hat's at stake in New England on Tuesday:
The region's only two Democratic governors face tougher-than-anticipated challenges, while every US senator and congressman seeking reelection is either comfortably ensconced or at least ahead by more than the margin of polling error.
Vermont Governor Howard Dean faces a strong challenge from Republican Ruth Dwyer, a farmer, political newcomer, and conservative activist. Her longshot candidacy is sparked by the ''Take Back Vermont'' campaign to repeal the state's controversial ''civil union'' law sanctioning gay relationships. It's a three-way race with a twist.
If Dean doesn't top 50 percent in the popular vote, the new Legislature names the next governor. And Dean acknowledges that the flap over so-called ''gay marriage'' ensures a more conservative Legislature. Dean's task is complicated by third-party candidate Anthony Pollina of the Progressive Party, who could be the same sort of spoiler to Dean that Ralph Nader is to Vice President Al Gore. Pollina's getting 6 percent in one poll, most of it out of Dean's pot.
In New Hampshire, two-term Governor Jeanne Shaheen is being stalked by Gordon Humphrey, who served two terms as a US senator and always runs strong with bedrock conservative groups. Shaheen gambled that for her third term she'd refuse to take New Hampshire's famous pledge to veto any statewide sales or income taxes. But a $200 million shortfall in court-mandated school financing gave Humphrey the opening to hammer away at any new income tax. He made a $200,000 investment in Boston TV advertising to bang home the difference.
Humphrey braced Shaheen in the final TV debate last week, but she refused to go beyond the timid stance of saying she'll wait for a blue-ribbon commission to make its recommendations after the election. One late American Research Group poll had Humphrey vaulting into a 1-point lead, but a Concord Monitor survey placed Shaheen ahead by 51 to 42 percent. The Monitor poll had Gore ahead in New Hampshire by 46-42, while ARG had Bush up, 45-40.
Both camps agree Gore will take Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Vermont's total of 27 electoral votes, but New Hampshire and Maine (4 each) are within the grasp of Governor George W. Bush.
In Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy has token opposition, as do the 10 congressional incumbents. But, like other New England senators, none appears in danger of defeat. Bay State voters will see a ballot with six presidential choices and six US Senate choices listed, but not until you get down to a handful of local races and the referendum questions is there any real suspense.
The lopsided majorities of Democrats in both Bay State branches will not change. The GOP is mustering few if any challenges, and some GOP incumbents are threatened. The closest fight may be in the Walpole-Sharon state Senate district where incumbent Jo Ann Sprague defeated Democrat James Timilty (both are from Walpole) two years ago by a bare 1 percent.
Timilty is challenging this time with the endorsements of the National Organization for Women and Kennedy.
Sprague is a fiscal conservative with Citizens for Limited Taxation support and is pro-death penalty. Timilty has the support of unions and environmental groups, and opposes the death penalty. He's being helped by US Representatives Joe Moakley, Bill Delahunt, and Barney Frank, while Governor Paul Cellucci favors Sprague, one of only seven Republicans in the 40-member Senate. The district has 11 towns from Route 128 to the Rhode Island border.
Voters facing the eight ballot questions may retreat to the ''when in doubt, leave it out'' theory of voting ''no.'' For those who sought my take on the referenda, here goes: I am voting:
YES on 1. All this does is speed up by two years the pace at which the Legislature uses the new census data to draw new state election districts. No controversy is involved.
NO on 2. This would bar nearly 10,000 prisoners in Massachusetts jails from voting. A ''no'' vote would let them keep the right to vote, which few exercise, but is allowed now. My take? Almost all of them return to our midst, why alienate them any further? Doing time is sufficient punishment, in my view.
YES on 3. This is a vote to ban dog racing for bettors. I don't buy the anti-dog race TV propaganda about greyhounds being tortured. But the MSPCA says the ban would help the animals. I'm not an animal-rights vegan who eats no meat and tosses paint pots at fur coats, and I do like to watch rodeo. But I'm going with veteran vet Dr. Gus Thornton on this one.
NO on 4. I'm against the tax rollback seized upon by Cellucci to bolster his fading image. But I think it'll pass; the lure of easy money is too great for the well-off. Unions and Democratic chiefs are fighting it. And the business community has doubts about its wisdom. But it's hard to expect the already-well-off to pass on what looks like a free lunch. Cellucci hopes the popularity of giving back $1.2 billion a year, perhaps $200 to $400 for a typical family of four, will restore some of his tarnished luster. A ''yes'' vote cuts the state income tax over three years from 5.85 to 5 percent.
YES on 5. A lot of the medical establishment and political leadership (like US Senator John F. Kerry) is against this. But I'm with Kennedy and the rebel doctors who say it's time to roll a hand grenade under the tent of the status quo. A ''yes'' vote orders the state to start working on a new patient's bill of rights, halts sale of nonprofit hospitals to for-profits, and jogs the Legislature on health insurance for everyone, something Michael Dukakis shoved through in 1988 but was subsequently undone as too pricey.
NO on 6. This giveback would hand drivers a dollar-for-dollar tax rebate on their tolls and excise taxes. It's a harebrained scheme, a hole below the waterline of the fiscal ship, that would cost over $600 million a year.
YES on 7. This mirrors a new state law bringing us into line with 42 other states allowing tax deductions for charitable contributions. The Fidelity investment behemoth is pushing passage with $260,000 because it would profit. But it's a reasonable proposition that the Legislature can police.
YES on 8. Police and prosecutors are against this complicated scheme to change drug laws to require more treatment instead of jail time and alter the way authorities confiscate drug forfeiture money and assets. I'm for it because, with 2 million Americans in prison and stupid enforcement policies that breed corruption and more addiction, it's time to blow up the status quo. Like my Yes on 5, this is another hand grenade.
David Nyhan is a Globe columnist.
