Indiana’s ongoing debate over casino expansion is set to reach a critical point this week as the State Senate prepares to vote on House Bill 1038. The bill advanced to a third reading after lawmakers added an amendment that would allow a new casino to be placed, though not necessarily relocated, in northeast Indiana.
The measure comes after a year of heightened discussion around whether the region should host a casino, particularly following New Haven’s rejection of a relocation proposal in the previous legislative cycle. Fort Wayne Mayor Sharon Tucker also addressed the topic earlier this month, noting its importance to many residents and stakeholders.
The newest version of HB 1038 introduces flexibility by allowing the state to authorize a new casino site without explicitly relocating the existing Rising Sun Casino from southeastern Indiana. This differs from earlier discussions centered on transferring the current license to the Fort Wayne area.
Under the amendment, senators can propose further changes before the final vote. One suggestion expected to resurface is the addition of a referendum requirement. Historically, casino moves have required local voter approval, but that language is absent from the current draft. Some lawmakers believe the omission limits residents’ ability to weigh in on a major development that could affect their communities.
Senator Liz Brown expressed concerns about the lack of a referendum clause, indicating she intended to propose such an amendment but was asked not to introduce it during the previous session. She argued that residents in Allen County and neighboring areas should have a formal mechanism to voice their opinions before a project of this scale moves forward.
“This is the gaming bill that’s going to move a casino from southeast Indiana somewhere up in my neck of the woods, most likely. And my amendment, which, as I was asked not to call, would have allowed us to restore the referendum language,” said State Senator (R) Liz Brown. “For the first time, it will not be allowed. So the people in my county and Allen County will not be able to have their voices heard.”
Supporters of the bill contend that adding referendum language could slow or complicate an already lengthy legislative process. Opponents counter that local input is a crucial safeguard whenever changes to gaming licenses may affect economic conditions, public services, or community development. This tension reflects broader debates within the state about how to balance economic opportunity with responsible governance.
If the Senate does not secure a majority vote or fails to schedule a third reading, the bill effectively dies for the session, requiring lawmakers to restart discussions in a future legislative period. Lawmakers note that casino legislation often involves complex negotiations, making timing and consensus especially important.
Some senators argue that the northeast Indiana region represents an “open pocket” for casino development, with minimal overlap into existing gaming markets. Others remain cautious, citing economic uncertainties and the potential for community resistance similar to what halted earlier proposals. This week’s vote is expected to clarify whether the legislature is willing to move the issue forward—or postpone it yet again.
