Voters Debate Ballot Questions

Since the 1994 election campaign began, millions of dollars have been spent in a high-priced political war of television advertising and negative campaigning.

But the battles are not about the candidates.

The rancorous debate has focused on the nine ballot questions that will appear on this year's November 8 ballot.

Although voters will decide several statewide and national races--including elections for U.S. Senate and governor--it is the verdicts on some of the ballot questions that could dramatically affect the Bay State longer than the respective terms of any elected official.

Some of the questions would repeal recent laws passed by the state legislature. And one would change the state's constitution.

It is no wonder, then, that many lobbying groups have poured a considerable amount of money into the campaign, even taking to the airwaves to pitch their support for a ballot question.

Among the most hotly contested questions are Questions 6 and 7 which if approved would replace the current flat rate income tax system with a graduated system.

Much of the debate has also focused on Question 2 which, if approved, would preserve the state law requiring the use of seat belts; Question 4 which, if approved, would impose term limits for certain state offices and Question 5, which if approved would reform the state's "blue laws" and would allow stores to open on Sunday mornings and on certain holidays.

For Cambridge voters, Question 9 is the most contentious question because, if approved, it would eliminate rent control in most housing units.

GRADUATED TAX PROPOSALS

Among the nine ballot questions, Questions 6 and 7--the graduated tax proposals--could affect Massachusetts voters the most. If passed, Question 6 would change the state's constitution and would allow the state to collect its income taxes at a graduated rate, instead of at the current flat rate. Question 7 would set the specific rates and force higher-income residents to pay higher taxes.

Massachusetts residents currently pay 5.95 percent of their taxable income every year. If Questions 6 and 7 are passed, the tax laws would be modified to require married couples who earn less than $102,000 a year to pay 5.5 percent, couples who earn between $102,000 and $150,000 to pay 8.8 percent and couples who earn more than $150,000 to pay 9.8 percent.

But the new rates would only kick in for income made above the minimum salary in that rate category. For example, a couple making $110,000 a year would have to pay 5.5 percent of the first $102,000 and would then have to pay 8.8 percent on the remaining $8,000.

Proponents of the graduated tax say that Massachusetts should do away with its antequated income tax and adopt a tax system which is more progrssive.

"We need to get out of the dark ages and get Massachusetts up to speed," says Paul Capizzi, administrative director of the Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts. "The people on the bottom of the pay scale wind up proportionally paying just as much as Bay State millionaires."

"Progressive taxation is important to pursue . . .the idea for each of us to give a share for the common good," says former Cambridge mayor Alice K. Wolf. "Ninety-two percent of Massachusetts will benefit from the point of view of their own pocket-books."

The Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts, a progressive tax reform organization and lobbying group, has spent about $500,000 trying to get the graduated tax question passed.

The tax reform question will appear on the Massachusetts ballot for the fifth time, having been defeated the previous four times.

Capizzi says that in 1976, the last time the tax reform question appeared on the ballot, it appeared alone. Since this year, Question 6 will appear together with the rate-setting Question 7, Capizzi says he is confident both will pass.

"Forty-one states collect income taxes, and 35 of those as well as Germany and Japan collect them at a graduated rate," Capizzi says.

Capizzi assures voters that if the graduated tax system is passed, Massachusetts will not lose any revenue and will still be able to provide the same services and benefits to its residents.

"[The graduated tax] will just redistribute the tax burden to make it more fair for the middle class, it will shift the burden to the people who are making more," Capizzi says.

Gubernatorial candidate state rep. Mark Roosevelt '71 (D-Beacon Hill) also supports the graduated tax system, says Roosevelt campaign spokesperson Dwight D. Robson.

"Mark favors both questions...Why should someone making $30,000 bringing up a family pay the same as someone making $60,000," Robson asks. "It really is a tax cut for those under $102,000."

While Robson admits that some residents will see an increase in their taxes, he says Roosevelt prefers to support the middle-class majority who would receive a tax cut, rather than the wealthy whose taxes would increase.

"We're going to tell people the truth that 92 percent of the people will earn a tax cut. The other eight percent perhaps they may choose not to vote for Mark...but Mark will stand with the 92 percent who will receive the tax cut and we will let Bill Weld stand with the other eight percent," Robson says.

