Massachusetts Question 1, Authorization of a Second Slots Location (2016)
Massachusetts Question 1 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Election date November 8, 2016 | |
Topic Gambling | |
Status![]() | |
Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
2016 measures |
---|
November 8 |
Question 1 ![]() |
Question 2 ![]() |
Question 3 ![]() |
Question 4 ![]() |
Polls |
Voter guides |
Campaign finance |
Signature costs |
The Massachusetts Authorization of a Second Slots Location Initiative, also known as Question 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute. The measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this proposal to grant the Massachusetts Gaming Commission the ability to issue an additional slots license. |
A "no" vote opposed this proposal, retaining the existing law that allows three resort casinos and one slots parlor. |
Election results
Question 1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
![]() | 1,919,893 | 60.74% | ||
Yes | 1,240,877 | 39.26% |
- Election results from Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth
Overview
The Massachusetts Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 approved up to three resort casinos and one slots parlor spread across the state. Question 1 would have given the Massachusetts Gaming Commission the ability to issue an additional slots-only license, also known as a category 2 license, to an establishment or proposed establishment attached to a horse-racing facility. As the time of the election, Plainridge Park Casino held the only slots parlor license. The targeted location for the additional parlor was Suffolk Downs. MGM Springfield and Wynn Boston Harbor held resort casino licenses. As of 2016, Massachusetts Gaming Commission had the ability to issue one more casino license in the southeastern part of the state.
Text of measure
Ballot question
The question was on the ballot as follows:[1][2]
“ | Question 1. Law proposed by initiative petition. Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?[3] | ” |
Ballot summary
The summary was as follows:[4][2]
“ | This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category 2 license, which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines.
The proposed law would authorize the Commission to request applications for the additional license to be granted to a gaming establishment located on property that is (i) at least four acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track, including the track’s additional facilities, such as the track, grounds, paddocks, barns, auditorium, amphitheatre, and bleachers; (iii) where a horse racing meeting may physically be held; (iv) where a horse racing meeting shall have been hosted; and (v) not separated from the race track by a highway or railway A Yes Vote would permit the state Gaming Commission to license one additional slot machine gaming establishment at a location that meets certain conditions specified in the law. A No Vote would make no changes in current laws regarding gaming.[3] |
” |
Fiscal consequences
The statement of fiscal consequences was as follows:[2]
“ |
The fiscal consequences of this proposed measure for state and municipal government finances could range from 0 dollars to an unknown positive amount. Under the Expanded Gaming Act, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has the discretion to determine whether a gaming license should be issued and when that determination would be made. If the Gaming Commission did award the proposed license, a new analysis of the casino market would be needed to determine the amount of revenue from this license, based on proposed size and operations, and the potential impact of competition from other gaming establishments in Massachusetts and surrounding areas.[3] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure was as follows:[5][2]
“ | Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority:
SECTION 1. Subsection (a) of Section 8 of Chapter 23K of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:- The commission shall issue a request for applications for category 1 and category 2 licenses. SECTION 2. Section 20 of said Chapter 23K of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following subsection:- (g) Notwithstanding any general or special law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, the commission may issue 1 additional category 2 license; provided, however, that the additional category 2 license shall only be issued to applicants who are qualified under the criteria set forth in this chapter as determined by the commission and that the additional category 2 license meet the following additional qualification: (1) The proposed location of the gaming establishment shall be at least 4 acres large, and shall be adjacent to, and within 1500 feet of, a race track, including the track, grounds, paddocks, barns, auditorium, amphitheatre and/or bleachers, if any, where a horse racing meeting may physically be held, which race track shall have hosted a horse racing meeting, provided that said location is not separated from said race track by a highway or railway.[3] |
” |
Support
The Horse Racing Jobs and Education Committee and Yes to 1 led the support campaign for Question 1.[6]
