Share
A trio of Vermont state representatives have submitted a bill that would repeal the state laws legalizing sports betting and the lottery, effectively bringing an end to any form of legal gaming in the state.
Rep. Troy Headrick, a co-sponsor of H.133, told PlayUSA that he supports the bill because he believes gaming is a form of regressive taxation.
“Regressive,” in this context, means that lower-income people pay a higher effective rate than more wealthy people. This is in contrast to a flat tax, such as sales tax, which applies to everyone equally, or a progressive tax, like income tax, which applies a higher rate to wealthier people.
State-sanctioned gaming functions as a camouflaged form of regressive taxation. It disproportionately harms low-income and working families who are forced into desperate financial decisions.
– Vermont Rep. Troy Headrick, speaking to PlayUSA
Studies have shown that both the highest- and lowest-earning demographics tend to gamble more frequently than those closer to the median.
PlayUSA also sought comment from primary sponsor Rep. Tom Stevens and cosponsor Rep. Michael Mrowicki, but did not receive an immediate response.
Gaming repeal bill would be first of its kind in post-PASPA world
Sports betting exploded after the Supreme Court of the United States repealed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, effectively ending a nationwide ban on new regulated sports betting markets.
More than three dozen states now offer some form of legalized sports betting. Vermont legalized mobile sports betting in 2023 and launched it in 2024. Since 2018, no state has decided to repeal its sports betting laws. Vermont would be the first.
Additionally, 45 states offer some form of a state-run lottery. No state in recent memory has repealed its lottery, either.
When asked if he thinks a Vermont repeal could lead to similar moves in other states, Headrick said he hopes that lawmakers in sports betting markets would take a “hard look” at how sports betting and the lottery impact people in low-income households.
I would hope that just-minded legislators in other states take a hard look at how these predatory contracts extract wealth from their most vulnerable residents. The losses are predictable, and the harm is measurable. No state should rely on a funding mechanism that depends on its people losing.
Co-sponsor acknowledges that prohibition is unlikely
To become law, the Vermont gaming repeal would have to pass a vote in the House and Senate, then get a signature from Gov. Phil Scott.
Headrick said while he can’t read the governor’s mind, he’s not optimistic given that he believes Scott isn’t focused on giving a break to households with low income.
I won’t pretend to know how the Governor thinks, but given his refusal to consider progressive tax reforms and his reliance on austerity measures that cut deepest into the lives of the most vulnerable, I doubt he’d be eager to give up the financial buffer that state-sanctioned gaming provides.
