PPA to include poker referendum in state ballots

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has said it will seek to include an online poker initiative on the ballot in other US states, despite the failure of its bid to do so in Massachusetts earlier this month.

The lobby group’s petition to include an initiative on the Massachusetts ballot for 2010 that would legalise internet poker within state borders and enable the state to collect 5% of poker deposits made by state residents was rejected by Massachusetts General Attorney Martha Coakley, who argued the wording of the petition would not compel payment processors to pay 5% of deposits to the state.

However PPA executive director John Pappas (pictured) said the legislative bar in Massachusetts, where US Senate candidate Coakley is strongly opposed to all forms of online gaming, is higher than in other states, and the setback would not discourage the organisation from pursuing similar initiatives in other states.

Pappas said: “The way they were structuring it in Massachusetts made a lot of sense. We are continuing to work vigorously on the federal level, but as the opportunities arise at the state level, we will seize on those as and when they make sense.”

The PPA’s model, in which residents would be able to play with any poker site licensed in a recognised jurisdiction provided they use a state-licensed payment processor, would be an alternative for states without the population to support an intra-state poker network similar to that being proposed in states such as California, said Pappas.

“We thought it was the best way we could get online poker licensed and regulated and for the state to collect the revenue, while not limiting the benefits to states with sufficient population to support an intrastate network,” said Pappas of the initiative, which was introduced by the PPA’s Massachusetts representative Randy Castonguay.

As reported on EGRMagazine.com, a bill legalising intrastate online poker in California will now not be presented to the legislature until next year after the tribe spearheading the proposal withdrew it following strong opposition from other tribes.