One of the favorite statistics cited by the Citizens for Limited Taxation is that the Massachusetts legislature has faced nearly eight score tax reform measures since 1922, and has acted on none of them--not even one drafted by its own tax commission. The Commonwealth's property taxes are 70 per cent higher than the national average and still the legislature stands pat. It will take Proposition 2 1/2 to bluff the politicians on Beacon Hill into revising the tax structure.

Proposition 2 1/2--the very phrase launches local government officials into paroxysms of fear, prompting tirades on the death of city services and eliciting equally loud battle cries from supporters. Not since the airplanes started flying over houses near Logan Airport have so many people gotten angry. There's a rumor going around, in fact, that if all the money that Citizens for Limited Taxation and its opponents have spent pushing their causes were funnelled into local treasuries, they might be able to cut property taxes next year.

The measure would gradually force the state's 351 cities and towns to lower property taxes by 15 per cent a year, to 2 1/2 per cent of market value. Not every city would be affected, but the average cut would be 41 per cent. Proposition 2 1/2 thereafter would prohibit raising property taxes more than 2 1/2 per cent yearly. Auto excise taxes would be cut about 60 per cent. Fiscal autonomy for school committees and binding arbitration for police and firefighters' unions would be abolished.

A recent Boston Globe poll shows the measure's backers have the slight edge, particularly among people who don't know much about the issue. On paper the measure looks ideal--it would bring the state closer to the national average in property taxes--a move several high-technology industries say is necessary for them to induce new employees to settle in the state. Not only would the reductions save homeowners and businesses money, many backers hope the cuts would be so staggering as to force the legislature to develop a more progressive tax system.

Backers like the Citizens for Limited Taxation consider a proposal as bald-faced as Proposition 2 1/2 (Question 2 on the ballot) just about the only way to goad a legislature that has so long resisted change. If cities threaten a total loss of municipal services or bankruptcy, the state would have to step in, they argue. No matter how many city officials decry the plan, however, there is no guarantee the state will come up with a new, progressive tax system. The legislature would have to act on Proposition 2 1/2 before it could become law, and it could easily alter it or reject it outright.

A lot of city officials would prefer just that. Many communities are already finding it impossible to stay within the 4-per cent ceiling on local budget increases mandated by the state to reduce inflation; lowering that ceiling to 2 1/2 per cent and eliminating exemptions would decimate city services. Moreover, the tax cut would be weighted against renters. Older, poorer cities--which tend to have the highest property taxes--would suffer the most.

Under Proposition 2 1/2, city officials predict municipal services would resemble Hamburg's in 1945. City Manager James L. Sullivan estimates that Cambridge's property tax would be cut 60 per cent over six years and the city would lose one third of its annual budget. In the first year, Cambridge would have to lay off a third of its police force and firefighters, more than a third of its teachers and public works employees, close health centers, branch libraries and community schools and stop underwriting public celebrations. When Proposition 2 1/2 is fully implemented, "there will not be sufficient revenue to retain in the service of this city one employee; not a policeman, not a fireman, not a public works laborer," Sullivan predicts.

While other cities would probably not have to eviscerate their budgets, they would still face arterial cuts. One way to prevent municipal harakiri would be charging for services or transferring the services covered by property taxes to other assessments (Concord is considering increasing its water fees by $100,000)--thereby defeating the purpose of the proposition.

Proponents of the measure say officials are using "scare tactics"; they argue that reductions won't be that severe. The inflation rate will increase property values sufficiently to offset the tax cut, even though the cost of providing services is rising. And they argue that many officials are presenting worst-case examples, which the legislature would prevent. And if all else fails and a city gets strapped, it has two ways to override Proposition 2 1/2 getting two-thirds approval in a local referendum during the biennial general election or in elections called by the legislature in the November of an intervening year.

If the measure passes, it will indicate either that Massachusetts voters are fed up with a regressive tax structure or fed up with taxes in general--more likely the latter. Had Boston Mayor Kevin White vociferously opposed the measure (he has said almost nothing), he could have been forced into a double take, a la Jerry Brown.

That many communities have come out in favor of the proposition is a signal of its appeal. But even its backers point to regressive and potentially dangerous flaws. The regressive-tax haters who designed Proposition 2 1/2 wanted to warn the legislature. But to many municipal officials, its passage represents a death sentence.

