Mass. Voters Decide To Cut Taxes, Reform Health Care

While Democrats made virtually a clean sweep of the partisan races in Massachusetts yesterday, party leaders were handed a significant defeat when voters approved a ballot question that significantly cut the state's income taxes.

Voters also handed a surprising defeat to the backers of Question 5, which would have took steps toward a universal health care system in Massachusetts. Polls as late as this past weekend had shown the question with over a 20 point lead.

Democratic leaders had urged a vote against Question 4, which will reduce the income tax rate from its current 5.95 percent to 5 percent over the next three years.

Realizing the difficulties associated with defeating a proposal that gives money back to voters, Democrats tried to make the vote a referendum on Gov. A. Paul Cellucci and Lt. Gov. Jane Swift. Polls show both have low popularity in the state.

With 77 percent of precincts reporting as of 1 a.m., Question 4 received the support of 60 percent of voters.

Surprisingly, according to exit polling conducted by Voter News Service, the tax cut plan had significant support among those describing themselves as liberals, despite the Democratic Party's opposition. Four of 10 liberal voters cast "yes" votes on Question 4.

Democrats had argued that the cut would make it difficult for the state to address key issues, such as education and health care. They also had argued the cut was irresponsible given the chance of an economic downturn.

Republicans, in a ultimately successful argument, told voters the state could afford the cuts, given the current surpluses the state was running. They also argued such cuts had been promised by the legislature in the early 1990s.

The legislature will now be responsible for determining where to make the cuts in the state budget that the tax reduction will force.

Question 5 would have added a new patients bill of rights against insurance companies, limited the spending of insurers on non-health services like government lobbying and attempted to bring a universal health care system to the state.

Insurers had poured money into the ultimately successful campaign to defeat Question 5. The committee organized to oppose the question raised $4.8 million to defeat the measure, mainly from a handful of the state's largest insurers. The measure's supporters raised less than $100,000.

Those opposed to Question 5 flooded the airways with pleas to vote against the measure. While they said the question's framers had good intentions, they said the devil was in the details.

Opponents argued the proposal was poorly worded, would bankrupt insurers and hospitals and drive up Massachusetts' already high medical costs. Doctors or other professional came out on both sides of the question.

With 77 percent of precincts reporting as of 1 a.m., 53 percent of voters opposed Question 5. The Associated Press projected the final total would show a loss for Question 5.

In the voting on other ballot initiatives, voters approved a relatively inexpensive increase in the tax benefit for charitable contributions. However, it appeared on early returns that a different proposal to provide tax credits for car tolls and car excise tax would be rejected.

Question 3, which would have made greyhound racing illegal, was rejected by voters, according to the Associated Press' projections. Incomplete returns showed the question trailing by a narrow margin.

Question 8, which would have shifted penalties for drug use toward treatment solutions, was defeated by a small margin. The measure would have used money from drug-related property forfeitures for treatment programs.

State voters also approved by wide margins the two state constitutional amendments that were put on the ballot by the state legislature for final approval. One amendment will mean the state's congressional districts will be redrawn for the 2002 election. The other will make jailed felons ineligible to vote. Neither amendment was particularly controversial, and no official opposition was organized on these two issues.