Lawyer Contests Casino Referendum's Wording ALBANY - Seeking to stop a November referendum that would allow more casinos across the state, a Brooklyn lawyer filed a suit here on Tuesday arguing that the ballot measure's language is improperly slanted in favor of its passage. The language, which the State Board of Elections approved in July, mentions a series of positive "legislative purposes" of the casino proposal, including "promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes." That language was approved by the board after consultation with the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, which has backed the measure. But the suit filed in State Supreme Court says the rosy terminology violates the State Constitution's provision against use of public money in the aid of a "private undertaking." "The Constitution is pretty clear that you can't use public money to sway or influence a vote," the lawyer, Eric J. Snyder, said. The wording of the referendum has also rankled some government watchdog groups, which see it as one-sided, and has caught the attention of the New York State Catholic Conference, which mentioned it in a statement on Sunday outlining several social ills associated with gambling and urging followers "to very carefully consider this measure and all of its potential implications." The court filing came a day after a poll from Siena College showed a majority of voters, after being read the ballot language, said they would support the referendum. But when asked about the issue without the positive ballot language, voters were evenly divided over the issue. The referendum was initially drafted - without mention of jobs, taxes or schools - by the state attorney general's office, but was changed by the Board of Elections, after what its co-chairman, Douglas A. Kellner, said were "extensive discussions and careful vetting." If passed, the casino referendum would amend the State Constitution to allow up to seven new casinos. Mr. Snyder, a bankruptcy lawyer, said he decided to sue because of a personal opposition to gambling, which he called a "regressive tax that hurts the people that can least afford it." Mr. Snyder is asking the court to enjoin voting on the measure as long as it contains "advocating language," the inclusion of which, he said, violated the board's authority. "It is partisan, and it is having an effect," he said. And that's not the government's role. A spokesman for the Board of Elections declined to comment.