Massachusetts has long been noted for the direct political action of its citizens and that tradition is reaffirmed today with five referenda on the ballot. The questions range in reach and scope from binding initiative on state environmental and criminal law to an advisory question on national foreign policy.

The referenda questions and their prospects are

Question 1 State Aid to Nonpublic School Students and Certain Institutions

This initiative would amend the state constitution to allow some public aid for students in private primary of secondary schools. Assistance would be allowed only if the private school did not discriminate on the basic of race or color, the individual student requested the aid and if the aid was consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits government establishment of religion. The proposed amendment would also loosen restrictions on state and to hospitals and certain religious or charitable ventures.

Although is passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature, polls indicate that opinion is evenly divided on this issue. Supporters, including many Catholic groups, note that the amendment would simply bring Massachusetts law in line with federal constitutional provisions. Opponents, however, argue that, in the state's current dire fiscal condition, aid to private school students would siphon sorely needed funds from the public school system.

Question 2 The Death Penalty

Another proposed amendment to the state constitution. Question 2 would allow the death penalty as punishment for certain crimes. It approved the measure would require enabling legislation specifying when capital punishment may be applied

Early polls showed close to 70 percent of the voters favoring restoration of capital punishment but a recent survey by WNEV-TV and Cambridge Reports, Inc shows a smaller gap with 55 percent in favor of the amendment 39 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided.

Question 3: Restriction Low-Level Radioactive., Waste Disposal and Nuclear Power Plant Construction

This initiative was placed on the ballot after citizens collected the required 66,000 signatures earlier this year. Since the referendum is binding, the measure will become law it approved by voters today.

Question 3 requires that the construction or operation of any new nuclear power plant or disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste be examined by the legislature to insure that it meets certain standards, and then be approved by a majority of voters at a statewide election. The law would exempt storage or disposal facilities for wastes generated by medical or bio-research, as well as facilities that had received all needed government approvals poor to August 5, 1981.

This is probably the most complicated issue on the ballot and popular sentiment does not divide along the traditional lines Certain liberal organizers such as the League of Women Voters as well as some environmental groups and academics involved in medical or biological research--have joined the large power companies in opposing the proposed law. Opponents say that existing safeguards are adequate and some citizens groups object that the law would by pass local decisionmaking. Researchers, despite the exemptions tear that the law will severely restrict their activities. They explain that it would be too costly for individual laboratories or universities to construct their own storage and disposal facilities.

Defenders of the law, however, argue that there are adequate safeguards to protect community interests and that it is feasible for researchers to construct their own facilities, especially if done cooperatively. Albert M. Giordano, campaign director of the Massachusetts Nuclear Referendum Campaign, characterizes the campaign as one between "populists" and "elitists". Giordano insists that the public is competent to decide the siting of nuclear facilities and that the law would institute a safer and more democratic mechanism for doing so. Polls consistently show that a majority of votes support the law.

Question 4: Regulating Bottles and cans

Last fall when the legislature overrode Governor King's veto of a law imposing a deposit on beverage bottles and cans, opponents secured the signatures needed to place the issue on the ballot. A majority of "no" votes on Question 4 will repeal the law, which otherwise will take effect, as scheduled, on January 17, 1983.

The Bottle Bill requires that minimum deposits of five and 10 cents, to be refunded to the consumer, be placed on all non-biodegradable containers of soft drinks, mineral water, and beer. Consumers would retrieve their deposits when they return the empty bottles. Storeowners would be entitled to a handling fee of at least one cent per container. The law would also provide extra unemployment benefits and, subject to legislative appropriation, job retraining for workers losing their jobs as a result of the law.

Opponents have charged that this would destroy job, drain the state's water supply (through the requisite washing of cans and bottles) and prove costly to taxpayers. A study sponsored by Governor King's office however, showed that the provision would create a net increase of over 2000 jobs as well as decrease water use and costs of garbage disposal and collection.

The polls indicate overwhelming popular support for the law, but supporters fear that the well-funded corporate campaign may swing voters at the last minute. This year as in 1976 when a similar referendum was defeated, opponents have poured an unprecedented amount of money into the effort.

Question 5: Weapons M. Moratorium

This non-binding referendum calls on "the President of the United States to work vigorously to negotiate a mutual nuclear weapons moratorium and reduction, with appropriate verification, with the Soviet Union and other nations."

Similar referenda are on the ballot in eight other states and the District of Columbia. They pit those who say a "freeze" would hurt the United States' deterrence capabilities versus those who believe the arms race is too dangerous and that both nations already possess more than enough weaponry to ensure national security. Of the five questions on the ballot, this the most likely to pass--polls show support at greater than 60 percent.

QUESTION 4

REFERENDUM ON AN EXISTING LAW

Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on November 10. 1961 by a vote of 108.49 and by the Senate on November 16. 1981 by a vote of 29.10?

YES

NO

The law requires that a refundable deposit be paid for certain beverage containers sold in Massachusetts.

Beverage containers of less than 32 ounces must have a refund value of at least five cents and larger containers a refund value of at least ten cents. This requirement applies to non-biodegradable containers of carbonated soft drinks, mineral water, beer and other malt beverages, but not to containers of other alcoholic beverages, dairy products, natural fruit juices of wine. All beverage containers subject to deposit must clearly indicate the refund value on the container.

The deposit is paid by the consumer upon purchase and most be refunded when the consumer refuse the empty container to a proper dealer or redemption center, so long as the container does not contain any material different from its normal contens Dealers and distributors are also subject to the same deposit and refund on the beverage containers they handle, and are also entitled to a handling fee of at least one cent per container.

No containers can be sold in the state if they are joined together by plastic rings or any other device that cannot be broken down by light or bacteria.

The law provides a bottler a reduction in corporate excise tax of one-tenth of one cent for each reusable beverage container which the bottler sells in the first three months of 1983.

The law takes effect on January 17, 1983