irect democracy is a fickle siren. The appeal of having the citizenry govern itself by legislating at the ballot box dims quickly when voters realize they have no ability to shape policy, only to vote yes or no on complex issues.
Rarely, a sensible change can only be made through a constitutional amendment. This year's Question 1 is an example.
More rarely, the initiative process can be used by voters to pass a law the Legislature - out of self-interest - would not.
In general, however, the popular vote is a bad tool for making complex laws. This year's crop of ballot questions is no exception.
Yes onQuestion 1
Question 1 - Earlier redistricting
The Globe recommends a Yes vote on Question 1. This measure would redraw districts for state legislative and governor's councilor seats within two years of each census, rather than the current four. Under this amendment to the state constitution, the next redistricting would be for the 2002 election. This safeguards the principle of one person, one vote. A No vote would likely be overturned in any case, on the grounds that delay violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.
No onQuestion 2
Question 2 - Voting by incarcerated felons
The Globe recommends a No vote on Question 2. This measure, stripping Massachusetts prisoners of their right to vote in most elections, would do nothing to prevent crime or compensate society for criminal offenses. Its sponsors admit it is largely a symbolic effort to stigmatize prisoners, whose links to their communities would be further severed as a result. Equally symbolic is the fact that this initiative would mark the first time in Massachusetts history that our constitution was amended to restrict citizens' civil rights. More than 90 percent of all Massachusetts prisoners will eventually be released back to the streets; it is not wise to make them further alienated by the time they get out.
No onQuestion 3
Question 3 - Dog racing
The Globe recommends a No vote on Question 3. Supporters of this question, which would close the state's two greyhound race tracks, claim the dogs are grossly mistreated or wantonly killed by the racing industry. Though they have national horror stories, they can provide no up-to-date equivalents about the two Massachusetts tracks, Wonderland in Revere and Raynham-Taunton. Since 1994 the racing-dog owners must file forms with the state on the disposition of every dog that has outlived its racing career. Only a tiny percentage are killed, and these were deemed unfit for adoption as pets, breeding, or use in other states with lower racing speeds. Question 3 is an unnecessary restriction on a legal industry.
Yes onQuestion 7
Question 7 - Tax deductions for charitable contributions
The Globe recommends a Yes vote on Question 7. The Legislature has already approved this change, allowing taxpayers to deduct charitable contributions from their income taxes, beginning in 2001. Voters should add their affirmation. The state's charitable institutions deserve a boost, and taxpayers deserve a break. It is estimated the deduction could increase charitable donations by $200 million.
THESE FOUR questions represent just half the policy matters before Massachusetts voters on Nov. 7. In addition, the Globe reiterates its opposition to four other major proposals:
No on Question 4 - Income tax cut. The state would lose $1.2 billion annually through this income tax cut - spending more than every dime of the state's current revenue surplus. It is too big, too regressive, and could destabilize the carefully restored fiscal strength the state now enjoys.
No on Question 5 - Health care reform. The ballot measure promises universal health coverage but would not achieve it. It would create confusion and duplication with a patient's bill of rights law that was passed by the Legislature in July. That law ought to be given a chance to work.
No on Question 6 - Making turnpike tolls deductible. At a time when Massachusetts has an accumulated backlog of more than $10 billion in construction projects, this question would siphon off more than $700 million in annual revenues from tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike and the tunnels. Claiming the deduction will be a paperwork nightmare certain only to make tax accountants rich.
No on Question 8 - Drug treatment. Sponsored by the international financier George Soros, this question would create a drug treatment trust fund from fines and forfeitures under the state's criminal drug laws. But the question overreaches dangerously by allowing drug dealers to avoid sentencing if they claim to be drug dependent, or even ''at risk'' of becoming drug dependent. This would eliminate judicial discretion and could undermine legitimate law enforcement efforts.
