All forms of gambling, lotteries, and gift enterprises are prohibited unless authorized by acts of the legislature or by the people through initiative or referendum.

History

Sources

1884 Montana Constitution (proposed)

The Legislative Assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries, or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery, or gift enterprise tickets in this State.Proposed 1884 Mont. Const. Art. XVI, Sec. 1; https://archive.org/details/montanaconstitutmontrich/page/32

1889 Montana Constitution

The legislative assembly shall have no power to authorize lotteries, or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets in this state.1889 Mont. Const. Art. XIX, Sec. 2; https://archive.org/details/constitutionofst00montrich/page/n49

Drafting

Delegate Proposals

No. 24 (Delegate Lyman Choate): "This proposal called for no mention of lotteries or gambling of any sort in the Constitution. This proposal was adopted as a minority report."

No. 28 (Delegate Don Belcher): "This proposal provided that all forms of gambling would remain illegal until acted upon by the legislature. This proposal was revised and incorporated as the majority proposal."

No 111 (Delegate Gene Harbaugh): "This proposal would prohibited gambling as a means of raising revenue for the state, and would allow nonprofit organizations to engage in gift enterprises. This proposal was rejected by the committee."

No. 123 (Delegate A.W. Kamhoot): "This proposal would have allowed non profit organizations to sponsor bingo. As such, it was rejected by the committee."

Committee on General Government

Majority Proposal: "Section 11. Gambling. All forms of gambling, lotteries, and gift enterprises are prohibited unless authorized by acts of the legislature or by the people through initiative or referendum."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 822, available at: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Comments: "This section is designed to replace Article XIX, section 2 of the present Constitution. The present Constitution prohibits gambling of any kind. The proposed revision would continue this prohibition until the legislature specifically legalizes particular forms. The proposed revision would alleviate a good deal of fear among the populace that a Constitutional change would open the door to all sorts of gambling problems that do not now exist in the state. The committee revised the specific and inflexible prohibition because it feels the legislature should make the rules governing gambling. The committee recommends that if at all possible, the convention decision on lotteries and gambling be presented to the voters as a separate issue."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 822, available at: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Minority Proposal: "That section 11 of the proposed General Government Article dealing with gambling and lotteries be deleted, and no comparable section be included in the Constitution."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 825, available at: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Comments: "The Minority Proposal and the Majority Proposal would accomplish the same end with regards to gambling. Each would leave the matter to statutory law, where extensive previsions prohibiting of gambling already exist. Neither provision would legalize gambling of any nature. However, the Majority Proposal Constitutionally states that situation. The Minority feels that to state something is illegal unless made legal is superfluous and redundant. If, as is the case, there are laws on the books, the laws will stay in force unless overturned by the court, prohibited by the Constitution, or changed by the legislature. Discussion of any court action is speculative and neither proposal prohibits the legislature from action on the present statutory laws. The minority does not feel it is necessary to list a specific instance in which the legislature or people may act when they have been given the general power to so do. Basically, the Majority Proposal is identical to the Minority Proposal."

"The minority feels the majority provision also could be somewhat confusing to the voters, whereas no section of gambling would save the confusion resulting from the redundant majority article."

"The minority would also like to point out that if the Majority Proposal is adopted, gambling would join treason as a Constitutional crime, while such crimes as murder, rape and assault are statutory crimes. In this light, the minority wonders if gambling is really a basic and Constitutional issue."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 825, available at: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Committee on Style, Drafting, Transition and Submission

Proposal: "Section 10. Gambling. All forms of gambling, lotteries, and gift enterprises are prohibited unless authorized by acts of the legislature or by the people through imitative or referendum." Additionally, the committee also included an alternative proposal stating "All forms of gambling, lotteries, and gift enterprises are prohibited."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 1020, available at: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Comment: "The adoption schedule will provide for the deletion of whichever form of the section is not approved by the voters."2 Montana Constitutional Convention 1025, available at: https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol2.pdf

