received hundreds of emails. Upon calculating all, the constituents requested that I vote 'no.'
"I am understanding of the economic impact and the importance of the industry. I hope that the vote yesterday will result in a positive outcome for all. It was frustrating to have to watch the debate yesterday and not be there. I take this position very seriously and could probably count on one hand the days I haven't attended in the last 10 sessions until this winter storm. I always share on Facebook when I have not been present and why."
Baker, who voted "no" to Senate Bill 120, cited family values as his reason for his decision.
"My faith and my family values are very important to me and I think the support that I have is a good indication of this community and how this district feels of who we truly are," he said. "I see the devastation of addiction in the community I live in. I've seen the effects of gambling, I've seen the effects of alcohol and drugs and many addictions feed on one another. At the end of the day, families suffer and it negatively affects children. Some people on other side, they argued that this was about jobs, it was about keeping jobs in their community or creating jobs perhaps and the reality is with one billion dollars in revenue each year, those are dollars that everyone is losing out of their pockets. So, it's taking food out of the mouthes of families and I just do not see the benefit. When I know that someone has to lose in order for others to do well, I simply can't support it."
Baker said he was disappointed with the outcome.
"I think it's an indication of where we're going as a society," he said. "We have fallen from where we were. Many things have changed, a lot of things are acceptable in society now that were not 10, 20 years ago. It's just an indication of where we've fallen and perhaps where we're going and that makes me sad primarily for our children. I have two young sons and all the children growing up in southeastern Kentucky and throughout the state, these things are going to affect them. If you think about it, at the end of the day, when you have people who are without, often times ends up a call for an expansion of public programs, which are taxpayer dollars, to help meet some of those needs, so people suffer and it creates an additional burden on our taxpayers in our communities and that's not something we need either."
Lewis, who voted "yes" to the passage of Senate Bill 120, stated that keeping and creating jobs was his reasoning for supporting the bill.
"These machines have been around for over 10 years—this isn't new," Lewis said. "Thousands of people would have lost their jobs. Millions of dollars in tax revenue would have been lost—revenue that has already been budgeted for that supports state programs that help our Commonwealth. At a time when so many have lost their jobs to the economic impacts of COVID-19, I couldn't vote to put people out of work. The abject failure of our unemployment system underscores this point.
"Additionally, I take issue with the government picking winners and losers. Eastern Kentucky is a perfect example. One of the reasons coal has declined is because of the actions of politicians—I have many friends that have lost their jobs in the coal mines because of political agendas. I refuse to see another industry fail because of government. How can I decry one and then vote on doing the same? Lastly, we give speeches on the House floor everyday that speak of 'freedom' and 'personal responsibility;' it is not the government's role to tell you how you should live your life. I believe the old adage that 'one cannot legislate morality' holds true. I respect my colleagues and their votes—whether they voted for or against this bill, I am certain their decision was taken with careful consideration."
Both Smith and Goforth were asked to give comments regarding their votes but neither had responded as of press time.
