IGNORING THE VOTERS' WILL

Unless you're the governor, a member of the Democratic leadership in
the House or Senate, or the chairman of an important committee, it's
hard to put an issue on the Legislature's agenda. In recent elections,
activists have tried another way: They put an advisory question on the
ballot in the district representated by the committee chairman.

So far, the strategy hasn't worked, and considering the lack of
enthusiasm shown by some local legislators to the opinions expressed
by voters last week, the activists may be disappointed again.

Voters in 15 districts approved a question calling on the Legislature
to turn the task of legislative redistricting over to an independent,
nonpartisan commission. While some legislators have said they like
the idea, taking the power to gerrymander away from leadership will
be an uphill climb. Voters in four MetroWest communities, including
Marlborough and Natick, agreed that the state's family law should
give a presumption to shared custody of children of divorced parents.
It's a complicated, often emotional issue, but it's one Rep. Steve
LeDuc, the Marlborough Democrat who chairs the Legislature's
Children's Caucus, should look into.

But two committee chairmen targeted by backers of marijuana law
reform seem to be having trouble getting the message.

About 68 percent of voters in towns represented by Sen. Richard
Moore, D-Uxbridge, endorsed the idea of letting terminally ill
patients possess or grow marijuana for medical use with a physician's
permission. Moore was unconvinced, telling a Daily News reporter that
"until there is some scientific evidence or the federal laws permit
some kind of use of it, I don't see what we can do to implement the
ballot question."

Hogwash. Moore, the Senate chairman of the joint Health Care
Committee, could call a hearing at the drop of a hat and ask for the
evidence. He could hear from top medical researchers and from
terminally ill patients -- including some, we expect, in his own
district -- who are now forced to break the law to get the only
medicine that relieves their symptoms. He could find out how things
have worked in the nine states that have already approved medical
marijuana bills.

Voters in the House district represented by Jim Vallee, D-Franklin,
weighed in on a proposal to make marijuana possession a civil
violation, like a traffic ticket, instead of a criminal offense.
Fifty-seven percent of Vallee's constituents endorsed the idea.

"I'm certainly open-minded about it," Vallee said, "but from the
standpoint of the legislative process, I don't think there's support
among the legislators to do it."

Vallee is House chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee, perhaps
the most powerful person in the state when it comes to setting crime
policy. We don't need him to be "open-minded" and we don't need him
to wait around for the other legislators to tell him what they want.
He should be a leader, and he can start by convening a hearing on the
costs and benefits of the current marijuana possession law.

The irony here is that politicians typically steer clear of marijuana
laws out of fear that voters will think them soft on drugs. Moore's
and Vallee's constituents have given them permission, by wide
margins, to explore a touchy area of public policy, yet still they
shy away.

State legislators aren't required to take orders from their
constituents, and ballot questions carefully worded by advocacy
groups for maximum effect don't necessarily translate to good laws.
But the districts and the state are poorly served by lawmakers who go
out of their way to ignore the clearly expressed wishes of their
constituents.