Debate and adoption: Moving for the minority proposal, Delegate Choate reemphasized how the people of Montana did not want, and how no one was proposing "Nevada-type open gambling," but did want "some moderation in our present constitutional prohibition against all forms of gambling." 7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2729, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf Delegate Choate also stated that he did not believe that gambling was a connotational issue, and, based on interaction with the public, including a telephone conference with 60 high school students in Columbus, the Committee had a mandate to delete the old connotational provision.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2729-30, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf While he believed it would help "sell the document" to simply not make any mention to gambling, which the majority of the state seemed to want legalized, Delegate Choate also admitted it would be simpler to make a side issue on the ballot, giving the public a choice to keep Art. XIX, Sec. 2.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2730, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf Finally, Delegate Choate pointed out how Idaho and Maryland had both defeated proposed antigambling provisions to their Constitutions.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2730, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf Delegate Choate's proposal was ultimately defeated, 30 Aye's to 60 No's.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2751, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Delevering a self-described "sermon," Delegate Harper moved to keep the old constitutional prohibition against gambling. He described how the legislature would constantly be under pressure from gambling interest to keep pushing the line of what is legal. He also stated that the legalization of gambling would not make any money for the state, increase the crime rate, and would be "psychologically damaging" to the public.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2731-32, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf Delegate Harper's proposal was defeated, 36 Aye's to 56 No's.

In Response to Delegate Harper, Delegate Dahood stated that what the committee was actually doing was not talking about the legalized gambling that brings crime, syndication, and undesirable elements to the state. Rather, the committee was discussing removing a law that was unenforceable.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2733, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf Delegate Dahood discussed placing the prohibition on the ballot, and letting the people decide if their representatives had the power to allow bingo, or a school lottery. He did agree with Delegate Harper, that open, Nevada-type gambling would be "a disaster for the state, for its economy, and for its people."7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2733, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Delegates Brown and Melvin both stood in support of the Majority proposal. In support of their stance, both sought to offer a definite definition of gambling, as to avoid liberal interpretations by both the legislature and general public.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2735-36, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Delegate Kamhoot introduced his proposal, which read, "‘The Legislative Assembly shall have no power, except as herein provided, to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose and shall pass laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets in this state, provided that games of chance commonly known as bingo and raffles shall be lawful if conducted by bona fide religious, charitable, civic, fraternal, or veteran organizations; and further provided that the Legislative Assembly shall enact legislation authorizing and regulating the lawful playing of bingo and the conducting of raffles so as to carry the provisions of this section into effect."7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2740, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf The purpose would be to allow organizations such as churches and service groups an additional option to raise revenue. Delegate Kamhoot's proposal was ultimately defeated, 15 Aye's to 77 No's.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2748, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Several delegate then debated the merit of defining terms such as "raffles" or "bingo," leading to a discussion about parimutuel horseracing. According to Delegate Ward, the statute that allowed such activity was passed as a breeder's bill via the Department of Agriculture. Although, the bill had never been challenged to the Supreme Court, and most agreed if it had been it would have been ruled unconstitutional for allowing gambling.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2743-44, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Delegate Leuthold moved to remove the language giving the legislature the power to legalize gambling, fearful that the legislature would be under substantial pressure and that ultimately the people should have the sole power to choose whether to legalize gambling. Delegate Leuthold's proposal was defeated, 12 Aye's to 77 No's.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2756-58, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Delegate Ask moved to make gambling a separate issue to be submitted to the voters with the new Constitution. Two versions of the section would be submitted, one allowing the legislature or people to legalize forms of gambling, and the other version prohibiting gambling all together.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2752, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf Delegate Ask's proposal prevailed, 83 Aye's to 8 No's.7 Montana Constitution Verbatim Transcript 2760, available at https://courts.mt.gov/portals/189/library/mt_cons_convention/vol7.pdf