Opponents of Questions 6 and 7, including Gov. William F. Weld '66, say the increase in tax rates would hurt the state's economy and cause many of the wealthy to flee to neighboring states which have lower tax rates.

"It is a long term tax increase and in the long run it will hurt the state's economy and cause the state to lose jobs," says Chip Faulkner, associate director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.

Faulkner believes that because Question 7 is subject to amendments by the state legislature, tax bracket changes could be made that would eventually raise people's taxes.

And raising taxes on the rich won't get more money for Massachusetts, Faulkner says. "The eight percent will either move out of state or get a battalion of tax lawyers to protect their tax assets."

Faulkner and his group would like to see the state's flat tax rate drop back to five percent and criticizes Question 6 and 7 supporters for not cutting middle class tax rates enough.

"It would be nice to go back to the old rate of five percent," Faulkner says. "If [Tax Equity Alliance] is so serious about giving everyone a tax cut then why do they only cut the top rate by half of one percent? Why don't they go back down to five percent?"

SEAT BELT LAW

A "yes" vote on Question 2 would preserve the state law passed in January which requires drivers and passengers in certain vehicles to wear seat belts while riding in cars, trucks and vans weighing less than 18,000 pounds. Under the new law, a driver and each passenger over 16 years of age who is not wearing a seat belt can be fined $25.

Proponents of Question 2 say that wearing seat belts simply saves lives and that all residents of Massachusetts lose money when people do not buckle up.

"Seat belts unequivocally save lives and unequivocally save money," says Jennifer Peck, campaign director of the Vote Yes on Question 2 Committee. "And seat belt laws make more people wear seat belts."

Peck also points to a 1991 federal law which reduces federal highway construction funds for states without seat belt provisions. Under the law, Massachusetts would lose some $9 million in construction subsidies, Peck says.

Peck says that the high cost of treating an unbuckled person injured in a car crash and the grim statistics of unbuckled fatalities make adopting the seat belt law "common sense."

"For every serious injury prevented by wearing a seat belt, it saves people $35,000 in health care costs," Peck says. "Also, last year in Massachusetts, nine out of every 10 people killed in car crashes were unbuckled."

She adds, "The data speaks for itself, seat belts work and seat belts save lives. It is a question of common sense and voters will exercise good judgment [in November]."

Robson says Roosevelt is in favor of the seat belt law, because of the "enormous costs to taxpayers each year in increased health care, workers' compensation and health insurance."

"It is not Mark's goal to intrude on anyone's personal rights, but [he realizes] the enormous costs of a person who does not wear their seat belt," Robson said.

Opponents of the seat belt law say the regulation infringes on one's personal freedom and is a decision that the government should not be regulating.

"[Weld] thinks [wearing seat belts] is an important thing, he wears a seat belt, his children wear seat belts, but it's a personal thing the government should not regulate," Weld spokesperson Paula Popeo says.

Peabody sign painter Chip Ford who is organizing a statewide effort to repeal the state belt law insists his group is gaining momentum as they enter the last month of the campaign.

"[The decision to] wear a seat belt must be left up to the individual," says Ford, the chair and executive director of the Committee to Repeal the Mandatory Seat Belt Law. "It is not a public safety matter, it is a personal health mandate."

Although Ford says he wears his seat belt, he is not convinced that seat belts always save lives.

"Sometimes they save, sometimes they take lives, it all depends on the type of the accident," he says.

Ford notes that after a Massachusetts seat belt law was repealed in 1986, highway fatalities dropped in the state. And he adds that federal funding will not be lost, rather only transferred to the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau.

Referring to the 1986 Massachusetts vote repealing the seatbelt law by a 54 to 46 percent margin, Ford says: "People in Massachusetts really value their freedom."

BLUE LAWS

Supporters of Question 5 would like to see Massachusetts voters reform the state's so-called "blue laws" and allow retail stores to open at any hour on Sundays and to remain open on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Labor Day.

Even if the question is approved, some "blue laws" would still remain intact, including those that prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday mornings and the opening of stores on Christmas and Thanksgiving.

The proposed law would require stores that open on Sunday morings and holidays to make Sunday and holiday work voluntary and to pay most employees at least one and one-half times their regular rate.

