【Juicy Fruits demo】Attempt to stop ADW greyhound racing bets fails in North Dakota

The measure was part of Senate Bill 2384 (SB 2384), which was divided into two components before the House vote.

While one section proposed changes to the language used around gaming machine maintenance language, the more contentious portion — seeking to prohibit Advance Deposit Wagering (ADW) on greyhound racing in the state — was decisively voted down, with 69 lawmakers opposing and only 19 in support.

Advance Deposit Wagering platforms allow users to place bets on horse and dog races remotely, often across state or international lines.

The platforms are typically licensed in states like North Dakota and Oregon, which have regulatory systems in place for such operations.

North Dakota, in particular, serves as a licensing hub for several ADW companies, generating tax revenue that plays a crucial role in sustaining the state’s live horse racing industry.

Opposition to the greyhound betting ban was voiced strongly by members of North Dakota’s horse racing community.

Those associated with the activity warned that removing greyhound betting from ADW operations could drive these companies out of the state, leading to a significant loss of tax revenue for the North Dakota Racing Commission.

Since the commission relies primarily on funds from ADWs to support live racing at the state’s two tracks — Chippewa Downs in Belcourt and the North Dakota Horse Park in Fargo — stakeholders argued the bill could endanger the survival of the state’s live horse racing industry.

During House floor discussions, Rep. Bill Tveit emphasised the economic and agricultural value of horse racing to North Dakota.

He described the sport as an existing, thriving agricultural enterprise and compared it favourably to the legislature’s broader goal of enhancing animal agriculture.

Animal rights groups behind initiative

Rep. Tveit cautioned against what he called the influence of external advocacy groups, framing the bill as an initiative driven by out-of-state interests.

The primary supporter of the proposed greyhound betting ban was Grey2K USA, a Massachusetts-based animal rights organisation.

The group contends that greyhound racing is inhumane and that North Dakota should not facilitate or profit from it, even indirectly, through online betting platforms.

However, greyhound racing does not take place within North Dakota itself, and critics of the bill argued that regulating such betting had no direct connection to the state’s existing industries.

Rep. Tveit further criticised the bill’s external origins, noting that the initiative was championed by organisations without direct ties to North Dakota.

He urged lawmakers to support local interests over national advocacy campaigns, warning that passing the bill would undermine jobs and tax revenue associated with horse racing.

Rep. Jared Hagert took a more nuanced stance, stating that while he supports live horse racing, he believes the industry should find alternative funding mechanisms.

He also questioned whether ADWs would actually exit the state if greyhound betting were prohibited, and expressed concern that the state’s current reliance on ADW-generated revenue could be unsustainable in the long term.

Currently, ADWs licensed in the state are required to contribute a portion of their proceeds to North Dakota’s general fund and the Racing Commission.

They must also support a designated local charity or nonprofit. The tax revenue from these platforms is instrumental in funding live racing events and operations at the state’s two tracks.

The defeat of the greyhound racing ban ensures that ADW operators in North Dakota can continue to offer wagers on greyhound races occurring outside the state.