IGNORING THE VOTERS' WILL IS A BAD IDEA

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 represented 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, including in Dover, 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 Sherborn 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 members of 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 MetroWest 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."

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 what some proponents say is 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.

We do not endorse the use of marijuana as a medicine nor do we favor
decriminalizing it. However, we do believe that the legislature should
at least give the will of the voters some consideration. There is
absolutely no harm in the legislature calling for fair hearings on
these matters and allowing people on both sides to present their cases.

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.