Pubdate: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 Source: Berkshire Eagle, The (Pittsfield, MA) Copyright: 2004 New England Newspapers, Inc. Contact: http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/897 Author: D. R. Bahlman, Berkshire Eagle Staff Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/states/ma/ (Massachusetts) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) VOTERS SAY 'YES' TO CUSTODY, MARIJUANA BALLOT QUESTIONS PITTSFIELD -- A leading proponent of a "yes" vote on a nonbinding referendum concerning child custody in divorce cases said yesterday that he was "utterly shocked" by the depth of voters' support for his position. The ballot question, which asked if citizens want their state representative to vote in favor of legislation that would create a presumption in favor of shared legal and physical custody of children in divorce cases, was answered "yes" by an overwhelming majority of voters in Tuesday's election. In Berkshire County, where the question appeared on all ballots, unofficial figures placed the "yes" tally at 51,799. Some 17,355 Berkshire voters said "no." Equally high returns of "yes" votes were reported throughout Massachusetts, where the referendum appeared in some 30 of the state's 159 state representative districts. "I wasn't 100 percent confident that it would win," said Rinaldo Del Gallo III of Pittsfield, who led an effort to collect sufficient signatures of registered voters -- 1,000 -- to place the question on the ballot. "I knew most people supported us, but when we got 78 percent of the vote in Berkshire County I was utterly shocked. I thought it would be in the low 60s." Del Gallo said the statewide totals were 557,615 "yes" votes and 90,708 "no" votes. The question is nonbinding, but Del Gallo believes that legislators will be hard pressed to ignore the message and would do so at their political peril. "Politicians don't like to do things that are unpopular," he said. "When you win with 80 percent [of the vote] -- and we won in some of the most liberal and conservative places in the state -- it's highly unlikely that people are going to ignore us, and they won't if they care about their political future." The vote, said Del Gallo, "gives legislators a measure of confidence that it won't cost them political capital" to support measures that create and/or strengthen presumptions in favor of shared legal and physical custody of children in divorce cases. Del Gallo said the "yes" vote may have been increased by what might be called editorial backlash. "I think the reason we were so successful is that we didn't bear the curse of The Eagle's endorsement," he joked. An editorial in the newspaper advocated a "no" vote on the question; Del Gallo implied that many voters virtually always adopt the position opposite to that taken by The Eagle. The referendum asked whether voters want their state representative "to vote for legislation to create a strong presumption in child custody cases in favor of joint physical and legal custody, so that the court will order that children have equal access to both parents as much as possible, except where there is clear and convincing evidence that one parent is unfit, or that joint custody is not possible due to the fault of one of the parents." Supporters of a "yes" vote have argued that some judges in divorce and child custody cases are inclined to favor the mother when deciding which parent should have legal and physical custody. They contend that state law should guide judicial action more firmly in the direction of joint legal and physical custody and of assuring children's "equal access to both parents as much as possible." Some proponents of a "no" vote have argued that good, postdivorce family relations cannot be legislated. In addition, they contend that joint legal and physical custody can worsen disputes and be used to avoid payment of child support. Two other nonbinding questions appeared on some ballots in Berkshire County and were overwhelmingly answered "yes" in the county and a few other locations in the state. One of the questions, which asked if the growth and possession of small amounts of marijuana should be allowed for seriously ill patients who secure their physician's recommendation, was answered "yes" by 10,821 voters in the 3rd Berkshire legislative district. Some 4,139 voters answered "no," unofficial figures show. Another nonbinding referendum, which appeared on ballots in the 3rd and 4th Berkshire districts, asks if voters want their state representative to vote in favor of resolutions and/or legislation that help assure "that the campaign against terrorism should not be waged at the expense of constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties of Massachusetts residents." Unofficial results from the two districts show 22,634 "yes" votes and 8,752 "no" votes. Similar vote margins were reported in all other legislative districts in which the question appeared on ballots. The question also asks whether voters want their representatives to support legislation that would bar the use of "state resources or institutions to carry out actions that violate constitutional rights, or actions such as racial and religious profiling, conducting secret investigations without reasonable grounds, and maintaining files on individuals and organizations without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct." A "yes" vote on the question also expresses support for a resolution urging the Massachusetts congressional delegation to vote to repeal provisions in the federal USA Patriot Act "and other laws that infringe on civil rights and liberties and to oppose any future legislation that infringes on civil rights and liberties." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake