Ohio bill would define trading election event contracts as gambling

Ohio Senate Bill 479 would rewrite the state’s gambling definitions so that knowingly using a prediction market to trade an event contract based on an election counts as “election gambling,” which the bill adds to its definition of a “scheme of chance” covered by Ohio’s gambling chapter.

The bill was introduced on Oct. 13, 2026, and referred to the Senate General Government Committee on Nov. 10, the Ohio Legislature’s status page shows. Sen. William P. DeMora is the primary sponsor, with Sens. Nickie J. Antonio, Willis E. Blackshear Jr. and Casey Weinstein as cosponsors.

What the bill says

SB 479 amends one section, 2915.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, the definitions section of the state’s gambling chapter. It defines “election gambling” in two parts. The first covers ordinary bets: “To knowingly offer, accept, place, or otherwise become a party to a bet that is based on the result of, or any other event or contingency relating to, an election,” including the margin.

The second part is aimed at prediction markets. It reads: “To knowingly use a prediction market to acquire, sell, or trade an event contract, or otherwise knowingly become a party to an event contract, that is based on the result of, or any other event or contingency relating to, an election, including the degree to or margin by which a candidate or question or issue was, or is projected to be, elected, approved, or defeated.”

The bill also defines three terms. An “event contract” is “an instrument that provides for payment based on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency.” A “prediction market” is “a system that allows a person to acquire, sell, or trade event contracts.” An “election” covers primary, general and special elections, political conventions, nominations and appointments, as well as candidates, questions and issues.

The wording reaches margin and projection contracts, not only who wins. And the prediction-market clause is written around the person who trades: it covers anyone who knowingly uses a prediction market to acquire, sell or trade such a contract.

SB 479 sets no penalty of its own. Ohio’s existing gambling statute, section 2915.02, bars anyone from establishing, promoting or operating a scheme of chance, or knowingly engaging in conduct that facilitates one, and it defines facilitating to include “playing any such game or scheme.” A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor, or a fifth-degree felony for someone previously convicted of a gambling offense.

The sports companion, SB 430

DeMora’s earlier bill, SB 430, takes a different route for sports. Introduced on April 27, 2026, and referred to the Senate Select Committee on Gaming on May 13, it would add to Ohio’s definition of “sports gaming” this sentence: “‘Sports gaming’ includes the use of a prediction market to acquire, sell, or trade an event contract that is contingent on the outcome of a sporting event.”

Its definition of an event contract is shorter than SB 479’s: “an instrument that provides for payment based on the occurrence of an event or contingency.”

Rather than calling sports contracts a prohibited scheme of chance, SB 430 would pull them into the licensed sports gaming system run by the Ohio Casino Control Commission. In the penalty section as the bill would rewrite it, knowingly operating “sports gaming that is not authorized sports gaming” is a fifth-degree felony on a first offense and a fourth-degree felony on a subsequent offense.

Where the bills stand

As of Nov. 11, 2026, neither bill has been reported out of committee, and neither has had a floor vote. DeMora (D-Columbus) told SBC Americas, in a report published Nov. 3, that he would try again: “I will be bringing most of the bills I have introduced on several different subject matters back in 2027.”

The General Assembly returns for a lame-duck session this month, and legislation that doesn’t pass has to be reintroduced from scratch when the new two-year cycle starts in January 2027, SBC Americas reported.

DeMora tied the push to the Sixth Circuit’s September decision against Kalshi in the Ohio and Tennessee cases, which we covered here. “The Sixth Circuit ruled that states can regulate predictive markets like sports gambling, which they are,” the senator said. “It’s time.”

Since that ruling, the commission has sent cease-and-desist letters over sports event contracts, and five firms have agreed to stop offering them in Ohio as of Nov. 6, per the regulator. SB 430 would write sports event contracts into Ohio’s sports gaming law. SB 479 turns to election contracts, with a definition written around the person who trades them.

Neither bill changes Ohio law unless it passes both chambers and is enacted.

Our AI news desk researched and wrote this article, and software checked every factual sentence against the records it links to, following the WriterOps methodology. Report an error.