Ratification

The people of Montana ratified the majority version of Art. III, Sec. 9, thereby allowing either the people or the legislature to authorize gambling. This was the third ballot issue, after the decision to have a bicameral or unicameral legislature and before whether to have the death penalty. " "Highlights" section of the 1972 voter information pamphlet, Art. III, Sec. 9 was listed as a new provision, stating "People given choice whether to retain a complete constitutional prohibition against all forms of gambling or whether legislature should have power to legalize certain forms of gambling.See The Proposed 1972 Constitution for the State of Montana Official Text with Explanation (Voter’s Information Pamphlet) 3, available at http://www.umt.edu/law/library/files/1972voterspamphlet. Under the proposed Constitution of the voter information pamphlet however, Art. III, Sec. 9 read, "All forms of gambling, lotteries, and gift enterprises are prohibited." The comment read, "Adds the word "gambling" to language of 1889 constitution. Makes it clear that all forms of gambling are prohibited." The full text of the Majority proposal, and Art. III, Sec. 9 as it would come to be ratified, is absent from the pamphlet.See The Proposed 1972 Constitution for the State of Montana Official Text with Explanation (Voter’s Information Pamphlet) 8, available at http://www.umt.edu/law/library/files/1972voterspamphlet. The ballot further informed electors that "If the proposed constitution fails to receive a majority of the votes cast, alternative issues also fail. This communicated that only if the Constitution was adopted would legalized gambling be possible. See pg. 2 Voter Pamphlet avail. at https://www.umt.edu/law/library/files/1972voterspamphlet

A 61 percent majority of voters favored legalization of gambling. There were 139,382 votes for and 88,743 votes against legislative authority to legalize gambling. While the effectuation of the vote depended on ratification of the new constitution, more votes were cast on the gambling issue than on ratification in 17 counties. Montana Public Affairs Bureau of Government Research University of Montana June 1972 http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library/MontanaConstitution/Miscellaneous%20Documents/waldron%20mt%20pub%20affairs%20rept.pdf

The western counties displayed more support for legalized gambling while the eastern counties displayed less support or actual opposition. Deer Lodge, Missoula, Cascade, Lewis & Clark, and Flathead Counties as a group had the highest average support for the legalization of gambling with 62%. Silver Bow County also displayed strong support for the legalization of gambling with 73% of voters supporting it. See Table in Montana Public Affairs Bureau of Government Research University of Montana June 1972 http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library/MontanaConstitution/Miscellaneous%20Documents/waldron%20mt%20pub%20affairs%20rept.pdf

There were two cluster-patterns of voting on the gambling issue that were noticed:

1. A line of counties along the Milwaukee Railroad from Custer County through Wheatland and Jefferson Counties which supported gambling by 61-70% while the counites directly to the North and South support for gambling was in the 50’s or actually opposed it.

2. Of the counties casting more votes on the gambling issue than on actual ratification, Mineral, Deer Lodge and Custer Counties were the only ones which strongly supported gambling. The rest of the counties which casted more votes for gambling than ratification were located in two clusters: Toole, Liberty, and Pondera and an area of south eastern Montana which included Garfield and Carter which opposed the legislation. Montana Public Affairs Bureau of Government Research University of Montana June 1972 http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library/MontanaConstitution/Miscellaneous%20Documents/waldron%20mt%20pub%20affairs%20rept.pdf