Currently, any store or mall can stay open only if the local community police chief gives it a "local exemption" provision.

Supporters of Question 5 point say this exemption gives an unfair business advantage to certain stores over others that are denied permission to stay open.

Question 5 proponents also maintain that the state has no right getting involved with economic decisions of local producers and consumers.

"We think Question 5 is an issue of fairness and consistency," says Randee Sacks, spokesperson for the Committee to Reform the Blue Laws. "It is not the state's role to dictate when stores can and cannot open, when employees can and cannot work and when consumers can and cannot shop."

Sacks also says that Massachusetts businesses will financially gain if the current blue laws are reformed. She cites the fact that all of Massachusetts neighboring states do not have any blue laws.

"The Massachusetts Department of Revenue estimates that if stores were open [on Sunday mornings and holidays], it would generate over $100 million in retail sales and over $15 million in state revenues," Sacks says.

Weld supports Question 5, because he believes it will help the state's economy by encouraging businesses to locate in the Bay State.

"The governor is pro-business and wants to get as many jobs back in Massachusetts as possible," Popeo says.

Opponents of Question 5--including Roosevelt--believe that reforming the "blue laws" will remove precious family time and will put small businesses at a disadvantage.

The Boston Retail Grocers Association and the New England Convenience Store Association, two major small business associations, have recently announced their opposition to Question 5.

But large retail business associations, such as the Massachusetts Retail Association and the Massachusetts Food Association, have supported reforming the blue laws.

"An examination of the supporters on both sides of this issue demonstrates very clearly what this fight is about," says John Laughlin, spokesperson for the Vote No on Question 5 Committee. "The large, national retail chains in the state...know that by opening on Sunday mornings, they will draw shoppers away from their independent, neighborhood stores."

Pat Oppedisano, who owns Decatur Market, a "mom and pop" retail store in Arlington, says large businesses support Question 5 because they want to force small stores, like his, to close.

"The big retailers are not content when they're getting most of the business--they want it all," Oppedisano said in a statement. "Their greed is at the expense of the little guy."

Opponents of Question 5 also insist that if the blue laws are repealed, "family time" will be greatly reduced, because some family members might have to work seven days a week.

"[Roosevelt] is against five, the principle there is that so people will have some time to spend with their families," says Michael B. Gritton, communications director for the Roosevelt campaign. "We need to defend at least one day a week where people will have time to spend with their families."

TERM LIMITS

Supporters of Question 4, which would limit office terms, say elected officials should not be able to prolong their service indefinitely.

"Weld believes that people should not make the job a career," Popeo says. "It is important to get new blood in there."

Roosevelt opposes Question 4, but he believes that some offices should have limited terms.

Roosevelt suggests limiting the terms of Senate president, speaker of the House and chairs of state legislative committees to eight years, according to Robson.

"After eight years, they should move along," Robson says. "The power has become so centralized that it is no longer beneficial to the political process and to the taxpayers."

But opponents of Question 4 say Massachusetts voters already have the ability to limit someone's time in office.

"We have enormous turnover already...People can overturn [someone] if they don't want the incumbent," Wolf says. "It is a simplistic solution to a problem that can be pretty much handled by a little democracy."

Deena Whitfield, chair of the "No on 4" campaign and president of the League of Women's Voters of Massachusetts, says the law would restrict the choices of voters, by not allowing someone's name on the ballot if he or she had served their requisite terms.

Although candidates who have served too long to reappear on the ballot may still be elected by write-in vote, Whitfield says the new law would prohibit the write-in candidate from receiving a salary if elected.

"The new law limits the information citizens receive and it will manipulate the ballot process," Whitfield says.

"Are we so stupid that we do not know how to vote?" Whitfield asks. "We've always had term limits and we all have the opportunity to vote them out."

OTHER QUESTIONS

The city of Cambridge is galvanizing around its opposition to Question 9. If approved, Question 9 would prohibit rent control for most housing units and would eliminate certain existing rent control laws.

Opponents say that if passed, the law would cause economic hardship for the state and the possible eviction of more than 200,000 people, including 25,000 elderly citizens.

"There are very few reasons to vote for it, unless you are a landlord," says Don Veach, treasurer of the Save our Communities Coalition. "You will see immediate eviction in large numbers if it is approved."

