Vermont’s Bold Push to Repeal Legalized Sports Betting

three Vermont state representatives have introduced a bill that could forever change the landscape of legal gaming in the Green Mountain State. House Bill 133 (H.133), if passed, would effectively repeal all state laws legalizing sports betting and the state-run lottery, effectively bringing an end to any form of legalized gambling in Vermont. This proposed measure, spearheaded by Rep. Troy Headrick and co-sponsored by Reps. Tom Stevens and Michael Mrowicki, has ignited a wider conversation on the ethics and economic implications of state-sponsored gaming.

At the heart of the bill’s rationale lies a fundamental critique of state-sanctioned gambling. Rep. Headrick, speaking to PlayUSA, made it clear that his support for the bill stems from his belief that gaming represents a form of regressive taxation. In Headrick’s view, these forms of legalized gaming disproportionately affect low-income households, extracting wealth from the state’s most vulnerable residents. As he explained, “Regressive” in this context refers to the idea that lower-income people pay a higher effective rate than wealthier individuals, making gaming a covert means of extracting wealth from the less fortunate.

The Economic Argument

Headrick’s argument resonates with long-standing criticisms of state-run lotteries and sports betting. These forms of gambling, which are often marketed as an enjoyable diversion or a potential means of instant wealth, have historically been found to be more appealing to individuals facing financial hardship. Numerous studies have confirmed that both the highest and lowest earners tend to gamble more frequently than those with incomes near the median. In fact, gambling, particularly through state-run lotteries, has become a tax of sorts—one that bears a much heavier burden on those with fewer resources to spare.

As Headrick argues, the outcomes are predictable: low-income households, in particular, are lured into gambling by the promise of sudden financial relief, but often end up losing more than they can afford. The tax is invisible, operating through the lure of entertainment, while the real cost to participants can be steep, not just financially, but emotionally and psychologically as well.

Vermont’s Stance

Vermont’s proposed move to repeal legalized sports betting and the lottery is unprecedented in the post-PASPA era. The 2018 Supreme Court ruling that repealed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) paved the way for states to legalize sports betting, leading to a boom in regulated sports markets across the country. Since then, more than three dozen states have legalized some form of sports betting, with Vermont entering the market in 2023 and officially launching its mobile sports betting platform in 2024.

However, Vermont is poised to become the first state to reconsider and potentially reverse this decision. The state’s lottery, too, faces an uncertain future, as Vermont joins the ranks of just a few states contemplating a full repeal of such gaming laws. While it is unclear whether the bill will pass, the debate it has sparked could have significant implications beyond Vermont’s borders.

As Headrick has noted, he hopes that Vermont’s actions might inspire lawmakers in other states to reevaluate the broader societal consequences of legalized gaming. “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,” Headrick said, highlighting the need for a more responsible approach to state-sponsored gambling.

Passing a bill to repeal legalized gambling would require a vote in both the Vermont House and Senate, and would then need the signature of Gov. Phil Scott, who has been a staunch advocate for fiscally conservative policies. Headrick himself is not optimistic about the bill’s chances, especially given Scott’s history of prioritizing budget cuts and austerity measures that disproportionately affect low-income households.

Headrick’s skepticism stems from the Governor’s reluctance to consider progressive tax reforms, as well as his reliance on the revenue generated by state-run gambling. Legalized sports betting and lotteries serve as significant sources of funding for state programs, and for many states, including Vermont, these revenues are seen as vital components of the state’s budget. To forgo these funds could be seen as a risky move, especially in an era where state budgets are already under pressure from various economic challenges.

Vermont’s bill to repeal its sports betting and lottery laws is not just a local issue—it represents a broader conversation about the ethics of state-sanctioned gambling in general. While gambling has long been a popular pastime, the question of whether it is fair for states to rely on the losses of their most vulnerable citizens as a source of revenue is becoming increasingly important.

Rep. Headrick’s stance challenges the idea that gambling should be treated as a harmless form of entertainment or a quick economic boost. Rather, he suggests that it is a regressive mechanism that preys on desperation. His bill calls for a more thoughtful, ethical approach to state revenue generation, one that does not come at the expense of those who can least afford it.

 

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.

 

Conclusions

As the debate continues in Vermont, the rest of the nation will likely be watching closely. If Vermont succeeds in its attempt to repeal its gaming laws, it could set a precedent for other states to follow—or it could serve as a cautionary tale about the complexities of undoing a rapidly growing industry. Either way, Vermont’s move is a stark reminder that the relationship between state-sponsored gambling and social justice is one that deserves deeper scrutiny.

For now, the future of H.133 remains uncertain, but its introduction marks a critical moment in the ongoing conversation about the role of gambling in American society. Whether or not the bill succeeds, it forces us to ask a more fundamental question: Should the state be in the business of profiting from the losses of its most vulnerable citizens?