Opponents of a casino at Suffolk Downs racetrack are going to court to challenge a ballot question that could pave the way for a slots parlor near the track.

Residents of East Boston and Revere, who already fought off two separate casino plans for the horse track that spans their communities, filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court this week, arguing that Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State William F. Galvin should not have certified the measure.

Advertisement

The ballot question, if approved by voters, would alter the state’s casino law to allow a second slots parlor to be built in Massachusetts. The casino law enacted in 2011 allowed for just one slots parlor, which is now in operation in Plainville, and for three resort-style casinos to be built around the state.Ballot questions are expected to pertain to the electorate at large and cannot be used to decide local matters of interest to only a specific region of the state. The opponents argue that the attorney general erred by allowing a local matter to be submitted as a ballot question, and that the question is narrowly tailored to apply to the area around Suffolk Downs. The language of the ballot question would permit a slots parlor on a location of very particular description: at least 4 acres large; adjacent to a race track and not separated from it by a highway; and within 1,500 feet of the track where horse races may be held. “You’re talking about the entire state voting on what happens in one of maybe two or three places,” said Matt Cameron, the lawyer representing the opponents. “I still think that’s too narrow.” The man who launched the ballot initiative is also a developer who has been trying to buy properties surrounding Suffolk Downs, telling sellers he hopes to build a luxury hotel and gambling facility there, the Globe has reported.

The ballot question would “by law, geography, fair implication, and actual recent public statements made by the Petition’s filer himself restrict the newly available license to gaming establishment proposals in the immediate vicinity of Suffolk Downs,” the complaint states.

The opponents also say that the state cannot allow a ballot question that would amend the same law that a prior ballot question did. A ballot question that also would have amended the state gaming act — by repealing it completely — was defeated by voters last year.

Stephanie Ebbert can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Follow her on Twitter @StephanieEbbert