Supporters
- New England Police Benevolent Association[7]
Arguments in favor
- The Yes on 1 campaign website listed the following arguments in support of Question 1:[6]
“ |
|
” |
Official arguments
The official supporting argument for Question 1 listed in the Massachusetts 2016 Voter Guide was:[2]
“ |
Voting YES allows one additional slots parlor in Massachusetts, providing millions of dollars to Massachusetts communities and creating thousands of jobs. In 2013 alone, Massachusetts residents who played at neighboring state gaming facilities gave those states over $240 Million that could have stayed in Massachusetts. Under the Gaming Law, nearly half the revenue collected benefits all Massachusetts residents. Over the past year, the existing slots parlor contributed over $60 million for Massachusetts communities, plus additional funds paid to the host-community. (The Gaming Law ensures that a slots parlor will only be licensed in a community that votes for it.) About $1 of every $5 collected goes to our State’s horse racing industry, sustaining jobs at racetracks and breeding farms. A second slots parlor, together with the existing parlor, will assure that the long tradition of horse racing in Massachusetts survives while bringing thousands of new jobs to Massachusetts.[3] |
” |
Opposition
Vote No on 1 and the Committee for Sustainable and Responsible Economic Development led the opposition campaign for Question 1.[8][9]
Opponents
- Charlie Baker, Massachusetts governor[10]
- Joe Curtatone, mayor of Somerville[11]
- Brian Arrigo, mayor of Revere[11]
- No Eastie Casino[12]
- Celeste Ribeiro Myers, former chair of No Eastie Casino
- Susanna Starrett of No Eastie Casino
- Matt Cameron of No Eastie Casino
- Joe Boncore, state senator (D, First Suffolk and Middlesex District) [13]
- Chip Tuttle, Suffolk Downs chief operating officer[13]
- Shirley Leung, Boston Globe business editor[13]
- Rep Adrian Madaro (D, First Suffolk District)[14]
- City of Revere[15]
Opposing arguments
- The Vote No on 1 campaign website listed the following arguments against Question 1:
|
- Governor Charlie Baker explained his opposition to Question 1 with the following:[10]
“ |
I get the fact that they’d have to go back through the Gaming Commission on this, but, you know, we have one slot parlor in Massachusetts, we have two very significant casinos that are going through, that are actually into construction at this point in time, [...] I’ve always thought we should be mindful of the fact that we don’t exactly know what the consequences and the impact of all this is going to be when the dust settles on the Lottery and on a whole bunch of other things. Let’s wait and see what happens before raising the possibility of yet another facility in Massachusetts.[3] |
” |
Official arguments
The official opposing argument for Question 1 listed in the Massachusetts 2016 Voter Guide was:[2]
“ |
Legalized casino gambling in the Commonwealth is too new and unproven to expand at this time.
more casinos than the market wants or needs.
limits established by the Legislature to protect communities and existing businesses.
other casino developers – they can come to Massachusetts and do the same. Vote “No” to postpone the question of gambling expansion until a review of the costs and benefits of existing Massachusetts gaming establishments is completed.[3] |
” |
Media editorials
Opposition
- The Lowell Sun wrote the following in opposition to Question 1:[16]
“ |
We might be able to support a second slots license if it meant the Leominster site could come back into play because it is a good distance from the other casino locations. But the ballot question as written would require it to be built adjacent to an operating racetrack. That means Suffolk Downs in East Boston, and it just so happens that the developer behind the ballot measure wants to build on a site in Revere next to Suffolk Downs. [...] Further confirming our opposition: The people of Revere themselves don't want it. Voters there rejected the proposal in a non-binding referendum. There is no reason at this time to alter Massachusetts' measured approach to casinos. Vote "no" on 1.[3] |
” |
The same editorial was also published in the Sentinel & Enterprise.[17]
Background
Other casino measures
Prior to the appearance of Question 1 on the November 2016 ballot, there were three measures on state ballots in previous years dealing with gambling. Question 3 in 2014 sought to repeal the Expanded Gaming Act of 2011. It was defeated by a 20 percent margin. The other two measures occurred decades earlier. Question 5 in 1944 was approved and permitted nonprofit organizations to participate in gambling. Question 4 in 1950 sought to create a monthly state lottery in Massachusetts. It was defeated by a 17 point margin.
Measures dealing with gambling qualified for 2016 ballots in New Jersey and Rhode Island. New Jersey Public Question 1 was designed to allow the New Jersey Legislature to pass laws that would allow for two additional counties to each have one new casino, thereby ending a four-decade monopoly in Atlantic City. The measure was defeated. Rhode Island Question 1 was designed to approve a gaming facility in the town of Tiverton. The measure was approved.
