A legal document that went unnoticed by the press on the day of the Irving City Council casino rezoning vote has raised new questions about the events surrounding the planned vote on a potential Las Vegas Sands casino.

“While we remain supportive of the city’s broader plan to develop PUD 6 in a manner aimed at enhancing the local economy, providing new amenities, and improving the quality of life for residents, we urge each of you to weigh carefully the concerns of our community and to ensure that any development reflects the best interests of Irving’s residents and institutions. Casino gaming would threaten the wholesome and truth-seeking climate we have worked hard to cultivate over many years at the University of Dallas, and it would negatively impact the family friendly environment that the city of Irving has fostered so well over so many years,” Dr. Jonathan J. Sanford, PhD, President of the University of Dallas, said in a letter shared with the City Council on March 20, hours before the city was set to vote on a rezoning action that would have allowed casino gaming in Irving.

“As the owners of significant acreage in Tracts E, F and H of PUD 6 and the owner of additional properties in proximity to PUD 6, we submit this written opposition to Zoning Amendments #2024-47-UDC and #2024-48-Z,” Sanford’s letter states.

The letter appeared to be more than just a written protest but an invocation of the state’s zoning protest laws, sometimes colloquially called the “20% rule.”

LOC GOV’T § 211.006 states:

“(d) If a proposed change to a regulation or boundary is protested in accordance with this subsection, the proposed change must receive, in order to take effect, the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of all members of the governing body. The protest must be written and signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of either:

(1) the area of the lots or land covered by the proposed change; or

(2) the area of the lots or land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed change and extending 200 feet from that area.”

In other words, if someone who owns more than 20% of the land within a designated area objects to a proposed rezoning, the law requires three-fourths of the city council to approve the project rather than the typical simple majority.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DALLAS EXPRESS APP

This substantially raised the legal hurdles the representatives of the Las Vegas Sands needed to get over hours before the crucial rezoning vote. As The Dallas Express reported at the time, representatives from Las Vegas Sands Corporation requested a withdrawal of the gaming rezoning action item around two hours before the vote as protestors and concerned citizens filled the City Hall.

The council hearing had nearly 200 citizens unanimously speak in opposition to casino gambling, including a representative from the University of Dallas who said Sanford was “grateful for the removal of gaming from the rezoning,” DX reported.

Contemporaneous to the three-week-long battle that began with the public becoming aware of the gaming rezoning in the final days of February, some of the Sands’ allies in the Texas House of Representatives introduced legislation to change Texas’s 20% rule to a 60% rule.

On March 4th, the same day as the first public city hearing on the rezoning, HB 24 was introduced in the Texas House. The rep introducing the proposed law was Rep. Angelia Orr (R-Itasca). Orr reportedly received $8,000 in donations from the Texas Sands PAC in the 2024 House campaign, per Transparency USA.

One sponsor of the legislation was Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth), a vocal proponent of casino gaming, who has tried to start the constitutional amendment process to legalize casino gambling in Texas.

HB 24 was a piece of companion legislation to SB 844, a bill introduced by State Senator Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) in January. Hughes received 11,000 in donations from the Sands PAC in 2024, per Transparency USA.

Hughes also reportedly received several thousand in donations from various Texas and Oklahoma Indian tribes, although some of these entities are perceived by Sands representatives to be enemies of the company’s project because of their competing interests in Casinos.

Cliff P. Riley was recognized as one of D Magazine’s “Best Lawyers Under 40” and as a Super Lawyers “Rising Star,” according to his bio on the Dykema website. He specializes in commercial and residential litigation and spoke to The Dallas Express about HB 24 and SB 844.

“This is [essentially] gambling legislation,” Riley said.

He explained that he believed the proposed law was directed at the University of Dallas and any other entity that might seek to oppose a casino coming to their community in the future.

Riley explained that while this specific instance concerned a collegiate body objecting to a commercial project, the effects of the passage of these laws would be to “deprive the rights home owners [across the state].” He added that the proposed law would disproportionately disadvantage homeowners who seek to fight large commercial projects coming to their neighborhoods.

Contrastingly, he said, the current law gives “great protection to nearby property owners.”

He saw the legislation as something that could enable the casino issue to come back, despite several instances of unanimous public opposition to the project at public hearings in Irving. “You couldn’t have a more lopsided political issue outside of North Korea,” he quipped.

Orr, Hughes, and the Sands were contacted to ask about the proposed legislation and how if UD’s opposition to gaming rezoning played a role in its introduction but they did not immediately return a comment.