By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press, 11/04/00

BOSTON -- Voters may think they are laying down the law when they decide the fate of eight ballot questions Tuesday.

It's not quite that easy.

While approval of a ballot question is a major victory for supporters, sometimes it's just one more step in a perilous legislative journey.

Question 5, for example, appears to promise health care for all. In fact, it creates a committee to draft a universal health care plan -- a plan the Legislature could choose to ignore.

Two other initiatives -- Question 3, outlawing dog racing, and Question 6, mandating tax credits for tolls and excise taxes -- face possible legal challengers that, if upheld, could thwart the will of voters.

It's happened before.

In 1982, voters overwhelmingly approved a death penalty question that was later ruled unconstitutional. In 1994 voters narrowly favored a term-limits proposal, which was also thrown out by the courts.

While it's rare for the Legislature to kill a ballot question after it is approved, making changes is not uncommon.

In 1996, voters backed a measure restricting the use of lethal animal traps. When the beaver population soared causing property damage and floods, lawmakers changed the law, allowing the traps to be used when public health or safety is threatened.

Even the granddaddy of all ballot questions in Massachusetts -- 1980's Proposition 2 1/2 tax cap -- underwent minor tweaking after it was approved.

This year, at least two questions could wind up in court if approved.

Dog track owners say they will sue if voters abolish dog racing in Massachusetts, arguing the question violates property laws and amounts to an illegal taking of a business.

"Absolutely. We are certainly pursuing our legal options," said Kelly Carney, spokeswoman for the Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park.

The owner of the Wonderland greyhound track filed a lawsuit on Thursday, claiming that ads run by supporters of Ballot Question 3 have ruined his reputation. If the proposal passes, other lawsuits could follow.

Greyhound activists have vowed to fight for its passage.

"This is an industry that has a history of bullying anyone who challenges them," said Question 3 supporter Carey Theil. "They are trying to bully the voters."

Question 6, which would create a tax credit for tolls and car excise taxes, also faces the threat of a legal battle.

The toll portion of the question violates federal interstate commerce laws because it denies out-of-state trucking companies a tax credit available to Massachusetts businesses, according to opponent Richard Dimino of the Artery Business Committee.

Backers of the question say they are confident it can withstand a legal challenge.

"The initiative is legally solid," said Harold Hubschman of the Commuter Tax Relief Coalition.

The group is familiar with legal challenges.

In 1998, Hubschman's group collected enough signatures for a ballot question removing toll booths from the Massachusetts Turnpike. Before voters could have their say, the courts ruled the question unconstitutional and barred it from the ballot.

There are limits on ballot questions. Not only must they be constitutional, but they cannot appropriate money from the state budget.

That provision prevented Question 5 backers from identifying a funding source for the initiative's central promise -- universal health care in Massachusetts.

Although the question would accomplish two other goals if approved -- a patient's bill of rights and a moratorium on the sale of nonprofit hospitals to for-profit companies -- the Legislature would be free to ignore the call for universal health care.

There are other limitations on ballot questions.

This year's Question 7 would create a state income tax deduction for charitable contributions. There's only one hitch: Lawmakers approved a nearly identical proposal this summer.

So what happens if voters reject the ballot question? Nothing. The existing law remains on the books.

Opponents of new laws do have one option. They can try to repeal the law by placing a referendum petition on the ballot. Two years ago, consumer activists failed to persuade voters to reject a new electricity deregulation question.

Sometimes, the test of wills between voters and lawmakers can drag on for years.

When the Legislature approved a law allowing police to ticket motorists not wearing seat belts, angered opponents placed a question on the 1986 ballot seeking repeal of the law. Voters agreed.

But when lawmakers approved a modified version of the law in 1994 allowing police to cite motorists not wearing seat belts only if they've been stopped for another reason, voters rejected a repeal attempt and opted to keep the law.

Even with their limitations, ballot questions carry enormous weight on Beacon Hill, especially if they are seen as the will of voters.

"It's hard for legislators to say that when they voted for me they were really bright, but when they voted for this question, they didn't know what they were doing," said Barbara Anderson, who was a main force behind Proposition 2 1/2.