OPPOSING CHANGE, TAKING $: TAX ROLLBACK APPEALS TO VOTERS

Massachusetts voters spoke through their wallets yesterday by giving
themselves the biggest tax cut in state history, but opted not to blow
up the health care system in two of eight ballot questions.

In addition, voters rejected a plea by animal rights activists to shut
down the state's greyhound racing industry and stripped inmates of the
right to vote.

Question 4: The decision will mean the state income tax will be rolled
back from its current 5.85 percent to 5 percent over the next three
years, about $450 annually for the average family of four.

Voters appeared to agree with Gov. Paul Cellucci that the state was
awash in surplus money and decided they would rather have the $1.2
billion in their own pocket rather than let legislators spend it.

``What a great victory for the future of Massachusetts,'' Cellucci
said. ``The voters of this state have sent a strong message . . .
about fiscal discipline. We've sent a message across America tonight.''

But while the rollback supporters cruised to a seemingly comfortable
victory, the margin was much tighter at the end than polls had shown
several months ago, when support reached 77 percent.

Jack McCarthy, campaign manager for the anti-rollback Campaign for
Massachusetts Future, said those who read the question for the first
time in the voting booth likely voted in favor of the measure because
of its appeal.

``We had the tougher battle,'' McCarthy said last night. ``We had to
convince people not to take a tax cut.''

Question 5: A $5 million campaign blitz by the state's health care
providers appeared to overcome voters' ire at HMOs to bring Question 5
to a grinding halt.

Opponents of the referendum conceded changes need to be made in the
delivery of health care services but said the radical proposals in the
ballot question were too much, too fast.

``Even though Question 5 was appealing on the surface, it would be bad
for the people of Massachusetts and raise premiums,'' said Rick Lord,
chairman of the No on 5 Coalition. ``None of us ever said our current
system is perfect but let's try to fix it and not blow up the system.''

Supporters of the measure, who were unwilling to concede defeat even
with more than two-thirds of the vote counted, said the question would
have paved the way for universal health care and given doctors the
final say in medical decisions.

``Very clearly we've opened this debate, and we will clearly continue
to take part in it whether we win or whether we lose this ballot
question,'' said Paul Ling, a psychologist who has strongly supported
the measure.

Question 3: Pictures of emaciated and maltreated dogs did not appear
to be enough to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. But opponents
of the measure gained ground over the last few months by slamming the
animal rights activists for misleading advertising. They also appeared
to make some headway in convincing voters that shutting down the
industry would not only mean the loss of jobs for 1,200 workers but
also take millions in state revenues.

``I think we did everything we could do,'' said Glenn Totten,
organizer for the Question 3 opposition. ``I think we had a difficult
task in front of us because we were battling sensationalism with fact.''cw0

Question 6, which would have allowed a dollar-for-dollar deduction for
Mass Pike and tunnel tolls and excise tax, did not find the same
support as the tax rollback referendum. Opponents, including Cellucci,
said the $650 million rebate would only benefit part of the state
while forcing the rest of the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Supporters claimed the toll elimination is long past due, pointing to
the Turnpike Authority paying off its bonds in 1984 before refinancing
billions more.

``I'm blown away by the outcome of this,'' said Doug Barnes of Free
The Pike, the group that put the question on the ballot. ``I expected
certainly a majority of citizens would have agreed with us that tolls
should have been gone by now on the Pike.'' Question 7: Voters
overwhelmingly approved the referendum to allow charitable deductions
on state income tax but the point was moot as lawmakers passed similar
language in the budget this year to allow charitable deductions on
state returns at an estimated price tag of $220 million annually.

Question 8: Voters were fed conflicting information about a question
that would have funnelled drug forfeiture money into treatment for
addicts but in the end sided with the state's district attorneys in
opposing the referendum.

Backed by the state's last three former attorneys general and a U.S.
congressman, Question 8 would have given judges the discretion to send
first- and second-time drug offenders to treatment rather than prison.

Opponents said the measure, while well-intentioned, would give savvy
drug dealers a ``get out of jail free'' card by declaring themselves
``at risk'' for addiction if they are caught with up to 28 grams of
drugs.

Question 2: Voters amended the state constitution to take away the
right of incarcerated felons to vote for all state and most federal
offices.