Casinos across the states
The American Gaming Association produced data on commercial casinos, which included land-based, riverboat, dockside, and racetrack casinos, for the year 2012. The table below compares the number of casinos, total commercial casino revenue, total tax revenue, tax revenue as a percentage of total revenue, total employee wages, and employee wages per capita for each state with operating commercial casinos. Native American-owned casinos were excluded from AGA's calculations.[18]
State | Date of legalization | Number of casinos in 2012 | Gross casino/gaming revenue (in millions) | Tax revenue (in millions) | Tax revenue as % of gaming revenue | Employee wages (in millions) | Casino employees | Casino employee wages per capita |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado | 1990 | 41 | $766.25 | $104.26 | 13.61% | $216.74 | 9,278 | $23,360.64 |
Delaware | 1994 | 3 | $526.67 | $217.44 | 41.29% | $105.19 | 2,775 | $37,906.31 |
Florida | 2006 | 6 | $427.89 | $161.76 | 37.80% | $104.66 | 3,319 | $31,533.59 |
Illinois | 1990 | 10 | $1,639.00 | $574.34 | 35.04% | $324.48 | 7,687 | $42,211.53 |
Indiana | 1993 | 13 | $2,614.00 | $806.56 | 30.86% | $461.82 | 12,543 | $36,818.94 |
Iowa | 1989 | 18 | $1,467.00 | $334.43 | 22.80% | $341.09 | 9,558 | $35,686.34 |
Kansas | 2007 | 3 | $341.15 | $92.17 | 27.02% | $50.45 | 1,344 | $37,537.20 |
Louisiana | 1991 | 18 | $2,404.00 | $579.45 | 24.10% | $631.00 | 15,061 | $41,896.29 |
Maine | 2004 | 2 | $99.22 | $43.11 | 43.45% | $11.90 | 879 | $13,538.11 |
Maryland | 2008 | 3 | $377.81 | $218.20 | 57.75% | $17.47 | 499 | $35,010.02 |
Michigan | 1996 | 3 | $1,417.00 | $319.75 | 22.57% | $366.53 | 7,972 | $45,977.17 |
Mississippi | 1990 | 30 | $2,251.00 | $272.73 | 12.12% | $847.66 | 23,277 | $36,416.20 |
Missouri | 1993 | 13 | $1,769.00 | $471.410 | 26.65% | $335.90 | 9,631 | $34,876.96 |
Nevada | 1931 | 265 | $10,860.00 | $868.60 | 8.00% | $7,693.0 | 170,206 | $45,198.17 |
New Jersey | 1976 | 12 | $3,051.00 | $254.84 | 8.35% | $912.22 | 34,726 | $26,269.08 |
New Mexico | 1997 | 5 | $241.48 | $62.79 | 26.00% | $29.77 | 918 | $32,429.19 |
New York | 2001 | 9 | $1,802.00 | $822.67 | 45.65% | $189.63 | 5,233 | $36,237.34 |
Ohio | 2009 | 4 | $429.83 | $138.18 | 32.15% | $91.27 | 4,197 | $21,746.49 |
Oklahoma | 2004 | 2 | $113.06 | $20.38 | 18.03% | N/A[19] | 870 | N/A[19] |
Pennsylvania | 2004 | 11 | $3,158.00 | $1,487.00 | 47.09% | $339.77 | 10,162 | $33,435.35 |
Rhode Island | 1992 | 2 | $527.96 | $328.98 | 62.31% | N/A[19] | N/A[19] | N/A[19] |
South Dakota | 1989 | 35 | $107.36 | $16.62 | 15.48% | $38.170 | 1,686 | $22,639.38 |
West Virginia | 1994 | 5 | $948.81 | $402.50 | 42.42% | $134.68 | 4,351 | $30,953.80 |
Polls
Massachusetts Question 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
Western New England University 10/23/2016-11/2/2016 | 34% | 47% | 18% | +/-4.5 | 470 | ||||||||||||||
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 10/24/2016-10/26/2016 | 29.6% | 56.6% | 13.2% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
WBUR/MassInc 10/13/2016 - 10/16/2016 | 34% | 58% | 8% | +/-4.4 | 502 | ||||||||||||||
Western New England University Polling Institute 9/24/2016 - 10/3/2016 | 34% | 44% | 21% | +/-5 | 467 | ||||||||||||||
WBUR/MassInc 9/7/2016 - 9/10/2016 | 37% | 52% | 11% | +/-4.4 | 506 | ||||||||||||||
WBZ/UMass Amherst 9/15/2016 - 9/20/2016 | 44% | 35% | 22% | +/-4.3 | 700 | ||||||||||||||
AVERAGES | 35.43% | 48.77% | 15.53% | +/-4.5 | 524.17 | ||||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
Note: The margin of error for the WBZ/UMass Amherst poll was found in a separate CBS article.[20]
Note: The margin of error for the Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll was found in a separate article.[21]
Campaign finance
One committee was registered in support of the measure—Horse Racing Jobs and Education Committee. It reported over $3.7 million in contributions. Two committees registered in opposition to the measure—No to MORE Casinos and Committee for Sustainable and Responsible Economic Development. Together they reported $73,250 in contributions.[22]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $3,667,799.71 | $107,872.00 | $3,775,671.71 | $3,663,760.48 | $3,771,632.48 |
