Senator Ron Watson officially withdrew Senate Bill 761 on March 13, a proposal that aimed to prompt Maryland voters to consider whether to authorize internet gaming licenses.
Fast forward six months, and the situation appears quite clear. As it stands, Maryland law does not permit online casino gaming, and voters will not see this topic on the ballot for the upcoming November 3 election. The Department of Legislative Services (DLS) summarized the current legal framework in its fiscal notes for 2026, stating that, aside from sports betting, “other forms of online gaming are not currently authorized in Maryland.”
This initiative has struggled for approval over three consecutive legislative sessions. An analysis of roll calls, fiscal notes, and witness lists reveals where the bill faltered, who advocated for or against it, and outlines future legislative possibilities.
2026 Legislative Bills Failed to Gain Committee Support
Senator Watson, representing Prince George’s County as a Democrat, introduced three bills at the session’s outset. Senate Bill 761 included the referendum question, SB 885 detailed the licensing and taxation structures for online casino games and online bingo, while SB 884 proposed guidelines for internet poker.
According to General Assembly records, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee considered SB 885 but did not proceed to a vote. The hearing for the poker proposal was canceled, and Watson withdrew this bill on the same day he retracted the referendum measure.
Meanwhile, the House made little progress. Delegate Caylin Young, a Democrat from Baltimore City who is on the Ways and Means Committee, sponsored HB 1343, which served as a continuation of the 2025 House bill, as well as HB 1255, which represented the House side of the referendum. Although both bills were heard by the committee, neither received a vote.
As reported by the Baltimore Sun, the prospect of legalizing online casino gaming was effectively declared dead for the session, and no changes occurred prior to adjournment.
Article XIX Requires General Election Approval for Any Expansion
Under Maryland law, legislators lack the authority to legalize new forms of commercial gambling independently. Article XIX of the state constitution stipulates that the General Assembly “may only authorize additional forms or expansion of commercial gaming if approval is granted through a referendum, authorized by an act of the General Assembly, in a general election by a majority of qualified voters in the state.”
This provision establishes two main constraints that have influenced every relevant bill introduced since. First, a referendum must be enabled by an act, meaning lawmakers must approve something prior to presenting the question to voters.
Additionally, the vote must occur during a general election, which means the legislative timeline dictates when any new law could come into effect. Consequently, bills introduced in off-year elections must target ballots for at least a year in the future, which explains why the 2025 proposals aimed for inclusion on the 2026 ballot, as noted in their fiscal documents.
This stipulation leaves sponsors with two options for drafting their legislation. The first option allows them to seek voter approval first while determining the rules later. This was the route taken for sports betting, as documented by the Department of Legislative Services, when voters endorsed it in 2020 under Chapter 492, and the legislature followed up with the implementation in Chapter 356 the following year.
The second approach establishes the complete framework, detailing everything from licensing to taxation, but permits it to take effect only upon voter approval. Each implementation bill filed since 2024 has adhered to this model, which emphasizes the key arguments of tax rates, license fees, and payout distributions alongside the more central question of voter consent.
Only the 2024 House Bill Made Significant Progress
The most substantial progress made came during two legislative sessions prior. Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary, a Democrat from Howard County who led the Ways and Means Committee and is currently campaigning for the position of Howard County executive, introduced HB 1319. This bill was forwarded to the floor with amendments on March 14, 2024, and the House approved it with a vote of 92-43 just two days later, according to General Assembly records.
The 2025 session was notably less fruitful. Atterbeary submitted HB 17 before the session began, while Watson introduced SB 340 once it had commenced, with both bills receiving a single committee hearing but no votes.
Lawmakers Benefited from Sports Betting Revenues Without Ballot Approval
While the 2025 online casino proposals lingered in committee, the General Assembly discovered alternative means to generate gambling revenue through statutory changes. Under the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2025, the tax rate on mobile sports wagering increased from 15% to 20%, channeling the additional funds into the general fund. The DLS anticipates this adjustment will produce around $31.8 million in fiscal 2026.
