What would ordinarily be a routine municipal election may essentially be the first opportunity for local voters to weigh in on a proposed casino since passage of the state’s new gambling law.

Of the four candidates running for two seats on the Foxborough Board of Selectmen, two support opening negotiations with Las Vegas casino operator Steve Wynn over his plan to build a $1 billion resort on land leased from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. The other two candidates oppose any further discussion of a casino.

With anti-casino forces currently holding a 3-2 majority on the five-member board, simple math dictates the importance of Monday’s election. The results could maintain the status quo, strengthen the hand of casino opponents, or establish a new majority on the board that is prepared to begin talks with Wynn.

The situation points to a not-so-subtle shift in the balance of power as the casino debate moves from the Statehouse to city and town halls.

The law passed last fall requires a developer seeking to build a casino in a city or town to first negotiate a host community agreement that could specify money the company would provide for road improvements, extra police or a range of other services that a community might need to deal with the effects of a casino. If an agreement is reached with city of town officials, residents would then vote on whether to accept it.

But without negotiations, there can be no agreement and without an agreement, no local vote. Without either, a developer cannot apply to the state Gaming Commission for a casino license.

The power vested in local government is no accident, gaming experts say.

“That was the intent of the (law), primarily because there was so much concern about a casino being forced on a community without its consent,’’ said Clyde Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.