In the ongoing legal battle over the Cedar Rapids Casino in Iowa, a judge has declined Riverside Casino & Golf Resort’s request to temporarily halt the casino’s license.
However, Eighth Judicial District Judge Michael Schilling suggested that the 2021 Linn County ballot measure in which voters approved the Cedar Rapids project may have contained misleading language. He added that Riverside has a “reasonable likelihood of success” in challenging the validity of the ballot. As a result, Schilling set an early April hearing to consider arguments.
Riverside fails to prove IRGC negligence
The Cedar Rapids casino project has been underway in Linn County for 11 years. In July 2024, after a two-year moratorium on gambling expansion expired, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) approved a timeline for the project and scheduled a final vote for Feb. 6, 2025.
The casino faced strong opposition, including some lawmakers and neighboring casinos like Riverside. Rep. Bobby Kaufmann tried to stop it by introducing a bill to put a moratorium on new casino licenses for an additional five years. However, after the proposal failed in the Senate earlier this year, IRGC approved the project.
Riverside, located 30 miles from the planned casino, argued that the commission lacked the authority to grant the license. The plaintiff also argued IRGC failed to consider the negative impact it would cause adequately. The plaintiff claimed it would lose millions in annual revenue. That could force the casino to lay off up to 200 employees.
Judge Schilling ruled that Riverside didn’t “preliminarily establish” that the commission ignored its economic concerns. Instead, he noted that the IRGC reviewed market studies and assessed Riverside’s financial impact before granting the license. Some of the studies estimated that the plaintiff could lose $16.6 million in annual revenue. However, the new casino could bring in $80.2 million in new revenue.
Judge questions 2021 ballot language
Schilling said that Riverside did “preliminarily” establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that the 2021 ballot was defective. That measure was the second time voters approved a casino in the county after an initial vote in 2013.
Riverside’s legal challenge centers around the wording of Public Measure G. The measure asked voters whether gambling “may continue” in the county. The plaintiff argued that this was misleading, as Linn County had no active gambling license at the time. The 2013 approval had expired, and no casino was operational. So Riverside raised the question of how gambling could “continue” if IRGC hadn’t issued a license.
The judge found that the ballot design presented to voters differed from what the Linn County Board of Supervisors had approved. This could mean that the final ballot did not represent the true intentions of elected officials.
Moreover, Schilling noted the ballot described the approved gambling activities as “gambling games with no wager or loss limits.” However, according to the judge’s ruling, the phrase refers only to “a subset of the gambling games allowed by Iowa law.” Schilling said in the ruling:
Arguably, the Linn County voters approved only gambling games with no wager or loss limits, not a broader spectrum of gambling games.
If an inconsistency exists between what the voters approved and the license the (commission) issues, the question arises whether the license reflects the will of the voting public.
About the Author
