Massachusetts ballot news
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from Massachusetts.
Massachusetts dog track betting not gone--yet
BOSTON, Massachusetts: The House approved a bill on November 10, 2009 that extends simulcasting at the state’s two dog racing tracks until July 31, 2010. The Wonderland Greyhound Park had stopped racing after Massachusetts voters approved a ballot question in 2008 to ban such events. The park is to cease racing on December 31, 2009, and the state's other dog park, The Raynham Park, is supposed to stop races the next day.[1]
If the Senate approves of the bill, both parks would be converted into off-track betting venues for the first half of the 2010. Only bets on races elsewhere in the country would take place at the parks.
Massachusetts statewide sales tax measure gaining momentum
BOSTON, Massachusetts: Activists stated during the week of November 19, 2009 that they had collected enough signatures to place the measure on the 2010 ballot. Carla A. Howell, chairwoman of the committee organizing the effort, Alliance to Roll Back Taxes, declined to provide the number of signatures collected, but did state: "We do feel confident we've submitted more than the requirement.”[2]
According to the ballot summary: This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 2.5% as of January 1, 2011. It would make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by non-resident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts.[3]
Dog track to close in Massachusetts because of measure
BOSTON, Massachusetts: Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park will close on January 1, 2010 due to the Massachusetts Racing Commission denied the request of the dog racing park to add racing dates in 2010 in deference to a voter approved statewide ban on the sport.
Massachusetts voters approved a ballot measure a year ago that banned dog races starting next year. However, statehouse supporters of dog racing pushed measure that would aid dog racing parks, including delaying the live-racing ban for two years, simulating out of state races and introducing slot machines into the parks.[4]
Massachusetts group circulating petition for IRV issue
BOSTON, Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, supporters of an Instant Runoff Voting question launched an initiative on September 11, 2009 to get the issue on the ballot in 2010. The initiative, according to reports, would implement the IRV method in primary and general elections. The only office in a statewide election that wouldn’t use the method is the office of the U.S. President. November 18, 2009 is the deadline to submit the signatures to place the measure on the ballot, with 66,594 needed.
The group hopes to obtain 5,000 volunteers to help with the effort.[5]
Poker Players Alliance moves forward with its efforts
BOSTON, Massachusetts: The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) will move forward with hopes of getting an online poker initiative on the ballot in other states, even though their efforts in Massachusetts fell short of obtaining a position on the 2010 ballot.
The alliance, a lobby group, circulated an initiative petition in Massachusetts that would have legitimized internet poker and would have enabled the state to collect 5% of revenue made by residents. However, General Attorney Martha Coakley rejected the petition, stating that that language of the initiative deters payment processors from paying 5%.
John Pappas has stated that this initiative would indeed work in other states due to higher interests in online gaming. Pappas also stated that the failed efforts in Massachusetts wouldn’t stop his group from moving forward.[6]
Revere birth control measure clears obstacle
REVERE, Massachusetts: A proposed ballot question that would ask residents whether or not to proceed with an approved policy that allows students to receive contraceptives cleared a hurdle during the week of September 18, 2009. The policy was approved by Massachusetts General Hospital‘s school-based clinic, where students would be able to receive birth control items such as Plan B, or “the morning after pill”.
During Labor Day Weekend 2009, Magno and supporters gathered signatures in hopes of collecting the required number of 1,875, which represents 8 percent of the city's registered voters. The signatures were approved, clearing a hurdle and all but assuring the measure will be placed on the ballot. The school board has until September 29, 2009 to accept the terms of the referendum, or it will be placed on the November ballot.[7]
Massachusetts Attorney General reviews 30 initiative petitions
BOSTON, Massachusetts: Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, completed an official review of 30 initiative petitions on September 3, 2009, 25 of which were proposed laws. The rest of the submitted petitions were proposed constitutional amendments. Coakley’s office approved 25 petitions, which allows supporters to move forward with signature gathering, which must be done by December 2, 2009.
Petition circulators must gather 66, 593 signatures from state residents in order to have their petitions reviewed by the legislature. For constitutional amendments to be placed on a ballot, at least 25 percent of the state legislature must approve of the petitions in 2010, and once more in 2011 for them to put on the November 2012 ballot.[8]
Contraceptive issue dominates Labor Day in Massachusetts city
REVERE, Massachusetts: During Labor Day Weekend 2009, Kathleen Magno and ballot measure supporters gathered signatures in hopes of collecting the required number of 1,875, which represents 8 percent of the city of Revere's registered voters, to fight a recently passed school policy allowing the distribution of contraceptives to teenagers.
