Oversight Hearing Erupts Over Gaming Machines, Board Authority

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 08/25/2026) With minutes left in today's House Oversight Committee hearing over disputed gaming machines, Minority Vice Chair Reggie Miller (D-Belleville) asked Chair Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay) why lawmakers were still debating what is legal when bills intended to settle the question remain stalled.

“Get to the point,” Miller said.

Miller pointed to three pieces of legislation dealing with illegal gaming machines, including one that would update Michigan’s definition of a slot machine, HB 6068, and a package sponsored by DeBoyer and Rep. Will Snyder (D-Muskegon), HB 4494 and HB 4495. She asked whether DeBoyer had urged House leadership to put the bills up for a vote.

DeBoyer agreed with her sentiments and said there had been ongoing conversations.

The exchange capped more than an hour of testimony in which several House Republicans accused the Michigan Gaming Control Board of government overreach, questioned its authority to investigate certain machines and challenged its conclusion that games marketed as skill-based are actually illegal games of chance.

At the center of the dispute are redemption or skill games found in some bars, restaurants and veterans organizations. The Gaming Control Board has authority over gambling games, including slot machines, while state law exempts certain redemption games that rely primarily on skill and meet other statutory requirements.

The issue first came before the committee in June, after local bars and VFW halls said they felt targeted by the board over machines in their establishments. Board representatives were limited to around 10 minutes of testimony then, prompting DeBoyer to invite them back today to respond.

So today, Gaming Control Board External Affairs Director Jasmine Tompkins brought statutes, cease-and-desist letters and other materials laying out the board’s authority, and challenged claims made at the prior hearing that the machines in question rely on skill and dexterity.

The board also played a video comparing a legal casino slot machine with a Diamond Skill Fusion 2 machine seized during an investigation. Staff showed that when a potential winning spin appeared, the machine directed the player to “raise” or “lower” a symbol and would not allow another spin until that prompted move was made.

The board’s position was that the player's interaction did not determine the outcome; it only completed a result the machine had already selected, therefore meaning that no skill was used.

DeBoyer repeatedly cited a prior court ruling involving a “Red Hot Buffalo” game, where the judge found Gaming Control Board investigators had failed to account for features requiring player interaction and said testimony acknowledging some element of skill undercut the state’s argument that the machine involved chance alone.

Criminal Investigation Section Manager John Lessnau argued that the ruling did not mean any amount of skill makes a machine legal. He also pushed back on characterizing the case as a settled loss, saying the attorney general had filed a motion seeking to have the charges reconsidered or reestablished.

DeBoyer’s questioning then turned to the board’s authority to investigate and assist the Attorney General’s Office in removing machines. The exchange became tense when DeBoyer accused Lessnau of laughing while discussing the consequences for business owners.

Lessnau denied laughing, but DeBoyer said the situation was not funny because it involved “screwing with people’s lives.” When Lessnau said that was not the board’s intent, DeBoyer responded that intent did not change the result and later called the situation “government out of control.”

Tompkins repeatedly stressed that the board has not taken enforcement action against veterans organizations, though DeBoyer said groups like American Legion posts still feel threatened by the state’s actions.

The temperature spiked when Rep. Angela Rigas (R-Caledonia) accused the board of using vague laws to intimidate business owners and veterans organizations.

Rigas also told Tompkins she was “out of touch” and had been “very bold” and “very intimidating” in their letters.

When Tompkins asked what she meant by that, Rigas clarified that she was referring to the way she had conducted herself during the hearing. She told her to “take your level of authority down a little bit.”

Tompkins replied, “I don’t want to argue.”

“I’m not arguing,” Rigas said. “I’m stating the facts.”

After Tompkins offered to meet with business owners in Rigas’ district, she responded: “I think that the business owners in my area probably wouldn’t want you at their door because of your demeanor. Thank you. That is all.”

The back-and-forth drew shocked expressions around the room and an audible reaction from members of the audience.

Democrats focused more on how the machines operate, whether the law should be clarified and whether enforcement should target manufacturers rather than businesses hosting the machines.

Rep. Dylan Wegela (D-Garden City) asked who regulates the machines’ payouts and whether Michigan receives revenue from them. Board officials said the machines are not regulated like legal casino games and that manufacturers or operators can adjust payout percentages.

“The reason I bring this up is I would argue that that game could potentially just be a straight-up scam,” Wegela said, questioning how players could know the odds they face and how such machines could be considered games of skill when payout settings are controlled behind the scenes.

Tompkins said legislation could be part of the answer and pointed to an existing bill that would update Michigan’s definition of a slot machine.

Rep. Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia) also asked how enforcement could focus farther upstream on manufacturers, but after watching the questioning of Tompkins, she turned her attention to the committee itself.

“I would just hope that we encourage our members to treat these people with respect,” Pohutsky told DeBoyer. “There were some really egregious displays.”

Pohutsky noted that three Gaming Control Board officials were seated at the witness table but said much of the criticism had been directed specifically at Tompkins.

“For whatever reason, we’ve only been really attacking Jasmine,” she said, “And I think that that is just really, really gross and should be above this committee.”

DeBoyer later summed up his objection as broader than the machines themselves.

“It isn’t about games, although it isn’t about the money. It is about the authority of the government,” he said, arguing that an independent entity rather than the Gaming Control Board should determine whether disputed machines comply with state law.

For veterans organizations, however, the dispute also has a direct financial impact.

Dave Harvy of Post 140 said the machines account for roughly 10% of his post’s revenue, money he said is used to help veterans avoid homelessness or foreclosure and to support community programs.

“We’re just in fear that the Michigan Gaming Control Board is coming after these games, as we believe are legal, because, as you’ve heard there, it’s questionable what is legal and what isn’t,” Harvy told MIRS.

Owners of Red Horse Bar also spoke with MIRS and said the dispute has hurt sales and forced them into repeated court fights, leaving them feeling “treated as criminals.”

The full transcript from the hearing can be found here.