LITTLE ROCK — A proposed constitutional amendment that would allow casino gambling in four Arkansas counties would not affect existing games of electronic skill at two Arkansas racetracks, professional poker player Nancy Todd argued Tuesday in a court filing.

Secretary of State Mark Martin and the chairman of a group opposing the amendment argued that Todd’s proposal could conflict with the state law that allows gambling at racetracks and that the ballot item does not sufficiently inform voters of this fact.

Tuesday was the deadline for the parties to file briefs in Todd’s challenge to Martin’s rejection of her proposed ballot item as legally insufficient. The item has been certified for the ballot because of the appeal, but if the state Supreme Court upholds Martin’s decision it is expected to order that votes for the measure not be counted.

Todd’s proposal would amend the state constitution to allow Nancy Todd’s Poker Palace LLC to operate casinos in Crittenden, Franklin, Miller and Pulaski counties. Attorney General Dustin McDaniel approved the language of the proposal, but after the group Stop Casinos Now challenged the measure, Martin ruled, on the recommendation of McDaniel, that it was legally insufficient.

Martin said the wording of the ballot item did not make clear whether the amendment would affect electronic games of skill operations at Oaklawn Park thoroughbred track in Hot Springs and Southland Greyhound Park in West Memphis.

In her filing with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Todd argued that her proposal and the 2005 law allowing electronic games of skill at the two racetracks are “different in scope and purpose.”

She argued that the games played at the racetracks involve an element of skill, whereas her casinos would operate games of chance.

“Each set of games must exist on one side or the other of the bright line drawn by the constitution,” she said in her filing.

After Todd submitted her original petition, she revised it to add language stating that it “may repeal the Games of Skill Act.” She acknowledged in her brief Tuesday that at some point a court could be asked to decide whether her amendment and the Electronic Games of Skill Act are in conflict, but she said there is no way her proposal could inform voters what the outcome would be.

“No one knows at this moment whether the measure will become law or whether it might repeal by implication any part of the EGS Act,” she argued. “One of the political arguments common in debates on initiated measures is that voting for a measure will open a Pandora’s Box of undesirable consequences. This court does not require that ballot titles try to predict and disclose the future.”

Todd also noted that McDaniel previously approved her proposal and that at the time he “expressed no concern about any repeal by implication” of the Electronic Games of Skill Act.

Martin argued in his brief that the wording of the ballot title is deliberately ambiguous.

“The inclusion of the word ‘may’ will leave voters with an unclear understanding of what they voted for (or against) and the wide-ranging implications,” Martin said in the filing.

Chuck Lange, chairman of Stop Casinos Now, is an intervenor in the case. He said in a filing Tuesday that when Todd circulated petitions for her proposal, it contained different language from the version that was certified. He called this a “bait and switch.”

Todd has asked the court to hear oral arguments in the case.

The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday on a separate proposal by Texas businessman Michael Wasserman that would allow casino gambling in seven counties. Martin rejected that measure because he said Wasserman failed to submit a number of signatures equal to at least 5 percent of the votes cast for governor in 2010 from at least 15 counties.

Wasserman argues he should get more time to address any signature deficiencies.