Wrong Choice

ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY opinion correctly condemns any legislation banning the sale or printing of pornography, it incorrectly attacks the Cambridge City Council for not allowing their constituents to vote on the issue.

This action by the council, the majority editorial argues, is offensive because it closes the door on participatory democracy. Voters will realize that the anti-pornography measure violates their basic rights as protected in the Constitution and they will thus vote it down. Further, the argument goes, it is the job of the courts alone to decide constitutionality; elected officials need not concern themselves with such matters.

But this argument fails for two reasons. First, Cambridge's elected officials made a responsible judgement by not allowing a public referendum to take place on an issue already declared unconstitutional by Federal courts. The move saved the city litigation costs and wasted time. But, even more importantly, they exercised an important leadership role for their constituents.

Americans will not always vote to preserve their basic rights. For instance, polls show anti-abortion and school prayer legislation would be favored by a majority of people in this nation, but many elected officials have bravely ignored such statistics by voting against these measures.

There are certain inalienable rights, and of course freedom of choice and expression rank high among them. Ideally no vote should result in the removal of such rights, but oftentimes a public confused by demagoguery does just that. Cambridge officials were right to withhold the anti-porn measure from a public referendum. They are still right even if, as the majority contends, the measure would have certainly failed, in court if not on the ballot. In fact it is their duty as elected officials to protect the public from voting away a liberty.

Public referendums are an excellent forum for participatory democracy on a local level, especially when dealing with local issues, but no referendum should be presented to the people if it threatens an inalienable right.