A group of Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire is urging the state Supreme Court to hear an appeal from former state senator Andy Sanborn, whose Concord Casino license was revoked in November. The decision, steeped in allegations of financial misconduct, has ignited discussions about its impact on state finances, charitable organisations, and gaming policy.
A Fight Over Concord Casino’s Future
Andy Sanborn, a former Republican senator, has filed an appeal arguing that the state acted improperly in revoking his casino license. The revocation stemmed from accusations that Sanborn misused $844,000 in pandemic relief funds. While Sanborn asserts he was on track to sell the casino before the state’s deadline, regulators rejected his buyer’s application for a new license, citing issues with the proposed financing.
The Concord Casino has remained closed since January 2024, leaving its future uncertain. Sanborn’s appeal seeks to overturn the decision, enabling the potential sale of the casino and its reopening under new management. However, the state Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will take up the case.
Lawmakers Weigh In
In a court filing, House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, Senator Keith Murphy, and Representative Joe Sweeney called on the Supreme Court to address the matter. Their support is rooted not in backing Sanborn personally, but in the broader implications for New Hampshire’s financial health.
“Charitable gaming is a cornerstone of New Hampshire’s economy and charitable sector,” the lawmakers noted in their filing. They highlighted the substantial revenue gaming generates for state and local budgets, as well as the critical funding it provides for charitable organisations.
Why It Matters:
- Economic Benefits: In November alone, charitable gaming contributed over $3 million to state and local charities, according to the New Hampshire Lottery Commission.
- Future Growth: While Concord Casino’s contributions have historically been smaller, the potential buyer’s proposed expansion plans could increase revenue significantly.
- Moratorium on Licenses: A recently enacted seven-year freeze on new casino licenses makes the Concord Casino’s license particularly valuable. Losing it could mean the loss of revenue opportunities for years to come.
Revocation Sparks Debate
The controversy began when the New Hampshire Lottery Commission and the Attorney General’s Office ordered Sanborn to sell Concord Casino by November 2023. The directive followed allegations of financial misconduct related to pandemic relief loans. Despite claiming he was prepared to sell the casino to a new owner, state regulators declined to grant the buyer a license.
Sanborn’s legal team argues that the revocation decision was overly punitive and inconsistent with legal standards. The appeal seeks a Supreme Court review of the process followed by the Lottery Commission and Attorney General’s Office. Both agencies maintain that their actions were justified and lawful.
The Broader Stakes
Beyond the specifics of Sanborn’s case, the lawmakers’ filing underscores the broader implications for New Hampshire’s economy. Gaming revenue supports numerous local charities and is a key source of funding for state programs, including education. Many charities rely almost entirely on gaming proceeds to sustain their operations.
The lawmakers also argue that rejecting the appeal could discourage future investment in charitable gaming ventures, potentially harming the state’s ability to maintain low taxes and robust public services.
What Happens Next?
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will take up the appeal. If the case moves forward, it could set a precedent for how gaming licenses are managed and contested in the state. Meanwhile, the Concord Casino’s closure leaves a gap in the gaming landscape—and in the charitable funding ecosystem.
The decision will have ripple effects for years to come, shaping not only the future of Concord Casino but also the broader gaming policy in New Hampshire. For now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court as the state waits to see whether the case will move forward.
Leave a Reply