More than half of states restrict betting on elections

(Pew Research Center photo illustration; images via Getty Images) More than half of states have laws that prohibit betting or wagering on elections, at least under certain circumstances, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). This analysis comes amid a recent surge in trading volume on prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket. Both platforms allow people to trade on real-life events, including elections, by buying contracts staked on yes-or-no outcomes. This differs from traditional betting or gambling, where a central party – the “house” – sets odds of a particular outcome happening. About this research This Pew Research Center analysis examines state-level efforts to regulate election betting and prediction markets. Why did we do this? Pew Research Center does research to help the public, media and decision-makers understand important topics. This research builds on our recent work on gambling and the broader prediction economy – including U.S. attitudes toward sports betting and views on the morality of gambling around the world. Learn more about Pew Research Center. How did we do this? This analysis is primarily based on information compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization that represents state legislatures around the U.S. and tracks state-level policymaking. Some information comes from the Center’s own analysis of state laws. Our analysis of state-level regulations excludes states whose laws do not explicitly mention election betting. As a result, some states that have broad laws on gambling – but do not have statutes that specifically address election betting – are in the “no explicit law” category. Several states, such as Arizona and Kentucky, recently have taken legal action against the companies behind prediction markets for allegedly violating their laws against election betting. Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have also introduced bills that specifically aim to regulate prediction markets in some way. Federal regulators contend that platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket allow people to trade financial products – not place bets – so they should be exempt from state-level gambling bans. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sued several states to prevent them from regulating prediction markets. Related: Trading volume on prediction markets has soared in recent months Which states prohibit election betting in some way? Nearly half of states (23) prohibit election betting entirely, according to our analysis of NCSL data. For example, Arkansas law says “no person shall make any bet or wager upon the result of any election” in the state. Kentucky also banned the practice this year. Another nine states vary in how they regulate election betting and the exact circumstances under which it’s illegal. Election betting is illegal in some or all circumstances in 32 states Status of election betting under state laws, as of June 2026 Note: Some states in the “No explicit law” category have general laws banning unauthorized gambling and betting, as well as laws regulating prediction markets broadly, but do not have laws that specifically reference election betting. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Election betting is illegal in some or all circumstances in 32 states Status of election betting under state laws, as of June 2026 StateElection betting legalityFIPSAlabamaNo explicit law1AlaskaNo explicit law2ArizonaEntirely illegal4ArkansasEntirely illegal5CaliforniaNo explicit law6ColoradoEntirely illegal8ConnecticutNo explicit law9DelawareEntirely illegal10District of ColumbiaNo explicit law11FloridaNo explicit law12GeorgiaEntirely illegal13HawaiiNo explicit law15IdahoEntirely illegal16IllinoisEntirely illegal17IndianaIllegal in some scenarios18IowaIllegal in some scenarios19KansasNo explicit law20KentuckyEntirely illegal21LouisianaEntirely illegal22MaineNo explicit law23MarylandEntirely illegal24MassachusettsIllegal in some scenarios25MichiganEntirely illegal26MinnesotaNo explicit law27MississippiEntirely illegal28MissouriNo explicit law29MontanaNo explicit law30NebraskaEntirely illegal31NevadaEntirely illegal32New HampshireNo explicit law33New JerseyEntirely illegal34New MexicoNo explicit law35New YorkEntirely illegal36North CarolinaEntirely illegal37North DakotaIllegal in some scenarios38OhioNo explicit law39OklahomaEntirely illegal40OregonIllegal in some scenarios41PennsylvaniaIllegal in some scenarios42Rhode IslandIllegal in some scenarios44South CarolinaEntirely illegal45South DakotaIllegal in some scenarios46TennesseeEntirely illegal47TexasEntirely illegal48UtahEntirely illegal49VermontNo explicit law50VirginiaNo explicit law51WashingtonNo explicit law53West VirginiaIllegal in some scenarios54WisconsinEntirely illegal55WyomingNo explicit law56 Note: Some states in the “No explicit law” category have general laws banning unauthorized gambling and betting, as well as laws regulating prediction markets broadly, but do not have laws that specifically reference election betting. