A recent survey reveals that 71 percent of Maryland registered voters oppose legalizing online casino gambling, known as iGaming, with opposition intensifying after participants learned about associated risks such as addiction and underage access. The poll, conducted September 15 through 18, 2025, by Lake Research Partners on behalf of the National Association Against iGaming, involved 650 voters and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
The findings indicate that awareness plays a key role in shaping views. Nearly half of respondents, or 49 percent, had never heard of iGaming before the survey defined it as 24-hour access to slot machines and casino table games via phones or computers. Initial opposition stood at 52 percent, rising to 60 percent after the definition and reaching 71 percent — including 64 percent who strongly opposed it — once details emerged on potential harms like increased addiction rates and community costs. Support for legalization topped out at 25 percent across all stages.
Concerns centered on protecting youth and vulnerable groups. Fifty-seven percent of voters expressed serious doubts about online platforms’ ability to block minors from gambling, while 53 percent worried that large operators might target at-risk individuals for profit. Another 53 percent cited studies linking iGaming to family disruptions and state expenses, pointing to New Jersey where such costs exceed $350 million annually for addiction treatment and related services.
Jason Gumer, a board member of the National Association Against iGaming, described the results as a directive for state leaders. “Once Marylanders understand what iGaming really is, they strongly reject it,” Gumer said. He called on policymakers to weigh the threats to households and neighborhoods prior to any expansion.
Opposition cut across demographics, including race, gender, region and political affiliation, underscoring broad resistance in a state where 90 percent of adults report having gambled at some point. The survey highlighted a Baltimore City lawsuit against sports betting firms DraftKings and FanDuel for allegedly deceptive practices that prey on susceptible gamblers, drawing parallels to the opioid crisis fueled by pharmaceutical companies.
Maryland lawmakers grappled with iGaming earlier this year through House Bill 17, sponsored by Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary of Howard County. The measure sought to empower the State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to grant licenses to existing video lottery operators, sports betting facilities and long-established in-state companies for online slots, blackjack, poker and similar games. It proposed a $1 million licensing fee, five-year terms, a 15 percent tax on gross revenue — with most proceeds directed to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future education fund — and safeguards like a one percent revenue allocation for problem gambling support. The bill also outlined an Employee Displacement Fund capped at $10 million initially to offset job shifts at brick-and-mortar casinos and allowed for multi-state poker agreements.
Proponents, including Atterbeary, argued that regulated iGaming would align Maryland with neighbors like Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey, where digital markets thrive without undermining physical venues, while channeling tax dollars to public priorities. Atterbeary noted that individuals inclined to gamble would do so anyway, leaving the state to enforce protections and fund aid programs. Yet the proposal stalled after passing the House of Delegates but faltering in the Senate, amid pushback from casino workers’ unions and operators fearing revenue drops of up to $65 million from reduced foot traffic and spending.
In Southern Maryland, where rural communities like those in Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s counties lack major casinos but border facilities such as Horseshoe Baltimore, local sentiments echo statewide caution. Voters in Chesapeake Beach, a Calvert County town with 450 slot machines at its longstanding venue, rejected a bid to double that number in November 2024, with 76 percent — or 1,285 of 1,684 ballots — voting no. This followed a similar 72 percent rejection in 2020 and two failed legislative tries. Residents cited sufficient existing options and risks of heightened problem gambling, a condition recognized as a mental health disorder by the Maryland Center for Excellence on Problem Gambling.
Such resistance aligns with broader historical patterns in Maryland gambling policy, which shifted incrementally from near-total bans in the mid-20th century to regulated slots approved by voters in 2008. The first facility, Hollywood Casino Perryville, opened in 2010, followed by table games in 2012 and six full casinos by 2016 that now yield about $70 million monthly to state coffers. Sports betting arrived via a 2020 referendum and launched in 2021, posting a $2.48 billion handle through November 2024 and contributing over $160 million to education. Online casino efforts, however, remain blocked, with Senate hurdles tied to regulatory demands and fears of exacerbating addiction in underserved areas.
As the 2026 legislative session approaches in January, backers may reintroduce iGaming measures, but the poll signals potential voter backlash via required referendums. Constitutional changes for expansions demand General Assembly passage followed by public approval, with rollout possibly delayed to 2027. Meanwhile, offshore sites siphon untaxed activity, costing Maryland an estimated $100 million yearly in lost revenue, according to regulators. Lawmakers must navigate this tension, balancing fiscal gains against documented harms in a state where gambling now funds key services yet prompts calls for restraint.
Maryland’s framework prioritizes oversight, as seen in sports betting’s success: September 2025 alone generated $9.4 million in taxes from $500 million wagered. Yet for communities like those along the Patuxent River, where family stability underpins local economies, the debate underscores a core question — whether digital expansion serves or strains the public good.
