State lawmakers sought to shuttle a number of big ticket bills to Gov. Deval Patrick’s desk this week before taking off for a seven-week recess. Approving the licensing of casinos was at the top of the list as Beacon Hill pols engaged the now-familiar ritual of last-minute lawmaking.

The compromise bill speeding to his office allows for three casinos across the state and one slot parlor. The House and Senate both gave preliminary sign-offs to the bill. The Senate’s vote was 23 to 14, while House members voted 118 to 33.

In the Senate, Dorchester’s delegation was split, as was the case in past votes on other casino bills that died before reaching the governor.

Pro-casino lawmakers, who have largely dominated within the delegation, have long touted casinos as an economic boon for the Bay State, paving the way for construction jobs and pouring cash into strained state coffers.

Sen. Jack Hart (D-South Boston) voted for the bill, while Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Jamaica Plain Democrat whose district includes a sliver of Dorchester, opposed it. “It’s a tax on the poor,” Chang-Diaz said. “Fundamentally, I object to that as a way to balance our budget.”

But Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan) said gambling is already in place in Massachusetts through scratch tickets. “I believe we can’t stop people from gambling,” he said. “We have had constituents choosing to get on buses, drive, gamble outside the state.”

The Dorchester delegation in the House appeared to agree: Reps. Marty Walsh, Linda Dorcena Forry, Nick Collins and Carlos Henriquez all joined Holmes in voting for the bill, a top priority for House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

The gambling bill contains attempts at compromise on several controversial issues, including whether a city should be able to hold a referendum on hosting a casino. The bill originally limited the referendum to the ward in which a proposed casino would be located.

The bill’s language now punts the decision on whether to hold a city-wide or ward-only referendum to a “local governing body” – in Boston’s case, the 13-member City Council.

The compromise bill, which House and Senate negotiators hashed out and released on Monday night, also dropped an attempt to revive “Happy Hour.” The practice of allowing bars to discount alcoholic drinks or give them away has been banned since 1984. “I was happy to see it come out of the bill,” Holmes said, adding that keeping it in would have increased drunk driving incidents. The bill now allows for free drinks to be limited to the casino floor. Chang-Diaz argued that won’t be enough, and local small businesses around the casino will still take a hit in revenue.

Under the compromise, lawmakers will also be prevented from working in the industry for a year after they leave public office, under the compromise. Rep. Forry said that lawmakers are already prevented from immediately leaving for the biotechnology and green energy industries and must wait a year. “I think it’s good to keep it consistent,” she said.

The Senate debate in September over a similar provision – which would have restricted lawmakers from working in the casino industry for five years – was marked by acrimony, with some lawmakers viewing the amendment as an attack on their integrity.

As the Reporter went to press, last-minute changes were still being made to the bill, which was still expected to hit the governor’s desk yesterday.

Lawmakers also rushed through bills dealing with transgender rights and reworking Congressional districts to reflect a shift in the state’s population and the resulting downgrade to nine districts from ten.

The Dorchester delegation supported the transgender rights bill, which has long stalled on Beacon Hill despite widespread support. The Senate signed off on the bill, which places transgender men and women under the state’s anti-discrimination laws, without a roll call and the House passed it in a 95-58 vote.

Lawmakers dropped a provision that included a right to public accommodation after opponents had argued that men would be allowed into women’s bathrooms if passed. Bill proponents had repeatedly dismissed the argument.

Rep. Holmes said he was backing the transgender rights bill. “It’s not very controversial to me that we would say we should not discriminate against people,” he said.

Opponents said the bill would negatively impact small businesses. “The lack of clarity is going to create havoc for business owners and individuals who are trying to earn a living and comply with the law,” said Sheila Harrington (R-Groton), according to the State House News Service.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Material from State House News Service was used in this report. Check out updates to Boston’s political scene at The Lit Drop, located at dotnews.com/litdrop. Follow us on Twitter: @LitDrop and @gintautasd.