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. PEW RESEARCH CENTER The remaining 18 states and the District of Columbia do not have any laws about election betting specifically, though some have broader regulations that state officials say encompass election betting. In at least some states, the earliest versions of these regulations date back to the 19th century. An Idaho statute from 1887, for example, made election betting a misdemeanor – three years before the territory officially became a state. In some of the nine states with partial restrictions on election betting, it is illegal for people in certain positions to wager on elections. In Oregon, for instance, candidates for office can’t bet on their own contest. Other states, such as South Dakota, criminalize election betting only when its intention is to disrupt people from voting or influence people’s choices in an election. Iowa, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island penalize bookmakers, “pool sellers” and other people who organize or administer election-betting schemes – but not people who simply place bets or wagers. Penalties for election betting also vary across the country. In most states where the practice is unlawful, it’s considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, incarceration or both. But other states, such as Illinois and Nebraska, may prosecute election betting as a felony depending on the circumstances, such as the amount of money involved or the accused person’s previous gambling offenses. Utah considers it a felony if a candidate in an election is the person who makes a bet. A handful of states impose additional penalties for people convicted of betting on elections. Delaware and New York strip violators of the right to vote, and Wisconsin makes it unlawful for people who bet on an election to vote in that particular race. More commonly, states prevent people convicted of election betting from holding certain positions. That’s the case in Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where a conviction for or history of election betting bars people from serving as election officials or poll workers. Arkansas bans people convicted of election betting from holding any state office or being employed by the state. Which states are moving to regulate prediction markets? Lawmakers in at least 16 states have introduced legislation this year to regulate prediction markets in some way, according to NCSL. Some of those bills, if passed, would put restrictions on whether prediction markets can operate in the state and who can use them to make trades, including on elections. The majority of the states that introduced legislation on prediction markets this year already regulate election betting. In May, Minnesota became the first state to prohibit Kalshi, Polymarket and similar platforms statewide. The law includes some exceptions: for example, people can still make trades on weather and on event contracts that could double as insurance policies, allowing them to hedge against risky outcomes. The federal government has sued to block the Minnesota ban. At least 16 states have attempted to regulate prediction markets in 2026 Status of state bills about prediction markets, as of June 2026 Note: Map does not account for executive actions by a governor. Some states that have enacted bills may have additional bills pending or additional bills that failed. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. PEW RESEARCH CENTER At least 16 states have attempted to regulate prediction markets in 2026 Status of state bills about prediction markets, as of June 2026 StateStatus of legislation in 2026FIPSAlabamaNone1AlaskaNone2ArizonaNone4ArkansasNone5CaliforniaOne or more bills pending6ColoradoNone8ConnecticutBill failed9DelawareNone10District of ColumbiaNone11FloridaNone12GeorgiaBill failed13HawaiiOne or more bills pending15IdahoNone16IllinoisOne or more bills pending17IndianaNone18IowaOne or more bills pending19KansasNone20KentuckyMultiple bills enacted21LouisianaNone22MaineNone23MarylandNone24MassachusettsNone25MichiganNone26MinnesotaOne bill enacted27MississippiNone28MissouriNone29MontanaNone30NebraskaNone31NevadaNone32New HampshireNone33New JerseyOne or more bills pending34New MexicoNone35New YorkOne or more bills pending36North CarolinaOne or more bills pending37North DakotaNone38OhioOne or more bills pending39OklahomaNone40OregonNone41PennsylvaniaOne or more bills pending42Rhode IslandNone44South CarolinaNone45South DakotaNone46TennesseeOne bill enacted47TexasNone48UtahNone49VermontOne or more bills pending50VirginiaBill failed, one or more bills pending51WashingtonNone53West VirginiaNone54WisconsinNone55WyomingNone56 Note: Map does not account for executive actions by a governor. Some states that have enacted bills may have additional bills pending or additional bills that failed. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. PEW RESEARCH CENTER Kentucky and Tennessee have also enacted legislation related to prediction markets this year. In addition to an election betting ban, Kentucky lawmakers in April levied a tax on prediction market operators and prohibited associations from contracting with prediction markets to offer event contracts. In May, Tennessee passed a bill that makes it a felony for a person to attempt to influence the outcome of an event while having made a prediction market trade related to that event. In at least 12 states, bills related to prediction markets are still pending. And in at least four states, such bills have failed to become law. These state-level bills address a variety of topics related to prediction markets. Some aim to put age restrictions on prediction market sites. Others aim to prohibit state officials and employees from using prediction markets. And a few propose subjecting prediction markets to certain regulatory frameworks or licensing requirements. In addition to legislative efforts, some governors have taken executive action to regulate prediction markets. Executive orders in Maryland and New York, for instance, prohibit state employees from engaging in insider trading on prediction market platforms.