"Rent control is not a welfare provision, it is a consumer protection act," Veach adds.

Roosevelt is against Question Nine which he believes is a local issue not to be decided at the state level, Gritton says.

Popeo says Weld has not yet formed an opinion on Question 9.

Three ballot questions have received less attention in this campaign. Question 1, if approved, would regulate spending on ballot question campaigns. Question 3, if approved, would enforce a law prohibiting students from authorizing a waivable fee on tuition bills at Massachusetts state and community colleges. Question 8, if approved, would increase the money in the state's Highway Fund

GRADUATED TAX PROPOSALS

Among the nine ballot questions, Questions 6 and 7--the graduated tax proposals--could affect Massachusetts voters the most. If passed, Question 6 would change the state's constitution and would allow the state to collect its income taxes at a graduated rate, instead of at the current flat rate. Question 7 would set the specific rates and force higher-income residents to pay higher taxes.

Massachusetts residents currently pay 5.95 percent of their taxable income every year. If Questions 6 and 7 are passed, the tax laws would be modified to require married couples who earn less than $102,000 a year to pay 5.5 percent, couples who earn between $102,000 and $150,000 to pay 8.8 percent and couples who earn more than $150,000 to pay 9.8 percent.

But the new rates would only kick in for income made above the minimum salary in that rate category. For example, a couple making $110,000 a year would have to pay 5.5 percent of the first $102,000 and would then have to pay 8.8 percent on the remaining $8,000.

Proponents of the graduated tax say that Massachusetts should do away with its antequated income tax and adopt a tax system which is more progrssive.

"We need to get out of the dark ages and get Massachusetts up to speed," says Paul Capizzi, administrative director of the Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts. "The people on the bottom of the pay scale wind up proportionally paying just as much as Bay State millionaires."

"Progressive taxation is important to pursue . . .the idea for each of us to give a share for the common good," says former Cambridge mayor Alice K. Wolf. "Ninety-two percent of Massachusetts will benefit from the point of view of their own pocket-books."

The Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts, a progressive tax reform organization and lobbying group, has spent about $500,000 trying to get the graduated tax question passed.

The tax reform question will appear on the Massachusetts ballot for the fifth time, having been defeated the previous four times.

Capizzi says that in 1976, the last time the tax reform question appeared on the ballot, it appeared alone. Since this year, Question 6 will appear together with the rate-setting Question 7, Capizzi says he is confident both will pass.

"Forty-one states collect income taxes, and 35 of those as well as Germany and Japan collect them at a graduated rate," Capizzi says.

Capizzi assures voters that if the graduated tax system is passed, Massachusetts will not lose any revenue and will still be able to provide the same services and benefits to its residents.

"[The graduated tax] will just redistribute the tax burden to make it more fair for the middle class, it will shift the burden to the people who are making more," Capizzi says.

Gubernatorial candidate state rep. Mark Roosevelt '71 (D-Beacon Hill) also supports the graduated tax system, says Roosevelt campaign spokesperson Dwight D. Robson.

"Mark favors both questions...Why should someone making $30,000 bringing up a family pay the same as someone making $60,000," Robson asks. "It really is a tax cut for those under $102,000."

While Robson admits that some residents will see an increase in their taxes, he says Roosevelt prefers to support the middle-class majority who would receive a tax cut, rather than the wealthy whose taxes would increase.

"We're going to tell people the truth that 92 percent of the people will earn a tax cut. The other eight percent perhaps they may choose not to vote for Mark...but Mark will stand with the 92 percent who will receive the tax cut and we will let Bill Weld stand with the other eight percent," Robson says.

Opponents of Questions 6 and 7, including Gov. William F. Weld '66, say the increase in tax rates would hurt the state's economy and cause many of the wealthy to flee to neighboring states which have lower tax rates.

"It is a long term tax increase and in the long run it will hurt the state's economy and cause the state to lose jobs," says Chip Faulkner, associate director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.

Faulkner believes that because Question 7 is subject to amendments by the state legislature, tax bracket changes could be made that would eventually raise people's taxes.

And raising taxes on the rich won't get more money for Massachusetts, Faulkner says. "The eight percent will either move out of state or get a battalion of tax lawyers to protect their tax assets."

