MinnPost: Is 2025 the year for sports betting in Minnesota? No really, is it?

Let’s see, what has happened over the summer and fall in Minnesota to change the landscape since the first all-party deal on sports betting emerged too late in the session to pass but early enough to be encouraging?

• One of the two commercial horse racing tracks and several tribes continue to sue each other over where each fits under state gambling law.
• Gov. Tim Walz broke precedent and appointed two tribal leaders to the Racing Commission, angering Republicans, the tracks and the horse breeding industry.
• One of the two horse tracks — OK, the same one as above, Running Aces — placed a series of newspaper ads over the summer and fall attacking Walz, several tribes and the primary House author of sports betting legislation. That would be Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids, who won reelection anyway.
• Running Aces president and CEO Taro Ito sent a surprise peace offer to the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association on Election Day offering to work together towards a bill, but not necessarily THE bill.
• And, the Minnesota House is likely tied.

So, not much, right?

...

There will be lobbying against the bill, led by the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, which last month distributed a letter to lawmakers opposing expansion of gambling. The coalition includes the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Islamic Center and the Minnesota Council of Churches.

“We oppose the legalization of online sports betting because it poses significant and imminent harm to vulnerable Minnesotans,” stated the letter signed by coalition executive director Leah Patton. It linked to research from already legal states that indicated that betting depletes household financial stability, increases the likelihood of bankruptcies and increases incidents of domestic violence.

“We ask you to insist that significant protections be included as a baseline for any discussion of the online sports betting proposal, because we now know it is not a question of whether or not this proposal would harm vulnerable people, but rather how much destruction and suffering it will leave in its wake,” the letter stated. “Ultimately, the only way to prevent harm from this bill is not to pass it at all.”