uestion 5 has so worried lawmakers that many of them are already making preparations to gut the sweeping health care measure, should a majority of voters approve it on Election Day.
They have analyzed the fine points of the complex question, and believe it contains a plethora of legal flaws that would allow Beacon Hill to ignore or invalidate substantial portions of it.
Question 5, which would mandate universal health insurance coverage and adopt tight HMO controls, is faring well in polls. But a costly ad campaign by the HMO industry has worn away much of the commanding support it once had.
Still, lawmakers believe it could pass. And, even legislators who support Question 5's goals are worried that the sweeping ballot measure would throw the health care system into chaos.
''There's no penalty in Question 5 if we were to fail to follow it,'' said Senate Health Care Committee chairman Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat, who opposes the initiative.
Despite its goals, opponents say it would dramatically increase health care costs, put intense financial pressure on HMOs, and lead to more uninsured people.
Much depends on what the final vote tally on Question 5 is, say political observers.
''It is very difficult to change in any substantial way an inititative approved by voters. The mandate of voters carries enormous political clout,'' said Mike Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Question 5 supporters say that if their measure passes, they will aggressively monitor how Beacon Hill treats it.
''We're going to be here after Election Day to make sure they continue to follow Question 5,'' said Andre Guillemin, political director of Yes On 5. ''We're not going anywhere.''
But legislative tinkering and delay on voter-approved ballot measures has precedent. In 1998, a campaign finance reform ballot question passed with 66.5 percent support. It has yet to be adopted in full.
''We're now almost three years out from when the voters passed this. Some in the Legislature are banking on the voters' short-term memory, that they'll forget,'' said David Donnelly, director of Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections.
''Historically, the Legislature has respected ballot questions. But I think that's changing,'' he said. ''I wouldn't be surprised if they did something to Question 5.''
The legislative language for Question 5 fills almost three pages in this year's state voter guide, where other ballot questions require only a few paragraphs.
Some lawmakers have focused on Question 5's July 2002 mandate for covering all residents of the Commonwealth. The measure would require creation of a health care council, stocked with members of the medical and business and advocacy communities. The council would forward Beacon Hill a recommendation on how to reach universal care. Lawmakers would have to pass something by the deadline.
But the Legislature in 2002 probably will be different from the current one. It is unconstitutional for one Legislature or even supporters of a ballot question to tell a future group of lawmakers what to do, say some on Beacon Hill.
''It's basically not in the constitution. There's no authority to do it,'' Moore said.
Also, all legislations, whether from the ballot or the pens of lawmakers, can be undone. It is all but certain that many of the provisions of Question 5 will be legislatively second-guessed, said several lawmakers.
''If there's a sense that the timelines are unrealistic or there are provisions that would undo important progress that had been made, you'd have to look at all that,'' said Senate Ways and Means chairman Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford).
For instance, Question 5, if passed, would trump the patient bill of rights signed by Governor Paul Cellucci in summer. It would supersede that law wherever the two clash.
But Montigny, one of Beacon Hill's more influential health care voices, said all bets would be off if Question 5 wins big on Nov. 7.
''A lot of it comes down to a political question,'' he said. ''In the end you have to tamper very, very lightly on the will of the voters.''
Still, legislative tinkering with the will of the voters does happen. Campaign finance advocates say the will of the voters was slighted on the 1998 Clean Elections ballot question. It gives candidates public funds if they follow a careful set of guidelines and limits on outside political contributions.
But, after it passed, lawmakers, including Cellucci, tried to limit its power by attaching amendments to it and cutting its funding. The back-and-forth went on for more than a year. Finally, activists barricaded themselves in Cellucci's office, creating a scene.
A compromise close to the original ballot question was reached. But it still contains a provision that delays its approval until a few months into the next legislative season, which would give legislators further opportunity to modify it.
''This all runs contrary to what the voters intended,'' said Donnelly.
The meager-funded supporters of Question 5 say that if their ballot issue is ensnarled, they will launch a vociferous public campaign. But their voice has proved limited this election season. They have been drowned out by the HMO industry's big spending on television and radio ads. In October they were outspent 136-to-1.
''We think that the people have the right to make their needs to be heard to Beacon Hill. The Legislature, which is supposed to fulfill the will of the people should uphold Question 5,'' said Guillemin.