Faulkner and his group would like to see the state's flat tax rate drop back to five percent and criticizes Question 6 and 7 supporters for not cutting middle class tax rates enough.

"It would be nice to go back to the old rate of five percent," Faulkner says. "If [Tax Equity Alliance] is so serious about giving everyone a tax cut then why do they only cut the top rate by half of one percent? Why don't they go back down to five percent?"

SEAT BELT LAW

A "yes" vote on Question 2 would preserve the state law passed in January which requires drivers and passengers in certain vehicles to wear seat belts while riding in cars, trucks and vans weighing less than 18,000 pounds. Under the new law, a driver and each passenger over 16 years of age who is not wearing a seat belt can be fined $25.

Proponents of Question 2 say that wearing seat belts simply saves lives and that all residents of Massachusetts lose money when people do not buckle up.

"Seat belts unequivocally save lives and unequivocally save money," says Jennifer Peck, campaign director of the Vote Yes on Question 2 Committee. "And seat belt laws make more people wear seat belts."

Peck also points to a 1991 federal law which reduces federal highway construction funds for states without seat belt provisions. Under the law, Massachusetts would lose some $9 million in construction subsidies, Peck says.

Peck says that the high cost of treating an unbuckled person injured in a car crash and the grim statistics of unbuckled fatalities make adopting the seat belt law "common sense."

"For every serious injury prevented by wearing a seat belt, it saves people $35,000 in health care costs," Peck says. "Also, last year in Massachusetts, nine out of every 10 people killed in car crashes were unbuckled."

She adds, "The data speaks for itself, seat belts work and seat belts save lives. It is a question of common sense and voters will exercise good judgment [in November]."

Robson says Roosevelt is in favor of the seat belt law, because of the "enormous costs to taxpayers each year in increased health care, workers' compensation and health insurance."

"It is not Mark's goal to intrude on anyone's personal rights, but [he realizes] the enormous costs of a person who does not wear their seat belt," Robson said.

Opponents of the seat belt law say the regulation infringes on one's personal freedom and is a decision that the government should not be regulating.

"[Weld] thinks [wearing seat belts] is an important thing, he wears a seat belt, his children wear seat belts, but it's a personal thing the government should not regulate," Weld spokesperson Paula Popeo says.

Peabody sign painter Chip Ford who is organizing a statewide effort to repeal the state belt law insists his group is gaining momentum as they enter the last month of the campaign.

"[The decision to] wear a seat belt must be left up to the individual," says Ford, the chair and executive director of the Committee to Repeal the Mandatory Seat Belt Law. "It is not a public safety matter, it is a personal health mandate."

Although Ford says he wears his seat belt, he is not convinced that seat belts always save lives.

"Sometimes they save, sometimes they take lives, it all depends on the type of the accident," he says.

Ford notes that after a Massachusetts seat belt law was repealed in 1986, highway fatalities dropped in the state. And he adds that federal funding will not be lost, rather only transferred to the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau.

Referring to the 1986 Massachusetts vote repealing the seatbelt law by a 54 to 46 percent margin, Ford says: "People in Massachusetts really value their freedom."

BLUE LAWS

Supporters of Question 5 would like to see Massachusetts voters reform the state's so-called "blue laws" and allow retail stores to open at any hour on Sundays and to remain open on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Labor Day.

Even if the question is approved, some "blue laws" would still remain intact, including those that prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday mornings and the opening of stores on Christmas and Thanksgiving.

The proposed law would require stores that open on Sunday morings and holidays to make Sunday and holiday work voluntary and to pay most employees at least one and one-half times their regular rate.

Currently, any store or mall can stay open only if the local community police chief gives it a "local exemption" provision.

Supporters of Question 5 point say this exemption gives an unfair business advantage to certain stores over others that are denied permission to stay open.

Question 5 proponents also maintain that the state has no right getting involved with economic decisions of local producers and consumers.

"We think Question 5 is an issue of fairness and consistency," says Randee Sacks, spokesperson for the Committee to Reform the Blue Laws. "It is not the state's role to dictate when stores can and cannot open, when employees can and cannot work and when consumers can and cannot shop."

