Iowa: Judge questions Cedar Rapids casino ballot wording but declines stay

A judge has raised concerns over the wording of a ballot measure that paved the way for a casino in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, but declined to temporarily block the project’s license, allowing development to proceed for now.  

Eighth Judicial District Judge Michael Schilling ruled that Riverside Casino & Golf Resort, a competing casino in Washington County, has a “reasonable likelihood of success” in its legal challenge against the 2021 referendum that authorized gambling in Linn County.

Schilling stated that the ballot’s language may have “caused confusion in the mind of the voters” but determined that Riverside had not demonstrated it would suffer “irreparable injury” if the casino’s license remained in place during the legal proceedings.  

The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) voted 4-1 on Feb. 6 to grant a gambling license to the Linn County Gaming Association after more than a decade of failed attempts to bring a casino to Cedar Rapids.  

The planned $275 million Cedar Crossing Casino & Entertainment Center will be built in northwest Cedar Rapids and will include 700 slot machines, 22 gaming tables, restaurants, bars, an arts and cultural center, a STEM lab, and a 1,500-seat entertainment venue.  

However, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort, located about 40 miles south, opposes the new license, arguing that the Cedar Rapids casino could cost it millions in revenue losses and up to 200 jobs. Riverside also warned that local nonprofit groups that benefit from its gambling proceeds could see significant funding cuts.  

Riverside’s legal challenge centers on the 2021 Linn County referendum, which asked voters whether gambling “may continue” in the county. Riverside contends the wording was misleading because no gambling license had ever been issued in Linn County—raising doubts about how gambling could "continue."  

Judge Schilling also found that the ballot design presented to voters differed from what was approved by the Linn County Board of Supervisors, adding another layer of legal uncertainty.  

Additionally, the ballot described gambling as “games with no wager or loss limits”, which Schilling noted was only a subset of the gambling games permitted under Iowa law.  

“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,” Schilling wrote in his ruling.  

While declining to issue a stay, the judge scheduled a full hearing for early April to consider the case in greater detail.  

At the time the IRGC approved the Cedar Rapids casino, Commission Chair Daryl Olsen defended the decision, stating that, after consulting legal counsel, “a majority of the commissioners are satisfied that we have the authority to move forward and make this decision.”  

Schilling acknowledged the public has a “strong interest in ensuring the integrity” of Iowa’s gaming laws and regulatory process. However, he ruled that public interest arguments do not strongly favor either party in the dispute.