Eliminate the restriction on selling a lottery ticket through a vending or dispensing device under the State Lottery Act

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a small, single-subject amendment to Nebraska's lottery law. It lifts one sales ban and leaves the rest of the section alone.

• Amends section 9-829, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska, part of the State Lottery Act.
• Removes the ban on selling lottery tickets through a vending or dispensing device.
• Keeps the rule that a retailer sells only on the premises stated in its contract.
• Keeps the bans on telephone sales, mail sales, and retailer-extended credit.
• Section 2 repeals the original section 9-829, the routine step when amending a statute.
• Contains no appropriation, no fee, and no dollar figure of any kind.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

The title matches what the operative sections do. One wrinkle: the statutory text as printed here still shows the sentence supposedly being deleted.

• Title promises to eliminate the vending or dispensing device restriction; section 1 targets exactly that.
• The enacting clause names the same object: the prohibition inside section 9-829.
• Section 2's repeal of the original section is standard amendatory practice, not extra policy.
• The amended text shown still contains the vending sentence, with no strike marks visible.
• Nothing in the bill reaches beyond section 9-829 or the State Lottery Act.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

The question underneath this bill is not whether a lottery may exist — Nebraska has already settled that — but whether the state should make buying a ticket easier, and who bears the cost when it does. Scripture is sharp about commerce arranged so that the people with the least end up paying the most: Amos indicts merchants who scheme 'That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat?' (Amos 8:6). That verse condemns a posture toward the poor, not a piece of machinery, and it settles very little here. It does not say whether a ticket dispensed by a machine is different in kind from one handed over by a clerk, whether state-run lotteries are a different case than private trade, whether the people who would use such a machine are in fact the needy, or whether removing this one restriction would change how much anyone spends. It supplies a standard for judging the result, not a prediction of what the result will be.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is over convenience and sales volume versus control of who buys tickets and how easily.

• For: Machines let players buy tickets without a clerk, throughout a retailer's open hours.
• For: The premises, telephone, mail, and credit restrictions in section 9-829 all survive untouched.
• For: It is narrow, striking one sentence rather than rewriting the State Lottery Act.
• Against: That sentence was the only bar to machine sales within section 9-829.
• Against: The bill sets no age check, placement limit, or supervision rule for machines.
• Against: Easier access can mean more play, a consequence the text neither addresses nor limits.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading covers only the words of LB60. Much of how machine sales would actually work sits outside the text.

• The bill never defines "vending or dispensing device" or sets any device standard.
• No age-verification requirement for machine sales appears anywhere in the bill.
• No effective date is stated; the text shows only Governor approval on February 9, 2026.
• The bill grants no rulemaking power and names no agency to write machine rules.
• No fiscal effect is stated: no revenue estimate, no cost figure, no appropriation.
• Confirming the deletion requires the strike-through markup, which this plain-text copy does not show.

Text (3)

• Final Reading (application/pdf)
• Introduced (application/pdf)
• Slip Law (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (13)

Votes (2)

Every roll call as the Legislature recorded it, with each member's vote by name.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Dan Quick [District 35] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (3)

• Committee Statement — Committee Statement
• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB60.