Massachusetts Greyhound Protection Act (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Animals
2008

Alaska
California
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Idaho
North Dakota

2002
Oklahoma
2000
Massachusetts
1998
California

Missouri

Contents


The Greyhound Protection Act, also known as Massachusetts Question 3, was one of three initiated state statutes that appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Massachusetts. It was approved by the state's voters.

Passage of Question 3 means that the state's two greyhound racetracks, Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park and Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere, must cloe by January 1, 2010. Violators will face minimum fines of $20,000 by the State Racing Commission.

Election results

Massachusetts Greyhound Protection Act:
Votes Percentage
Yes 1,645,828 56%
No 1,282,940 44%
Total votes 2,928,768 100%

Source:

Specific provisions

The measure enacted the following provisions:

  • Prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs.
  • The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing.
  • Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission.
  • The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature.
  • All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs.
  • These changes would take effect January 1, 2009.
  • The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Supporters

The Committee to Protect Dogs and Grey2K USA were the proponents of the initiative.[1]

Arguments for

Arguments in favor of the initiative made by its supporters included:

  • Thousands of dogs suffer inhumane conditions by being kept for up to 20 hours a day in small cages barely large enough for the animals to stand up or turn around in at the two Massachusetts' race tracks - Wonderland Greyhound Park and Raynham Park.
  • Hundreds of dogs suffer serious injuries while competing at the racetracks, including broken bones, head injuries, and paralysis.[2]
  • The dog racing industry has experienced a "catastrophic economic decline" in the past two decades, which has led to some race tracks seeking assistance from politicians, including direct subsidies, tax breaks, special trust funds, and expanded gambling rights.[3]
  • The Number of employees involved in operating the parks is not as large as the opponents claim and the bill will not take effect until 2010, which would provide additional time for the employees of the race tracks to seek employment elsewhere.[4]

Endorsers

In addition to Grey2K USA and the Committee to Protect Dogs, the Greyhound Protection Act was endorsed by:

  • The Springfield Republican.[5]
  • The Blue Mass Group.[6]
  • A number of animal protection organizations including American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PETA), the Humane Society of the United States, and the Animal Rescue League of Boston.[7]

Funding

According to campaign finance reports, as of November 1, 2008 the Committee to Protect Dogs has raised approximately $903,000 and has $9,169.09 remaining.[8] Grey2k shows no filings for 2008. Between 2005 - 2007 they filed as having received no donations or expenditures and $18,490.21 in liabilities although they appear to have donated approx $55,000 dollars and well over $100,000 in staff and services to the committee since 2005. [9]

Opposition

The official ballot committee opposed to the initiative was The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition which is comprised mainly of the owners of the two tracks that would be shut down, including George Carney, who has owned the Raynham-Taunton track for the past 40 years, and Charles Sarkis, owner of the Wonderland track.

A similar initiative made the ballot in 2000. The racing industry opposed it with television ads, arguing that the 2000 initiative would lead to the loss of 1,500 jobs along with $10 million in pari-mutuel betting and other taxes.

Editorial Opposition:

  • The Harvard Crimson[10]

Arguments against

Arguments against the initiative by its opponents included:

  • Massachusetts dogs are healthy and well treated, and that supporters of the initiative use photographs of hurt and emaciated greyhounds from other states to make its case.
  • If the initiative passes, it will lead to the loss of hundreds of jobs that support the Massachusetts economy.
  • The state will lose tax revenue from pari-mutuel betting.


Newspapers against

  • The Boston Globe [11]

Funding

According to campaign finance reports, as of November 1, 2008 The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition has raised approximately $436,000 and has $7,720.38 remaining. It also received approx $215,000 in inkind donations such as staff, postage, etc.. mainly from the 2 race tracks. They also have an additional $3,000 in liabilities[12]

Lawsuit to strike from ballot

Opponents filed a lawsuit in March saying the measure is unfit for the ballot because it singles out the two tracks, when it should apply to the whole state. The Supreme Judicial Court took the matter under advisement after a hearing on May 7. 2008.[13]

On July 15, 2008 the high court advised it had rejected the lawsuit by the initiative's opponents, saying that the racing is a statewide concern.[14]

Path to the ballot

Supporters submitted 45,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot on June 17. The legislature had until the first Wednesday in May to make the proposals law. They chose not to act on the proposals, and proponents had until June 18th to gather another 11,099 signatures.[15] The proponents have gathered 100,000 signatures, guaranteeing that the initiative had met the requirements and has a place on the ballot.[16]

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ The Nantucket Independent: "Ballot Question #3: The Greyhound Protection Act," Sep 10, 2008
  2. ↑ The Committee to Protect Dogs: "Greyhound Protection Act"
  3. ↑ GREY2K USA: "Economics"
  4. ↑ South Coast Today: "OUR VIEW: End dog racing in Massachusetts," Sep 18, 2008
  5. ↑ Springfield Republican
  6. ↑ Blue Mass Group
  7. ↑ The Committee to Protect Dogs: "Endorsements"
  8. ↑ Committee to protect dogs "campaign finance reports"
  9. ↑ Grey2k "campaign finance reports"
  10. ↑ The Harvard Crimson: "No on Question Three," Oct 27, 2008
  11. ↑ Boston Globe "Editorial"
  12. ↑ The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition "campaign finance reports"
  13. ↑ Boston.com: "Supporters amass signatures for dog racing ban," June 18, 2008
  14. ↑ Associated Press: "Court rejects challenge to dog-racing initiative", July 15, 2008
  15. ↑ Boston.com: "Four ballot petitions clear 1st obstacle," Nov 24, 2007
  16. ↑ HSUS: "Animal Protection Group Turns in 100,000 Signatures on Greyhound Protection Act Petition," Nov 20, 2007
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Massachusetts_Greyhound_Protection_Act_%282008%29"
Personal tools