Sacks also says that Massachusetts businesses will financially gain if the current blue laws are reformed. She cites the fact that all of Massachusetts neighboring states do not have any blue laws.

"The Massachusetts Department of Revenue estimates that if stores were open [on Sunday mornings and holidays], it would generate over $100 million in retail sales and over $15 million in state revenues," Sacks says.

Weld supports Question 5, because he believes it will help the state's economy by encouraging businesses to locate in the Bay State.

"The governor is pro-business and wants to get as many jobs back in Massachusetts as possible," Popeo says.

Opponents of Question 5--including Roosevelt--believe that reforming the "blue laws" will remove precious family time and will put small businesses at a disadvantage.

The Boston Retail Grocers Association and the New England Convenience Store Association, two major small business associations, have recently announced their opposition to Question 5.

But large retail business associations, such as the Massachusetts Retail Association and the Massachusetts Food Association, have supported reforming the blue laws.

"An examination of the supporters on both sides of this issue demonstrates very clearly what this fight is about," says John Laughlin, spokesperson for the Vote No on Question 5 Committee. "The large, national retail chains in the state...know that by opening on Sunday mornings, they will draw shoppers away from their independent, neighborhood stores."

Pat Oppedisano, who owns Decatur Market, a "mom and pop" retail store in Arlington, says large businesses support Question 5 because they want to force small stores, like his, to close.

"The big retailers are not content when they're getting most of the business--they want it all," Oppedisano said in a statement. "Their greed is at the expense of the little guy."

Opponents of Question 5 also insist that if the blue laws are repealed, "family time" will be greatly reduced, because some family members might have to work seven days a week.

"[Roosevelt] is against five, the principle there is that so people will have some time to spend with their families," says Michael B. Gritton, communications director for the Roosevelt campaign. "We need to defend at least one day a week where people will have time to spend with their families."

TERM LIMITS

Supporters of Question 4, which would limit office terms, say elected officials should not be able to prolong their service indefinitely.

"Weld believes that people should not make the job a career," Popeo says. "It is important to get new blood in there."

Roosevelt opposes Question 4, but he believes that some offices should have limited terms.

Roosevelt suggests limiting the terms of Senate president, speaker of the House and chairs of state legislative committees to eight years, according to Robson.

"After eight years, they should move along," Robson says. "The power has become so centralized that it is no longer beneficial to the political process and to the taxpayers."

But opponents of Question 4 say Massachusetts voters already have the ability to limit someone's time in office.

"We have enormous turnover already...People can overturn [someone] if they don't want the incumbent," Wolf says. "It is a simplistic solution to a problem that can be pretty much handled by a little democracy."

Deena Whitfield, chair of the "No on 4" campaign and president of the League of Women's Voters of Massachusetts, says the law would restrict the choices of voters, by not allowing someone's name on the ballot if he or she had served their requisite terms.

Although candidates who have served too long to reappear on the ballot may still be elected by write-in vote, Whitfield says the new law would prohibit the write-in candidate from receiving a salary if elected.

"The new law limits the information citizens receive and it will manipulate the ballot process," Whitfield says.

"Are we so stupid that we do not know how to vote?" Whitfield asks. "We've always had term limits and we all have the opportunity to vote them out."

OTHER QUESTIONS

The city of Cambridge is galvanizing around its opposition to Question 9. If approved, Question 9 would prohibit rent control for most housing units and would eliminate certain existing rent control laws.

Opponents say that if passed, the law would cause economic hardship for the state and the possible eviction of more than 200,000 people, including 25,000 elderly citizens.

"There are very few reasons to vote for it, unless you are a landlord," says Don Veach, treasurer of the Save our Communities Coalition. "You will see immediate eviction in large numbers if it is approved."

"Rent control is not a welfare provision, it is a consumer protection act," Veach adds.

Roosevelt is against Question Nine which he believes is a local issue not to be decided at the state level, Gritton says.

Popeo says Weld has not yet formed an opinion on Question 9.

Three ballot questions have received less attention in this campaign. Question 1, if approved, would regulate spending on ballot question campaigns. Question 3, if approved, would enforce a law prohibiting students from authorizing a waivable fee on tuition bills at Massachusetts state and community colleges. Question 8, if approved, would increase the money in the state's Highway Fund