The proposed ballot question would ask residents whether or not to proceed with an approved policy that allows students to receive contraceptives with a parent’s consent. The policy was approved by Massachusetts General Hospital‘s school-based clinic, where students would be able to receive birth control items such as Plan B, or “the morning after pill”.
Some school officials are backing the new contraceptive policy, stating it protects students from risks that come with sexual activity. According to Superintendent Paul Dakin: “You’re not going to stop a 16-year-old. Once they bite of the fruit they’re not going back.’’[9]
Ballot activist groups in Massachusetts file 30 initiatives by deadline
BOSTON, Massachusetts: Political activists in Massachusetts file language for 30 possible 2010 ballot initiatives by the state's August 5, 2009 deadline.[10]
Political topics addressed in 2010's crop of ballot hopefuls include reducing the state's new sales tax hike, laws to protect endangered whales and allowing more students to attend the charter school of their choice.
Carla Howell, a leading sponsor of the 2008 effort to repeal the income tax in Massachusetts, filed four of the 30 potential ballot questions. Each of hers are aimed at the 2009 increase in the Massachusetts sales tax, proposing to roll it back from anywhere from 5% to 2.5%.
Opponents of Massachusetts 40B get ready for 2010
BOSTON, Massachusetts: An attempt to repeal 40B, the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law, may be on the November 2010 ballot in Massachusetts.[11]
Those who want the law repealed have begun the steps they must go through to qualify it for the ballot.
40B authorizes local boards to approve developments if a certain percentage of the units meet long-term criteria.
Massachusetts liquor retailers consider tax exemption initiative
BOSTON, Massachusetts: Massachusetts' sales tax increased this weekend from 5% to 6.25% and eliminated the exemption for alcohol sold in liquor stores. But already, liquor retailers are considering filing a ballot initiative to make liquor exempt from sales tax. In May 2009 the Senate voted 29-10 in favor of the new legislation.[12] The House voted 108-51 in favor of the tax hike April 2009.[13] Legislators estimate that the tax hike will result in approximately $80 million in new state revenue. However, the Massachusetts Package Stores Association says otherwise; they estimate approximately $50 million in new revenue. [14] Additionally, the liquor association argues that the new tax will cost an estimated 3,000 people their jobs because the tax, they said, will cause alcohol sales to plunge.[15] In reaction to the alleged future drop in revenue and jobs, the association said that they plan to file an initiative by August 5, 2009. First, though the association plans to do some polling and focus groups on the issue. If an initiative is filed and approved the measure will be on the November 2010 statewide ballot.[14]
Massachusetts lawmakers consider amending petition policies
BOSTON, Massachusetts: In an effort to discourage interest groups with deep pockets from influencing Massachusetts voters, Rep. James Fagan proposed two bills to amend the current petition policies. Right now, petitioners must collect 66,593 signatures (the article mistakenly says more than 100,000 signatures) for the legislature to consider a citizen petition. If the legislature chooses not to address the petition, citizens must collect an additional 11,099 signatures (the article mistakenly says 20,000 signatures) to put the measure on the ballot. However, the proposed bill calls for preventing outside firms from being hired to collect signatures. The second bill requires gatherers to wear buttons declaring their name, affiliation and the amount that they are being paid. The buttons must be worn when collecting signatures. Although most lawmakers said that they understood what the bills were trying to accomplish, some said that they simply could not support them. "It's hard enough to get something on the ballot, but trying to further encumber the process by adding restrictions is something I think should probably be studied, but not something I would likely support," said Rep. Thomas Golden. Secretary of State William Galvin said that, if the bills pass, he foresees the bills being challenged in court. Golden added, "This is not a spectator sport that someone should be sitting by and idly watching. If you're so enraged by what they're doing, push the opposite cause."
According to state officials the bill resulted after lawmaker's noticed a massive influx of outside money in support the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana last year. Thirty-percent of the funds for the measure came from Washington, D.C. and sixty-percent came from New York.[16]
See also
References
| |||||