Influencing Factors

Many delegates believed connecting the legalization of gambling to the ratification of the Constitution would garner support for the ratification of the Constitution. Silver Bow County was the target of this measure as the voters who resided in Silver Bow County were known to favor gambling. supra note 1 at 261. Oral Conversation with Charles S. Johnson, Helena Aug. 24, 1972 Ellis L. Waldron & Paul B. Wilson, Atlas of Montana Elections 1889-1976 (University of Montana 1978) Silver Bow County's support for the legalization of gambling was expressed by County Commissioner Earl Holman as he told the Constitutional Convention local government committee that "gambling could be the 'savior of our state and make this a better place than Nevada'". He further stated "We have had gambling there (in Butte) for years. If we licenses gambling it would mean quite a saving to Butte...The way it is now, we are sort of in dire circumstances. We've got to do something in Butte or we'll be bankrupt." Pg. 1 Clippings from Daily Newspapers, "Holman pushes gambling option" http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library/MontanaConstitution/brown/Const.%20Conv.%20newspaper%20clippings%20ocr.pdf A legislator in Anaconda-Deer Lodge county, Mike McKeon expressed that Anaconda and Butte were "close knit" towns and generally "thought alike" on many issues. However he made it clear that he did not believe Anacondans shared the same "pre-occupation" with gambling that those in Butte did. He explained, "I don't think they want slot machines back in the bars. I don't think they want any great degree of gambling. Pg. 159, Daily Newspaper clippings "Con Con Reform Lags" http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library/MontanaConstitution/brown/Const.%20Conv.%20newspaper%20clippings%20ocr.pdf The General Government and Constitution Revision Committee conducted a hearing allowing radio listeners across Montana to call in and ask questions or provide testimony regarding lotteries, gambling and bingo. Interestingly, none of the callers came from Butte. See Pp. 72, 74 of Clippings from Daily Papers, "Radio Listeners May Call in to Convention", Call-in Favors Gambling http://www.umt.edu/media/law/library/MontanaConstitution/brown/Const.%20Conv.%20newspaper%20clippings%20ocr.pdf

Interpretation

Since the ratification of Art. III, Sec. 9, the Montana legislature has legalized several forms of gambling, found in Title 23, Chapter 5 of the Montana Code annotated. Enforcement of Montana's gambling laws falls under the Department of Justice.Mont. Code Ann. 25-5-112(11).

Constitutional Interpretation

The Montana Supreme Court has also held that the term "the people" in Art. III, Sec. 9 refers to the entire state of Montana, and as such the electorate of a single county alone cannot legalize forms of gambling even if just within that county. To reach this conclusion, the Court examined other uses of the term in the Constitution, including in the preamble and thirteen different instances within the first three articles. Each usage referred to the population of the state as a whole, and as such, the usage of "the people" in Art. III, Sec. 9 limits the legislature and the entire electorate of the state as the only two groups that can legalize any form of gambling.Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cty. v. Lorello, 181 Mont. 195, 592 P.2d 1381 (1979). This interpretation would prevent acts similar to that of the "Hickey Act" from becoming legal. (see Commentary for Hickey Act)https://dojmt.gov/gaming/history-of-gambling/ When determining what affect the legalization of gambling would have on previous statute and law the Montana Supreme Court was unwilling to consider what the "intent of the voters" was when voting to allow legalization of gambling. It further made clear what the passage of the initiative meant for the state of Montana explaining unconstitutional provisos within statute generally prohibiting gambling games could not be brought to life by enactment of new Constitution which permitted gambling if authorized by the legislature or by the People through initiative or referendum, and by failure of the legislature to repeal the previously unconstitutional provisos; such provisos, being void ab initio, were not “presently in force” within transition schedule providing that laws in force on the effective date of the new Constitution and not inconsistent therewith would remain in force. State ex rel. Woodahl v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist. In and For Silver Bow County, 162 Mont. 283,511 P.2d 318

Statutory Interpretation

In determining what gambling activity is legal in Montana, the question is not whether there is a statute specifically prohibiting an activity, but rather if the activity has been specifically authorized by law. This method of strict interpretation is consistent with Mont Code Ann. 23-5-111, which states, " In view of Article III, section 9, of the Montana constitution, parts 1 through 8 of this chapter must be strictly construed by the department and the courts to allow only those types of gambling and gambling activity that are specifically and clearly allowed by those parts."Haman v. State, 262 Mont. 458, 865 P.2d 274 (1993). In further clarifying what gambling is legal in Montana, Mont. Code Ann 23-5-151 reads, "Gambling prohibited. Except as specifically authorized by statute, all forms of public gambling, lotteries, and gift enterprises are prohibited."https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/23/5/23-5-151.htm