Diverse Fiscal Notes for Each Proposed Bill
Each proposal was accompanied by a fiscal and policy note from the DLS, providing a comparison of the main components alongside the anticipated revenue to be garnered for the final year of their projected five-year windows—funds that would primarily benefit the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund.
| Bill and Session | Sponsor | Operator Keeps Of Non-Live-Dealer Proceeds | Referendum Written For | Projected Revenue, Final Year | Furthest Step |
| HB 1319 (2024) | Del. Vanessa Atterbeary | 45% | November 2024 | $327.5 million in fiscal 2029 | Passed House 92-43 |
| HB 17 and SB 340 (2025) | Atterbeary and Watson | 45% | November 2026 | $321.4 million in fiscal 2030 | Committee hearings |
| HB 1343 (2026) | Del. Caylin Young | 45% | November 2026 | $489.7 million in fiscal 2031 | House hearing, March 5 |
| SB 885 (2026) | Sen. Ron Watson | 60% | November 2026 | $290.4 million in fiscal 2031 | Senate hearing, March 11 |
| SB 761 and HB 1255 (2026) | Watson and Young | Left to later law | November 2026 | None until rules pass | SB 761 withdrawn |
Under every implementation bill, operators would have retained 80% of live dealer proceeds, but the draft laws varied in the distribution of other revenues. For example, Watson’s 2026 proposal allowed operators to retain 60% instead of 45%, and its fiscal note projected approximately $199 million less in revenue for fiscal 2031 compared to the House’s proposal.
The notes also highlighted the potential financial implications for existing casinos. For both 2026 bills, it was assumed that online gaming could reduce video lottery terminal and table game revenues by 10.2% at Maryland casinos once the market matured, resulting in an estimated revenue decline of $192 million in fiscal 2031. Each implementation bill also proposed creating a fund to aid casino employees who may be affected by job losses.
These estimates were informed by a study sponsored by the Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, conducted by The Innovation Group and concluded in 2023, alongside data from online gaming activity in other states.
Such data is vital because Maryland is not starting anew in this landscape. States like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan already allow online casinos, offering insights into how other legislatures navigate similar issues, which can be followed through GamingToday.
Opposition from Labor and Problem Gambling Groups
The witness lists illustrate the variety of opinions on this matter. During the House hearing for HB 1343, notable opposition came from UNITE HERE Local 7 and four other unions, alongside the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO.
According to reports from the Baltimore Sun, Maryland garnered over $1.6 billion from gambling in fiscal 2025, while residents suffered losses estimated at $2.5 billion within the same year. For individuals seeking support, assistance is available through the Maryland Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling at 1-800-GAMBLER.
Regulators Sought a Ban on Sweepstakes, Achieved House Approval
The Lottery and Gaming Control Agency has been engaged in an alternative online battle, advocating for HB 295, a departmental initiative that was pre-filed on September 18, 2025, aimed at forbidding the operation, conduction, or promotion of “interactive games.”
The House passed HB 295 with a 105-24 vote on March 20, 2026, and while the Budget and Taxation Committee reviewed it, they did not proceed to a vote. A more expansive measure, the Maryland Illegal Online Gambling Enforcement Act, passed overwhelmingly with a vote of 135-1 just three days later as HB 1226, yet also stalled in the same committee after its hearing.
Necessary Steps for a 2028 Vote
With every seat in the General Assembly up for election on November 3, the constitution dictates that senators and delegates serve four-year terms on the same cycle. The new officeholders will take their positions during the convening of the 2027 session.
The influence of sports betting revenue is already affecting these races. The Baltimore Banner reported that American Future, a super PAC funded by a coalition involving sports betting companies, has invested nearly $1.9 million in Maryland’s Democratic primaries.
The September 14 State Roundup revealed that state agencies have been instructed to prepare budget requests for fiscal 2028 with reductions of approximately 3%, and even 10% for several Cabinet-level agencies.
Any new legislation passed in the 2027 or 2028 sessions could seek placement on the ballot for 2028, mirroring the way HB 1319 aimed for the 2024 ballot.
The agency’s proposal to ban sweepstakes was listed among pre-filed bills well ahead of the upcoming session, indicating where future efforts may first emerge. This coverage is regularly updated on their Facebook page during the intersession period.
Should subsequent bills follow the path of previous ones, they will require consideration and approval from the Budget and Taxation Committee, which has not voted on online casino legislation over the past three sessions.
