Virginia iGaming Bills Clear Both Chambers With Path to Law Remaining Uncertain
Movement on Virginia’s iGaming legislation accelerated on Feb 16 and 17 as both the Senate and House passed their respective versions of the bill. However, differences between the two versions, including a reenactment clause in the House bill, mean the legislative process is far from over. Read more about the passing of SB 118 and HB 1272.
The Virginia House experienced a notable shift in a single legislative session, with a bill initially failing by a vote of 49-46 before being recommitted for reconsideration. Upon its return to the House floor, the bill passed with a significantly wider margin of 67-30 — a swing of more than 20 votes.
The change in outcome has been attributed to strategic maneuvering by House Republicans, which played a central role in how the vote unfolded the second time around. The House-passed version of the bill includes a reenactment clause, and there are additional differences between the House version and the version previously passed by the Senate.
The Senate initially fell short of the votes needed to pass the iGaming bill, leading the bill’s sponsor to withdraw it from final consideration on Feb 16. The bill was brought back later that afternoon and passed — without a reenactment clause, which would have required the legislature to pass the bill again in a subsequent session. Despite clearing the chamber, the passage was not expected to significantly change the outlook for the legislation being enacted into law in the current year.
The bills now move to their respective opposite chambers, where each will be subject to committee consideration, debate, and potential amendment — effectively restarting the legislative process on both sides. Stakeholders are already in discussions about how to move the bills toward a conference committee to resolve the outstanding differences between the two versions.
The issue remains active in Virginia. However, the possibility that the process may extend into the next legislative year has been acknowledged — either because the bill fails to survive conference, or because it advances with the reenactment clause still in place. Stakeholders are currently working to develop a strategy and path forward as the process continues.