As a 48-year-old Park City resident and lifelong Republican, I find Utah’s approach to sports betting difficult to reconcile with limited government and personal responsibility.
Sen. Brady Brammer, Senate sponsor of HB243, which explicitly included proposition bets in Utah’s gambling definition, recently responded to my concerns by explaining that limited government does not mean no government. He also distinguished being a Republican from being a libertarian and cited his obligation to uphold Utah’s Constitution.
I proposed to him regulation and consumer protections. Asking the government to justify a blanket prohibition hardly amounts to demanding no government.
Republicans routinely criticize the “nanny state”— the government substituting its judgment for that of competent adults. Yet when Utah prohibits an adult from placing a modest football wager, how is that principle being honored?
Personal responsibility requires room to exercise judgment, including making choices elected officials dislike. Otherwise, individual liberty becomes permission granted selectively by the state.
Gambling can cause serious harm. That warrants age verification, advertising restrictions, self-exclusion, treatment, and enforceable consumer protections. It also warrants examining whether prohibition works better than regulation.
Sen. Brammer’s constitutional argument explains the existing legal framework. It does not explain why that framework should remain unchanged. Respecting a constitution includes respecting its amendment process.
An archaic restriction deserves scrutiny, even when defending it is politically comfortable. Utah lawmakers should explain why this prohibition remains necessary and let voters consider a regulated alternative.
If limited government is a governing principle, it must apply beyond choices legislators personally approve of. Otherwise, the promise of individual freedom rings hollow.
Matt White, Park City