Wisconsin
WI voters want a say on issue of online sports betting | Opinion
Wisconsin cannot gamble with sports betting. As former attorney general, I join the people of Wisconsin who have real concerns about the constitutionality of this plan.
Video gambling machines common in Wisconsin; tribal leaders concerned
While tavern owners see gambling machines as a source of needed revenue, tribal leaders view them as an unregulated intrusion on their gaming rights.
As the Assembly and Senate get ready to adjourn session in Madison for 2026, state legislative leaders are working behind closed doors on a deal to legalize online sports betting and give the Indigenous tribes exclusive control.
New polling shows Wisconsinites are skeptical of the Legislature’s current plan, and for good reason. While voters aren’t uniformly opposed to online sports wagering, they strongly oppose a framework that grants exclusive control to tribal nations, limits competition, and bypasses direct voter approval. Sixty percent of likely voters oppose giving tribes a monopoly, and 86 percent believe a decision of this magnitude should be decided by the people through a constitutional amendment or referendum. (Note: Polling figures cited are from The Tarrance Group.)
The legislation under consideration would create an unfair monopoly on online sports betting in Wisconsin. Rather than allowing well-known operators like FanDuel or DraftKings to compete in an open marketplace, the state would grant Native American tribes exclusive control as a way to try to circumvent the constitution. This approach stifles competition, limits consumer choice, and allows the monopoly holder to operate without meaningful oversight, a setup that is neither fair nor economically responsible.
Wisconsin stands to lose money on this
Beyond the monopoly problem, the current bills bypass the benefits free-market online sports betting can bring to states. In other states, competitive frameworks have strengthened local economies and generated tens of millions in revenue. Instead, Wisconsin could lose an estimated $400 million over the next five years because the legislation attempts to skirt our constitutional limits rather than address them directly.
Most importantly, as the former Attorney General of Wisconsin, I join the people of Wisconsin who have real concerns about the constitutionality of this plan. Legislators should never endorse or attempt to undermine Wisconsin’s Constitution, the foundation of our state. Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution broadly prohibits the Legislature from authorizing gambling outside specific, voter-approved exceptions. The people of Wisconsin have repeatedly reaffirmed this principle through amendments over decades, making clear decisions of this magnitude rest with the voters, not the Legislature or the governor.
Wisconsin has seen the consequences of concentrated authority before. In the 1990s and 2000s, the state granted Democratic governor Jim Doyle broad authority to reopen and amend tribal gaming compacts. These decisions ultimately created perpetual privileges for tribes and limited the state’s ability to regulate gaming in line with constitutional and public interests. Later court rulings upheld some expansions despite weak legal grounds, leaving Wisconsin with a system that prioritizes a single party’s contractual interests over the people’s sovereign will.
Legislators seem ready to repeat mistakes
Today, legislators appear ready to repeat that mistake by relying on unsettled legal comparisons, such as Florida’s compact litigation, to justify extending tribal betting privileges statewide. But Florida’s situation is not Wisconsin’s. Using it as cover to bypass our own constitutional limits is legislative overreach, plain and simple.
The push to legalize online sports betting nationally has grown, but the stakes in Wisconsin are too high to get this wrong. The numbers don’t lie, the voters want a say in this matter. This backroom deal being dealt in Madison is bad news. The first rule of gambling is remembering the house always wins. In this case, the “house” should be the people of Wisconsin, and the state must ensure it remains in control of its own policy.
JB Van Hollen is the former Attorney General of Wisconsin.