Skip to main content

SB 5621

In Committee

Senate

Sporting event raffles

Addressing electronic raffles at live sporting events.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 30, 2025
Last Action: January 12, 2026
Status: S Business, Trade

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill updates Washington’s definition of a raffle to explicitly allow electronic raffles at live sporting events, as long as the total prize money equals 50% of the raffle’s gross receipts. It keeps existing rules that raffles must be run by bona fide charitable or nonprofit groups, with no private benefit and no outside management involvement.

  • Clarifies that a 'raffle' is a game where tickets (priced at $100 or less each) are sold and winners are chosen by drawing numbers, conducted only by qualified charitable or nonprofit organizations.
  • Adds an exception to the definition of 'raffle' for electronic raffles at live sporting events, provided the total prize amount equals 50% of gross gambling receipts collected from the raffle.
  • Maintains existing restrictions: only organization members may manage the raffle, and all proceeds must benefit the organization (no private benefit).
  • Amends RCW 9.46.0277, the state law that defines gambling-related terms for raffles and similar activities.

Who is affected

  • Charitable and nonprofit organizationsNonprofit and charitable organizations that currently run raffles may now also conduct electronic raffles at live sporting events under new rules, potentially increasing fundraising opportunities.
  • Sports event attendeesAttendees of live sporting events (e.g., high school, college, or minor league games) may be offered new opportunities to participate in electronic raffles during the event.
  • Sports event organizersOrganizers and operators of live sporting events (e.g., schools, leagues, venues) may need to update their operations to accommodate electronic raffle rules if they wish to host them.
Effective: July 27, 2025Fiscal impact: The bill does not specify a direct fiscal impact on state or local government budgets; any impact would likely be indirect through increased charitable fundraising activity.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 9:08 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (4)
  • Nonprofit and charitable organizations—many of which operate on tight margins—may significantly increase fundraising revenue by offering electronic raffles at high-attendance sporting events, potentially strengthening their capacity to deliver community services (e.g., youth programs, food banks, senior support).

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts
  • Electronic raffles may reduce physical ticket handling, cash flow, and long lines at events—lowering risks of theft, fraud, or accidental loss of funds, especially compared to traditional paper raffle ticket sales.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts
  • If high schools, colleges, or school-affiliated nonprofits adopt electronic raffles, increased proceeds could support extracurricular programs, athletics, or scholarships—benefiting students and families who rely on those services.

    EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts
  • The $100 per-ticket cap ensures affordability for low- and moderate-income attendees, and the 50% prize payout makes the game more transparent and potentially more attractive than traditional raffles—increasing participation and perceived fairness.

    FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts
Potential Concerns (4)
  • Electronic raffles at live sporting events may increase crowd congestion, crowd management complexity, and potential for disorder—especially if raffle ticket sales and winner announcements occur during game intermissions—without corresponding increases in staffing or security protocols.

    Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts
  • While the bill allows nonprofits to expand fundraising, it does not require venues or event organizers to adopt electronic raffles—so adoption will be voluntary and uneven, potentially creating competitive distortions where some venues offer raffles and others do not, without standardized operational or consumer protections.

    Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts
  • The 50% prize payout requirement for electronic raffles is significantly more generous than typical charitable gambling (e.g., Washington’s standard raffle payout is ~30–40% in practice), which increases the risk of unsustainable fundraising models—especially for smaller nonprofits that lack economies of scale—potentially leading to over-reliance on high-volume, low-margin raffles at sporting events.

    FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, limiting raffle ticket price to $100 or less and requiring 50% prize payout for electronic raffles
  • Local governments may face increased administrative burden if they are asked to monitor or enforce compliance with the new electronic raffle exception, especially since the bill does not clarify whether local licensing or reporting requirements apply beyond the existing statutory framework.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1, adding exception for electronic raffles at live sporting events where total prize amount is 50% of gross gambling receipts

Who Is Most Affected

Charitable and nonprofit organizationsPositive Impact

Nonprofits and charities—especially those running youth sports, school booster clubs, or community centers—may see increased fundraising capacity, but must invest in technology and training to implement electronic raffles safely and legally.

Sports event attendeesMixed Impact

Attendees gain a new, potentially more convenient way to participate in fundraising games during events, but may face pressure to spend on raffles during high-emotion moments (e.g., halftime), and some may be priced out if ticket prices trend upward toward the $100 cap.

Sports event organizersMixed Impact

Schools, leagues, and venues gain a new fundraising tool but must decide whether to adopt the technology, train staff, and coordinate with nonprofits—adding operational complexity with uncertain ROI for small events.

Low- and moderate-income familiesMixed Impact

Low-income and working-class families who attend local sporting events may benefit from stronger community programs funded by nonprofits, but could be disproportionately affected if raffle marketing targets emotionally vulnerable moments or if ticket prices creep toward the $100 cap.

Technology and payment service providersPositive Impact

Technology vendors and payment processors may see new demand for event-based raffle platforms, but the bill does not regulate their role—so they are not directly bound by the nonprofit-only restriction, raising potential compliance risks.

Sponsors

Senator Stanford(Democrat)District 1Primary
Senator Kauffman(Democrat)District 47Secondary
Senator Chapman(Democrat)District 24Secondary
Senator Trudeau(Democrat)District 27Secondary
Senator Saldaña(Democrat)District 37Secondary
Senator Muzzall(Republican)District 10Secondary
Senator Ramos(Democrat)District 5Secondary
Senator Conway(Democrat)District 29Secondary
Senator Wagoner(Republican)District 39Secondary
Senator Braun(Republican)District 20Secondary
Senator Nobles(Democrat)District 28Secondary