In recent years, the most important question on the Cambridge ballot has been about rent control. It's a contentious issue, and one that draws Cantabrigians to the polls.

Now that the only ballot question is a 'public opinion advisory question' about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, some political analysts worry that fewer voters passionate about rent control will turn out--meaning a potentially skewed City Council slate.

Rent control is an issue that should have and could have been on the ballot, according to Glenn S. Koocher '71, the host of a local political show.

Because of a misunderstanding between backers of a rent control ballot question and the Cambridge Election Commission, Koocher says, the rent control initiative failed to make it.

Though many rent control advocates didn't expect the ballot question to pass, they were hoping to attract voters who were interested in rent control.

"The strategy was to put the question on the ballot not because it would win. It would have mobilized voters, and the turnout would have been better for tenants," Koocher says.

Several rent control advocates are blaming the Election Commission for lack of clarity and communication.

City Council candidate David Hoicka attributes the misunderstanding to "dirty politics."

"We got skunked by the Election Commission," he says.

Chaos and Confusion

The misunderstanding arose from a question about the definition of voters.

The Cambridge political system dictates that for a question to get on the ballot, it must be endorsed by 8 percent of the voting population. Supporters of the rent control ballot were confused as to whether all of those votes had to come from active voters.

According to Hatch Sterret of Cambridge United for Rent Equity (CURE), the problem was that thousands of 'inactive' voters who no longer live in Cambridge were counted by the Election Commission as part of the general voting base.

Consequently, CURE had to get signatures from 8 percent of a 58,000-person voting base, versus the 43,000 they thought they had to work from.

"Inactive voters include thousands of people who our committee proved no longer live in Cambridge," Sterret said.

According to City Councillor Sheila T. Russell, though, many of the CURE petition signatures were illegible or otherwise invalid.

But Bill Cavellini, housing organizer of the Eviction Free Zone (EFZ), another Cambridge rent control group, says that it is the Election Commission's fault that the question will not appear on the ballot.

"Apparently there was some confusion and maybe even misinformation given to the petitioners about how many votes they needed," he said.

Election Commission officials could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Regardless of who is at fault, the missing ballot question may have consequences for the voter turnout.

The problem with this situation, Koocher says, is that rent control supporters will not turn out at the polls in full force without the question on the ballot.

"If the question were there, you would get a more tenant-friendly slate," Koocher says. "There would be people showing up who just wanted to protect cheap rents."

Koocher says a similar situation took place in 1989, when Proposition 123--though it did not pass--caused a stir with rent control advocates and brought voters to the polls.

The result, he says, was a complete changeover of the majority on the Council.

The Only Question

The one question that is on the ballot this year is a 'non-binding public opinion advisory question' of nuclear non-proliferation. If passed, the City Council would be obligated to send a letter to President Clinton asking him to "engage other nuclear nations in negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring a specific timetable for phased elimination of nuclear weapons.

This question, according to the chairman of the 'No on Question #1 committee, City Council candidate David Trumbull, is a waste of time and money for Cambridge.

"This is another example of the foolishness that goes on at City Council meetings," Trumbull said in a press release. "It is a waste of taxpayers' money.