Judge Mulling Ballot Error Threatens Cedar Rapids Casino Licensing
Casino Licensing at Stake: Judge Mulling Ballot Error Decision
- Judge weighs if 2021 referendum misled Linn County voters
- Riverside Casino claims ballot wording invalidates gaming license
- Cedar Rapids casino plans hinge on upcoming legal ruling
The wording of a ballot referendum that ostensibly authorised gambling in Linn County, Iowa, carries significant implications for the forthcoming casino, specifically affecting the complex process of casino licensing in the city of Cedar Rapids, local newspaper The Gazette reports.
After hearing oral arguments recently, Eighth Judicial District Judge Michael Schilling will decide whether the language of the ballot was “defective” and “misleading.” He has 60 days to make a ruling that could either bless or halt the casino project.
Confusing Language?
The 2021 ballot was the second instance where Linn County voters had voted on casino gaming. An initial vote held in 2013 was due to expire, and this second referendum aimed to extend the authorization indefinitely, facilitating the Cedar Rapids Development Group (CRDG) to apply for licensing for a proposed $275 million casino.
The question posed on the ballot asked whether legalized gambling “may continue” in the county, a claim made moot by the fact there was no legalized gambling in existence at the time. This contradiction has led the Riverside Casino’s lawyers, who oppose the Cedar Rapids proposal, to label it as nonsensical and misleading.
“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 initiation of gambling,” stated Mark Weinhardt, an attorney for Riverside, as reported by The Gazette. “It can’t ask them to continue existing gambling games” when such games didn’t exist.
License Granted
The Cedar Rapids Development Group is a collective of local entrepreneurs who wish to establish the casino on city-owned land. On February 6, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission voted 4-1 to approve a gaming license for the project.
Riverside, looking to defend its market from the competition the proposed casino might bring, sued, claiming the Commission should not have permitted the license to be issued due to the ballot’s supposed flaws.
Conversely, Sam Jones, an attorney for the Linn County Gaming Association, argued that the voters were well aware of what they were voting on.
“There were 420 written comments submitted to the Gaming Commission, both supporting and opposing the license,” Jones pointed out. “Notably, none of those comments expressed confusion about the language of the ballot or suggested that other voters may have encountered confusion.”
If the casino proceeds, it will be known as the Cedar Crossing Casino & Entertainment Center, featuring a gaming floor boasting 700 slot machines, 22 live-dealer table games, and a sportsbook. Furthermore, it will house restaurants, a 1,500-seat entertainment venue, an arts and cultural centre, and an advanced STEM learning lab.
Summary
The Cedar Rapids casino is a hot topic at the moment as the judge’s ruling looms on whether confusing ballot language might threaten its viability. This case encapsulates the complexities of gaming regulations and voter comprehension, impacting not only local business prospects but also the broader gambling landscape.
