The future of a proposed $275 million casino in Cedar Rapids now hinges on a legal interpretation of a two-word phrase in a 2021 ballot measure, as a district judge weighs arguments presented by parties for and against the contentious development.

Judge Michael Schilling of Iowa’s Eighth Judicial District presided over final arguments Wednesday at a neutral venue in Mount Pleasant, where attorneys representing Riverside Casino & Golf Resort, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, and the Linn County Gaming Association presented their cases. At the heart of the debate is the validity of Public Measure G, a 2021 referendum in which Linn County voters approved gambling to “continue” in the county — despite there being no active casino operations at the time.

Riverside Challenges Referendum Wording

Attorneys for Riverside Casino, located in nearby Washington County, argue that the ballot language was fundamentally flawed and therefore cannot lawfully serve as a basis for issuing a gaming license to the Cedar Rapids-based project. Riverside, which could suffer significant financial losses if the proposed Cedar Crossing Casino moves forward, contends that the wording “may continue” misled voters.

“In a county where there was no gambling going on, a proposition requiring the approval or defeat of gambling games should ask the voters to approve the commencement or initiation of gambling,” Riverside attorney Mark Weinhardt argued. “It can’t ask them to continue existing gambling games” that didn’t exist.

Weinhardt described the ballot language as “defective” and “affirmatively misled people,” suggesting that even if voters were generally aware of the project, the precise phrasing may have confused them. Riverside’s attorneys maintain this alleged ambiguity invalidates the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission’s February 2024 decision to grant a license to the Linn County Gaming Association.

Defenders of the License Reject Confusion Claims

In contrast, attorneys for the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission and Cedar Rapids developers strongly rejected the claim that the 2021 vote was misleading.

Sam Jones, representing the Linn County Gaming Association, emphasized the long history of public engagement around legalized gambling in the area, citing a decade of public discourse, media attention, and voter awareness leading up to the referendum.

“There were 420 written comments that were submitted to the Gaming Commission both in favor and in opposition to the license,” Jones said. “Notably, none of those comments expressed confusion about the language of Public Measure G or suggested that others may have been confused by it.”

Attorney Jeff Peterzalek, arguing for the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, underscored that voters had already authorized gambling in Linn County in 2013. “Number one, the voters have to say no. Number two, voters in Linn County have never said no in Linn County since the 2013 referendum,” he stated.

Even if the 2021 ballot language was not perfect, Peterzalek argued, it still cannot be interpreted as a rejection. “There isn’t any way to look at the vote of over 24,000 Linn County voters who voted in favor of gambling and say those 24,000+ yes votes are an unequivocal no vote,” he said.

Stakes High for Both Sides

If upheld, the license allows the Cedar Crossing Casino & Entertainment Center to move forward with construction. The proposed facility would house 700 slot machines, 22 table games, a sportsbook, restaurants, bars, a 1,500-seat performance venue, a cultural center, and a STEM learning lab. The venue is expected to open by late 2026.

Two independent market analyses commissioned by state regulators concluded that while Cedar Crossing would primarily draw revenue from other Iowa casinos — including Riverside — it would also generate approximately $60 million in new net gambling revenue each year for the state.

Riverside argues that such a loss in revenue could cost the casino over 200 jobs. Meanwhile, backers of the Cedar Rapids project believe the development would stimulate the local economy and attract new visitors.

Mayor, Developers Defend Voter Awareness

Cedar Rapids Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell, a vocal supporter of the project, attended the hearing and took issue with Riverside’s characterization of the 2021 vote. She called the argument “an incredible insult” to the voters’ intelligence, noting that public discourse around gambling had been extensive.

Anne Parmley, president of the Linn County Gaming Association, echoed that sentiment. “I feel confident that Linn County voters were fully aware of what they were voting for, and I would say that there’s even more support today (than in 2021) now that people have realized the impact that Cedar Crossing can have on our community,” she said.

Judicial Ruling Expected Soon

Although Iowa law gives Judge Schilling up to 60 days to issue a decision, he signaled a faster timeline. “I’m not going to issue any promises as to precisely when I rule, but I’ll be giving this case my full and complete attention for the coming days because it is a challenge,” he said in court, according to The Gazzette.

In a March decision, Schilling declined to halt the casino license on a temporary basis but acknowledged Riverside had demonstrated a “reasonable likelihood of success” in its challenge. He also remarked that the ballot language may have created some voter confusion.

As the legal proceedings draw to a close, stakeholders on all sides await a ruling that could either greenlight Cedar Crossing’s development or send the project back to the drawing board.