Alabama Open to Gaming Expansion, But Roadblocks Remain

As the Alabama Senate convenes for the 2025 session, the conversation surrounding gaming expansion is once again in the spotlight. Newly elected Senate President Garlan Gudger has expressed a willingness to explore gambling proposals, signaling that the issue may remain alive in the legislature. However, the path forward is fraught with political and economic obstacles that suggest significant challenges ahead.

Gudger, who took the reins from former Senate President Greg Reed on February 6, indicated that while he is personally open to the idea of expanding gaming in Alabama, he will carefully consider any proposals brought to the floor. In an interview with Mike Carson of AL.com, Gudger reflected on the potential revenue the state is missing out on as neighboring states rake in profits from gambling. “We’re leaving a lot of money on the table,” Gudger said, acknowledging that Alabama’s current gaming laws may be costing the state valuable tax revenue.

Yet, Gudger's openness stops short of full endorsement. His comments reflect a cautious approach: “How we handle that, as a Senate body, I’ll be doing what the majority of this body wants,” he said. The key phrase here is “if it gets filed,” signaling that gaming legislation is far from certain in 2025. The possibility of gaming expansion hinges on multiple factors—none of which have been resolved since a 2024 proposal came tantalizingly close to passing.

 

Lingering Divisions Over Gaming in Alabama

Alabama's debate over gaming expansion is not new. For years, the state has grappled with competing proposals on how to legalize and regulate gambling. The 2024 session offered a glimpse of what could have been: a proposal that would have authorized seven commercial casinos, introduced a state lottery, and allowed the governor to negotiate a gaming compact with the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PCI), the state’s largest tribe. That proposal nearly cleared the legislature but was ultimately blocked by entrenched disagreements.

The key sticking point remains the balance of power between commercial interests and PCI. While PCI currently operates Class II gaming (bingo) under federal law, it seeks to expand to Class III games, including poker, slots, and table games, through a state compact. Previous efforts to grant PCI exclusive rights to table games were met with resistance, and commercial interests fear being sidelined. As a result, no compromise has been found, and the divide between tribal and commercial operators continues to stymie meaningful progress.

 

Tribal vs. Commercial Interests

PCI, which has been pushing for expanded gaming rights, remains a central player in the debate. The tribe has been clear in its desire to move beyond bingo and offer more lucrative forms of gaming. However, a proposal that would restrict expansion to tribal interests alone is unlikely to gain sufficient support in the legislature. Local municipalities that benefit from commercial bingo operations and other commercial stakeholders would likely oppose such a move, further complicating efforts to pass a comprehensive gaming bill.

One of the proposed compromises from 2024, which would have limited commercial casinos to electronic table games while allowing PCI to offer live dealer games, was swiftly rejected by the tribe. This reflects the high stakes involved for PCI, which sees expanded gaming as essential to its economic future. Meanwhile, towns with bingo operations are lobbying to ensure that their revenue streams remain intact and even grow.

The challenge for Alabama lawmakers is finding a balance between these competing interests. As in years past, the question of which forms of gaming should be authorized and who should benefit from the expansion continues to dominate discussions.

Despite Gudger's willingness to consider gaming expansion, Alabama lawmakers remain divided on whether there is enough political will to move the issue forward. Rep. Andy Whitt, who was involved in the 2024 debate, expressed skepticism about the prospect of success, telling PlayUSA that he doesn’t see a “pathway going forward” unless the Senate gets more serious about resolving the issue. Similarly, Sen. Greg Albritton suggested that a “groundswell of demand” from the public might be the only factor that could break the impasse.

The challenge here is that public opinion on gambling expansion in Alabama is mixed, with significant portions of the population wary of the social and economic impact of increased gaming. As Gudger's comments demonstrate, the issue is unlikely to move forward without significant buy-in from a majority of lawmakers, and that could require shifting the political climate or responding to public pressure.

 

2025: iGaming Crossroads

As Gudger’s leadership unfolds, the future of gaming in Alabama remains uncertain. While his remarks offer a glimmer of hope for advocates, they also underscore the persistent obstacles that have long stalled gaming expansion in the state. The competing interests of PCI, commercial operators, and local governments, combined with the lack of a clear public mandate, suggest that any meaningful progress may be slow.

At this point, the question is not whether Alabama will eventually expand gaming—many believe that day will come—but when and under what conditions. For now, the 2025 session will likely be marked by more debate and compromise rather than decisive action.

 

We’re leaving a lot of money on the table. How we handle that, as a Senate body, I’ll be doing what the majority of this body wants

 

Conclusion

Senator Gudger’s early comments as Senate President indicate a willingness to explore gaming expansion, but the road ahead is filled with complex challenges. The same divisions that stalled progress in 2024 persist, and without a shift in the political landscape or significant public demand, Alabama’s gaming expansion may remain a distant possibility. As the legislative session progresses, all eyes will be on whether Gudger and his colleagues can find a solution that satisfies the state’s diverse stakeholders or if the issue will once again be put on hold.