Maryland Online Casino Referendum Stalls as iGaming Expansion Misses 2026 Ballot

Paula | September 21, 2026

Key Takeaways

• Maryland lawmakers did not advance legislation that would have put online casino legalization before voters in 2026.
• The setback marks the fourth consecutive year in which efforts to establish a regulated online casino market have failed to reach the ballot.
• Maryland already permits retail casino gaming and online sports wagering, but online casino gaming remains unauthorized.
• The next major opportunity for the issue will come with the General Assembly’s 2027 session.

What Happened?

Maryland’s latest push to legalize regulated online casino gaming will not reach the November 2026 ballot after the legislation needed to advance the proposal stalled during the 2026 legislative session.

The effort involved two related sets of bills. SB 761 and its House cross-file, HB 1255, were the referendum bills. They would have allowed Maryland voters to decide whether to expand commercial gaming to include internet gaming. SB 761 was withdrawn by its sponsor, Sen. Ron Watson, while House Bill 1255 remained in the House Ways and Means Committee after its March 5 hearing.

The second set addressed how a regulated online market would operate if the referendum were approved. HB 1343 would have authorized the Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission to issue and regulate internet gaming licenses, while SB 885 covered internet gaming and online bingo. Both bills remained in committee after their March hearings.

Because the referendum legislation did not advance, Maryland will not have an online casino question on the 2026 ballot. The implementation bills were also contingent on voter approval and therefore could not establish a market on their own.

Why This Matters

Maryland remains without a regulated online casino market, leaving iGaming outside the state’s existing framework for retail casinos and online sports betting.

For operators, the delay means there is still no state licensing pathway for online casino gaming. Existing casinos also face continued uncertainty over how iGaming could affect their retail operations.

For players and industry businesses, the impact is equally clear: online casino gaming remains unavailable within Maryland’s regulated market, while affiliates, technology providers, and payment companies have no new iGaming market to enter.

More broadly, the repeated failure of iGaming legislation to reach a statewide vote highlights the political and regulatory hurdles that remain before Maryland can expand its commercial gaming framework to include online casinos.

Regulatory Background

Major expansions of commercial gaming in Maryland require voter approval under the State Constitution. The General Assembly must authorize a statewide referendum under Article XIX before voters can decide whether to approve a new form or expansion of commercial gaming.

That was reflected in the 2026 iGaming proposals. HB 1255 and SB 761 would have enabled the referendum, while HB 1343 and SB 885 would have established the proposed regulatory framework for internet gaming.

Maryland State has employed the same referendum process for previous gaming expansions, including sports wagering, which voters approved in 2020.

It also was not the state’s first foray into iGaming. In 2024, similar measures based on referendums were introduced in HB 1319 and SB 603, but those efforts did not pass legalization.

That means any future attempt to legalize Internet casino gambling in Maryland will still have to pass the legislative process before being put to voters.

Industry Impact

The Maryland development illustrates one of the central challenges facing online casino expansion in the United States, passing an iGaming bill can require more than agreement on licensing and taxation.

In Maryland, the constitutional referendum requirement adds another stage to the process. Lawmakers must first agree on the framework for expansion before voters can ultimately decide whether that expansion should occur.

The 2026 debate also showed that online casino legislation continues to face opposition from a range of stakeholders.

One recurring issue in the debate has been the relationship between online and retail casino revenue. Opponents have raised concerns about potential effects on existing casino employment and brick-and-mortar gaming activity, while supporters have pointed to the potential for a regulated internet market and additional public revenue.

For the broader alternative gaming sector, Maryland is also worth watching because the state’s approach demonstrates how constitutional gaming restrictions can shape the development of new digital gaming models.

Where Sweepstakes Gaming Fits Into the Broader Debate

The proposal, which Maryland has put on hold, is part of a broader U.S. discussion about how to regulate online gambling. States have taken different approaches to internet casino gaming, sports betting, and promotional gaming models, with rules that vary widely from state to state.

Sweepstakes casinos are a piece of that larger digital gaming landscape, but their business model is different than the state-licensed iGaming framework proposed in Maryland. Their legal status could depend on variables such as promotional structures, prize redemption mechanics, state law, and how regulators interpret applicable gaming and consumer-protection rules.

That is an important distinction for judging Maryland’s legislative debate. The 2026 proposals aimed to establish a state-licensed framework for Internet casino gaming, including licensing, regulation, taxation, and consumer protections. These were not bills specifically targeting sweepstakes casinos.

But Maryland is relevant to the wider alternative gaming space, as the result is indicative of how states are reacting to the rise of regulated digital gaming and the myriad legal structures that can arise as those markets expand.

What Happens Next?

The next big opportunity will be the legislative session of 2027. The Maryland General Assembly reconvenes in January, and that will provide lawmakers another chance to introduce or revive legislation on Internet gaming.

It remains to be seen what form any future proposal will take. Lawmakers could modify the 2026 framework, alter the referendum approach or offer an alternative regulatory model.

Key developments to watch for operators and industry stakeholders include new bill filings, committee hearings and any changes to the proposed tax, licensing and consumer-protection framework.

The 2026 outcome also means there is no statewide vote to prepare for next year. There will be no question about online casinos on the Maryland ballot in November 2026.

How lawmakers respond to the concerns raised in the 2026 hearings, particularly around current casino interests, public revenue, employment and responsible gaming, will determine whether the issue gets enough legislative support in 2027.

Stakester Analysis

Maryland’s latest iGaming setback is significant less because of a single failed bill and more because of the pattern it reinforces.

For four consecutive years, efforts to advance online casino legalization have failed to reach the point where Maryland voters can decide the issue.

That does not eliminate the possibility of legalization. It does, however, demonstrate that Maryland’s constitutional referendum requirement and the competing interests surrounding its existing gaming market remain important barriers to a new digital casino framework.

For alternative gaming businesses, the Maryland case is another example of why state-by-state regulatory developments need to be viewed through the broader legal structure of each jurisdiction.

The next meaningful signal will come from the 2027 General Assembly. Until then, Maryland remains a market with legal retail casinos and sportsbooks, but without a regulated online casino sector.

Reference

Internet Gaming Referendum