Commentary

Gambling Law Timeline Since 1972

After the legalization of gambling in 1972, legislation and law pertaining to it has been constantly evolving. Prior to the legalization of gambling there were a number of acts which allowed for specific kinds of gambling. One which was perhaps the most liberal was the Hickey Act of 1937, this legalized various table games in various locations if licensed by a county. https://dojmt.gov/gaming/history-of-gambling/ In 1983 a similar initiative entitled Initiative 92 which would have established a Gaming Commission and a limited list of games allowed by counties was defeated. https://dojmt.gov/gaming/history-of-gambling/ The defeat of Initiative 92 is reflective of the decision in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County v. Lorello, which addressed the constitutional interpretation of the legislation reflecting the legalization of gambling. The sole issue on appeal was whether the electorate of a local government unit may initiate a gambling ordinance which is more liberal than statewide gambling laws. This case was decided in 1979, four years prior to the attempted passage of Initiative 92.Anaconda Deer Lodge County v. Lorello, 181 Mont. 195, 592 P.2d 1381

In 1976 the Montana Supreme Court expanded the legalization of bingo to include live Keno under the Montana Bingo and Raffles Law. In that decision the Supreme Court noted that live bingo games and electronic bingo/keno games are both still bingo in that prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card which conform to numbers or symbols selected at random. It stated that with the exception of the method of selection of the winning number or symbol, no mention is made in the definitional section of bingo of any of the distinctions relied for declaring the electronic version illegal. Treasure State Inc. Games v. State 170 Mont. 189,551 P.2d 1008 (1976) Additionally the winning numbers cannot be predetermined by the game owner or operator and there is no method by which the house or game operator has any control over the selection of winning numbers during play or operation of the games. The Court stated that while it agreed with defendant's contention that differences do indeed exist between the live games of bingo and keno and plaintiff's electronic games, but it did not agree that those differences are legally significant. For such differences to be legally significant they must be among the legal factors used by the legislature in formulating the definition of legal bingo. Treasure State Inc. Games v. State 170 Mont. 189,551 P.2d 1008 (1976)

Eight years later in 1984 the Supreme Court issued another ruling pertaining to electronic gambling sources. However, this time it found that video poker (Draw 80) slot machines were illegal. In Gallatin County v. D & R Music and Vending the Court's analysis was based primarily on the definition of the The Montana Card Games Act of 1974 and the definition of "slot machine" as provided in the statutory language. The Montana Card Games Act stated, "The card games authorized by this part are and are limited to the card games known as bridge, cribbage, hearts, panguingue, pinochle, pitch, rummy, whist, solo, and poker.” Gallatin County v. D & R Music & Vending, Inc.(1984) 208 Mont. 138,141 676 P.2d 779, 781 Applying this definition to the poker slot machine Justice Shea stated, "It [poker] is a game played with playing cards, not with electronic images displayed on a screen. Poker is a game of skill and chance. It is not a game programmed so that no one wins a certain percentage of the time. After reviewing the file, the evidence and the documentation provided by acknowledged experts in the field, we conclude that the electronic game played on these machines is not poker. Accordingly, it is not authorized by the Montana Card Games Act and is consequently illegal thereunder." Gallatin County v. D & R Music & Vending, Inc.208 Mont. 138,141-142 676 P.2d 779,781 (1984) "Slot machine" was defined in the Mont. Code Ann. as "a machine operated by inserting a coin, token, chip, trade check, or paper currency therein by the player and from the play of which he obtains or may obtain money, checks, chips, tokens, or paper currency redeemable in money." Gallatin County v. D & R Music & Vending, Inc.(1984) 208 Mont. 138, 142 676 P.2d 779, 781-782 Slot machines were illegal in Montana in 1984 however not all "electronic gambling machines" were illegal. Justice Shea stated, "The statutory language here is perfectly clear and therefore need only be applied—not interpreted. Under the language of section 23–5–101, MCA, the electronic “poker” machine is clearly a slot machine and as such expressly barred by the legislature from operation within this state." Gallatin County v. D & R Music & Vending, Inc. 208 Mont. 138, 142 676 P.2d 779, 782 (1984) A short year later, in 1985 the legislature passed the Video Draw Poker Machine Control Law. This law overruled the holding in Gallatin County. The law legalized video draw poker machines and authorized playing those machines for cash prizes. While this law legalized machines offering draw poker, it did not legalize Poker All Keno, which possessed elements of both the game of poker and the game of keno, was not draw poker. As described in MPH Co. v. Imagineering Inc.243 Mont. 342, 792 P.2d 1081 (1990)