Question 1

It took courage for a lone state representative to buck 262 compatriots by voting against Question 1 on tomorrow's ballot--an issue as inherently unquestionable to Americans as motherhood and apple pie--equal rights for the handicapped. The proposed amendment would add to the state constitution an article prohibiting discrimination against handicapped people. The only objection raised so far is that the vague wording of the amendment could possibly be interpreted to mean that Massachusetts will have to install ramps and elevators in old buildings throughout the state.

Question 3

It seems incongruous that a group whose members' wages are paid by taxes would sponsor a tax-cutting measure. In fact, it sounds downright fishy. But that's what Question 3 on tomorrow's ballot--sponsored by the Massachusetts Teachers Association--would technically do: limit state and local tax increases to the rate of annual per capita growth in income. It would also shift the state's share of the tab for local education from 30 to 50 per cent.

There are three catches. One, the tax increase last year was about half the increase in personal income, so the word "limit" scarcely applies.

Two, it is a milder alternative to Proposition 2 1/2; it looks almost like a free lunch--lower taxes, no loss of services. Who would oppose a question that begins: "The proposed law would limit local property taxes and state taxes and would provide for increased state aid for local educational purposes."?

Three, shifting another 20 per cent of the costs of local education to the state is subject to appropriation; the legislature can pay for exactly as much as it wants to. Proponents of the bill say the extra $500 million or so involved could be allocated from the growth in other taxes. Opponents say it's impossible to generate revenue from taxes that have been cut.

Question 3 may well be the teachers' alternative to Proposition 2 1/2. But no one seems quite sure what effect it will have.

Question 4

An $18,000 raise is nothing to sneeze at. But if you suddenly found out you were helping to pay for that raise, it might make you gasp.

In fact, a lot of Massachusetts taxpayers nearly choked early last November when the state legislature voted itself a whopping salary increase, virtually without public notice, and without even waiting until the term expired. Gov. Edward J. King got a 50-per-cent raise, from $40,000 to $60,000. The Senate president and House speaker got raises of nearly $18,000--quite a Halloween treat. And other legislators feasted nearly as well.

Question 4 on tomorrow's ballot lets voters ratify or repeal those raises. If they are rescinded. the legislature seems likely to give itself another pay increase; the only unknown would be its size.

Question 5

A lot of people believe both the state and federal constitution are sacrosanct. They should be immune to the whims of public opinion because amending them is so much more laborious than changing legislation.

That argument entails the main objection to Question 5 on tomorrow's ballot. The proposed amendment would ensure that any law imposing additional costs on two or more localities by regulating salaries and other benefits to municipal workers is first approved by the individual communities--unless the legislature passes such paws with a two-thirds majority or pays the costs itself.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association, a coalition of cities and towns, is working for the amendment because, as one spokesman says, it "will have a double-barreled effect: it will increase local control and promote government accountability."

But the measure has a handful of legislative opponents, who argue that it is more suitable for the General laws and would not affect much pending legislation.

Question 6

Question 6 on tomorrow's ballot boils down to whether an argument for governmental efficiency should take precedence over the public's right to know what the state legislators are doing.

At issue is the procedure by which the legislature declares a measure to be an emergency bill, making it effective when the governor signs it. The legislature now requires a recorded two-thirds vote in each house to give a bill that designation--a procedure that nearly all representatives say is a waste of time, particularly on non-controversial bills.

The amendment would allow the houses to take voice votes on attaching emergency preambles. A roll call could still be taken if two senators or five representatives demanded it, so proponents say no members of the legislature would lose their rights to challenge any bill or vote.

Opponents maintain the amendment offers legislators too much opportunity to railroad a bill through the houses, attach an emergency preamble and have it go into effect immediately without the customary 90-day wait. That kind of action, they say, would undermine the voters' right to referendum and the courts' right to review.

Referendum 1

Cantabrigians who think the level of military spending is exhorbitant now have the chance to say so officially. But it won't count.

A non-binding referendum on tomorrow's ballot asks the "federal government to cease unnecessary spending on new military programs and, instead, to spend the funds for civilian needs such as construction of energy-efficient housing, mass transit, public education and health care."

The Mobilization for Survival, the American Friends Service Committee and several other groups are sponsoring the question, which has received little publicity and no opposition. The referendum has already passed in Berkeley, California and Madison, Wisconsin.

Referendum 2

If you don't like Boston Edison and you detest the idea of nuclear power within a million megawatts of you, you should be sure to read your entire ballot tomorrow.

The last question is a non-binding referendum calling for a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants in Massachusetts.

The vote could affect Boston Edison's plans--currently before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--to build a second nuclear power plant near Plymouth. The referendum does not affect either of the two nuclear plants now operating in the state