Listed below are proposed regulations that are especially harmful to the success of raising funds for charities and Virginia communities through conducting charitable poker - almost, if not all, share a common thread of going far beyond what the general assembly authorized in regulations and harm the charities, operators and players.

It seems VDACS did a lot of copy/paste from bingo regulations; I suppose that was expedient, but unbecoming of an government office. Many of those regulations are antiquated and/or ill-applied in the context of charitable poker (unless, of course, VDACS has a goal to curtail charitable poker as much as it is able to get away with).

Many of the proposed regulations violate one or both of the following principles that guide what constitutes an appropriate regulation for charitable poker:

• A regulation must further a constraint set forth in SB 936 (2020) (an “authorized regulation” and “unauthorized regulations” means a proposed regulation that is not an authorized regulation).

The authority for these poker regulations is a specific authorization to “promulgate regulations consistent with Chapter 982 of the Acts of Assembly of 2020,” i.e. SB 936 (2020) which legalized charitable poker and included a defined set of guardrails (HB 765 of the Acts of Assembly of 2022). Any regulation that does not specifically further the legalization of charitable poker is immediately suspect as an unauthorized regulation.

• A regulation must not be “arbitrary and capricious” (an “arbitrary regulation”).

A rule that is, inter alia, taken (a) in disregard of facts or law or (b) without determining principle (New Age Care, 71 Va. App. at 428, 837 S.E.2d 64) is presumed to be an arbitrary regulation and therefore invalid. A regulation cannot harm the charitable poker industry without a compelling regulatory need.

Examples Especially Harmful to Enabling Charitable Poker

(Note: This list is not exhaustive and serves to provide examples in which VDACS's proposed rules were not directed by the General Assembly and clearly harm the industry rather than promote safety and integrity of the industry)

• Concurrent Tournaments - Proposed 11VAC20-30-90.F prohibits hosting concurrent poker tournaments.

  • This is an unauthorized regulation and is an arbitrary regulation.

  • SB 936 did not include restrictions on timing of tournaments. This restriction would only limit player's enjoyment and the ability to raise charitable funds.
    (Note: no such restriction is likely purposeful. The 2023 General Assembly considered limitations on timing of tournaments and no limitations were adopted.

  • Fix: Strike proposed 11VAC20-30-90.F.

• Tipping - Proposed 11VAC20-30-100.D.2 prohibits tipping dealers or staff.

  • This is an unauthorized regulation and is an arbitrary regulation.

  • This is harmful to employees, and is a bizarre limitation as it is the norm in the poker industry. Further, when compensating employees fairly and with a living wage is restricted, charities will have a harder time raising charitable funds, and erodes the integrity of the industry.

  • Fix: Strike proposed subsection 2 of 11VAC20-30-100.D.

• Use of Proceeds - 11VAC20-30-30 imposes the use of proceeds formula applicable to bingo.

  • This is an arbitrary regulation. (Note this is expressly an authorized regulation.)

  • The math simply doesn’t work to use the bingo formula for poker. Instead, the electronic gaming formula properly applies.

  • Fix: Add a subsection to to 11VAC20-30-30 stating “With respect to the minimum percentage use of proceeds in accordance with 11VAC20-20-20.D., the formula set forth in Subsection 2 of 11VAC20-20-20.D. shall apply to proceeds from the conduct of poker tournaments, mutatis mutandis.

• Landlord/Operator Restrictions - 11VAC20-30-60.M, -70.A.10, and -130.E-J prohibit certain connections between a registered landlord and a permitted operator.

  • This is an arbitrary regulation and an unauthorized regulation. 

  • This will limit efficiencies in providing operator services and hosting tournaments, resulting in depleted revenue. The Code merely provides that landlords “register” with the Department. Registration for identification purposes (transparency) is not consistent with imposing new restrictions. Further, under the principle of expressio unius, the General Assembly has imposed these types of restrictions regarding bingo, and specifically have not imposed these restrictions regarding poker.

  • Fix: Strike proposed regulations attempting to proscribe landlord activity vis-a-vis operators.

• Locations - Proposed 11VAC20-30-90.G. limits locations of poker to the jurisdiction of the charity’s principal office, and adjacent jurisdictions.

  • This is an unauthorized regulation. Specifically, under the principle of expressio unius, the General Assembly has excluded this restriction; the Code imposes this restriction specifically on the sale of instant bingo, pull tabs, or seal cards (§ 18.2-340.26:1) and conducting bingo (§ 18.2-340.27). The Code specifically leaves out this restriction on the third type of charitable gaming, i.e. poker.

  • Fix: Strike proposed 11VAC20-30-90.G.

• Rebuys/Add-ons - 11VAC20-30-100.H prohibits adding to their chip stack

  • This is an unauthorized regulation. The Code expressly permits ‘add-ons’ if done at “set preannounced times.” Without enabling authority, the proposed regulation restricts this permitted activity further. This is an additional limitation that would reduce player interest, reducing the amount able to be raised for charity.

  • Fix: Strike proposed 11VAC20-30-100.H.

• Legal Poker - 11VAC20-30-60.A and -70.A.7 declares that any person that has ever operated charitable gaming or a tournament without a license may not operate or host a charitable poker tournament.

  • This is an unconstitutional retroactive legislative attempt by the Department. And, as applied prospectively, it is overbroad - not all charitable gaming activities require a license or permit in all jurisdictions, so criminalizing all people who ever conducted any charitable gaming without a license (even if a license was not required) makes no sense.

  • Fix: Modify those proposed regulations to apply only if the operation was conducted without a “required” permit or license.

• Electro-mechanical Devices - 11VAC20-30-90.O prohibits the use of technology during a tournament.

  • This is absurd. Technology is a given in the 21st century as a tool that improves operations, accuracy, etc. Prohibiting the use of technology in operating a tournament can only lead to inefficiencies and human error, eroding the integrity of the tournament.

  • Fix: Strike 11VAC20-30-90.O.

• Player Limitations - 11VAC20-30-90.C-D restricts various people connected to a charity or operator from playing in a tournament

  • The scope is unduly restrictive, and fails to understand the poker industry it’s attempting to regulate (it's a very family/community focused environment where lots of connections exist).

  • Fix: Strike proposed 11VAC20-30-90.C-D. Include only a prohibition on a family member of a dealer from playing at the table at which that family member is dealing.