Legislation continued to develop from this point with the Montana Lottery passing in 1987. The bill's sponsors were Butte state Rep. Bob Pavlovich. Pavlovich and Butte Sen. Lawrence Stimatz sponsored a bill in the 1985 Montana Legislature to create a lottery for Montana. The bill died in session. However in the final days of the session, Pavlovich went to the lawmakers who opposed it and asked if they would stand in the way of creating a legislative referendum, Pavlovich garnered the 75 legislative signatures necessary for the Legislative Referendum. The following year, the referendum was voted on and was decisively approved with the referendum passing in all 56 counties, carried by 69 percent of vote. https://www.montanalottery.com/en/view/about

In 1993 the Montana Supreme Court demonstrated its dedication to a narrow interpretation of gambling laws in the state in Haman v. State, in which the plaintiff Haman argued she should be allowed to purchase pull tabs (which were illegal in the state) and export or sell them out of state. She cited a statute which read, "A person may not manufacture or possess an illegal gambling device for export from the state without having obtained a license from the department". Haman v. State 262 Mont. 458, 460 865 P.2d 274, 275 (1993) Haman argued that the disjunctive "or" allowed her to both possess and manufacture gambling devices. She further argued that "possess" should encompass the word "purchase. Haman v. State 262 Mont. 458, 460 865 P.2d 274, 275 (1993) In his decision Justice Trieweiler paid homage to the requirement that gambling laws be strictly interpreted. In doing so, the Court should only allow those types of gambling and gambling activity specifically and clearly allowed by the "Gambling Laws of 1989". Justice Trieweiller was unwilling to read "purchase" into the word "possess". He further indicated Montana manufacturers can only export gambling devices, they cannot sell gambling devices in the State of Montana. Thus, it necessarily follows that persons and companies in Montana cannot purchase gambling devices from Montana manufacturers.Haman v. State 262 Mont. 458, 865 P.2d 274 (1993)

Throughout the past twenty years legislation pertaining to gambling has been passed and defeated. In 2003, a bill which would have allowed for an entertainment district in Butte offering "Vegas Style Casinos". https://dojmt.gov/gaming/history-of-gambling/ The legalization of Black Jack has been introduced twice once in 1991, and most recently in 2017. It has been defeated both times. https://dojmt.gov/gaming/history-of-gambling/One consistent change in Montana has been the liberalization of payout amounts for a variety of gambling games. In 2011 legislation increased prize payout for bingo to $800. In 2013 legislation increased Live Card Game Pot Limit from $300 to $800 and Sports Pool payout limit from $500 to $2,500. https://dojmt.gov/gaming/history-of-gambling/

The legislative session in 2019 passed HB 725 which authorizes the state lottery to conduct the activity of sports betting. In a letter explaining his reasoning for signing this bill and vetoing a similar one Governor Bullock stated, "I have spent a great deal of time considering the pros and cons of both systems. Ultimately, however, the Lottery model makes more sense for Montana. Under the Lottery model in HB 725, the state will have the ability to control, monitor, and protect sports wagering products and players through security and integrity protocols, policies around responsible gaming, and policies to ensure that sports wagering is competitive, transparent, and reliable. Like the private model, the Lottery model protects the taxpayer from risk. But the Lottery model builds on existing infrastructure and is projected to return significantly more revenue to taxpayers."Pg. 2, "Letter from the Governor regarding HB 725 and SB 330" https://www.legalsportsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SB-330-Veto-Lttr.pdf Governor Bullock alluded to the possibility of a second sports betting model in Montana during the next legislative session 2021. However he wanted to ensure the state would benefit from sports betting before allowing another model in the state. Pg. 2, "Letter from the Governor regarding HB 725 and SB 330" https://www.legalsportsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SB-330-Veto-Lttr.pdf