Oppose | $73,250.00 | $0.00 | $73,250.00 | $73,250.00 | $73,250.00 |
Total | $3,741,049.71 | $107,872.00 | $3,848,921.71 | $3,737,010.48 | $3,844,882.48 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[22]
Committees in support of Question 1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Horse Racing Jobs and Education Committee | $3,667,799.71 | $107,872.00 | $3,775,671.71 | $3,663,760.48 | $3,771,632.48 |
Total | $3,667,799.71 | $107,872.00 | $3,775,671.71 | $3,663,760.48 | $3,771,632.48 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.[22]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Bridge Capital LLC | $1,702,201.78 | $106,000.00 | $1,808,201.78 |
Regent Able Associate Co. | $1,565,147.93 | $0.00 | $1,565,147.93 |
Sok Chenda | $200,000.00 | $0.00 | $200,000.00 |
Toko Kobayashi | $200,000.00 | $0.00 | $200,000.00 |
Alliance Capital LLC | $0.00 | $1,872.00 | $1,872.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.[22]
Committees in opposition to Question 1 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
No to MORE Casinos | $68,000.00 | $0.00 | $68,000.00 | $68,000.00 | $68,000.00 |
Committee for Sustainable and Responsible Economic Development | $5,250.00 | $0.00 | $5,250.00 | $5,250.00 | $5,250.00 |
Total | $73,250.00 | $0.00 | $73,250.00 | $73,250.00 | $73,250.00 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[22]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Wynn Resorts | $68,000.00 | $0.00 | $68,000.00 |
Bryan Scnittjer | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
Gillian Anderson | $200.00 | $0.00 | $200.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Path to the ballot
Since Massachusetts employs an indirect initiative process, the state's general court has an opportunity to adopt proposed laws before they move to a popular vote. However, unlike other states, Massachusetts requires additional signatures following legislative inaction on state statutes. Initiative amendments must be approved by a quarter of the legislature to reach the ballot.
For an amendment or statute, submitted signatures must equal 3 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election, excluding blanks. If the legislature declines to act on a proposed statute, supporters are required to collect a second round of signatures totaling 0.5 percent of the votes last cast for governor, excluding blanks. For proposed amendments, one-quarter of the legislature must approve the petition in a joint session—a second round of signatures is not required and does not overrule rejection by more than three-quarters of the legislature.
Supporters had until December 2, 2015, to submit at least 64,750 valid signatures. A total of 74,521 signatures were submitted to the secretary of state's office and were certified mid-December 2015. Next, the proposal was put before the Legislature. May 3, 2016, was the deadline for the legislature to take action on the initiative.[23] [24]
The legislature did not enact this initiative. To qualify it for the November 2016 election ballot, petitioners needed to collect another 10,792 signatures and submit them to local clerks by about June 22, 2016, so that the petitions could be submitted to the state by a legal deadline on July 6, 2016.[25]
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court authorized Question 1 for the ballot on June 28, 2016.[26]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired J.E.F Associates to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $393,370 was spent to collect the 64,750 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.08.[27]
Lawsuit
In December 2015, 10 residents filed an appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court against Secretary of State William Galvin and Attorney General Maura Healey. Plaintiffs said that state law provides that ballot initiatives cannot apply to one specific locality. According to the plaintiffs, the measure was designed to apply to Suffolk Downs. Attorney General Healey said the measure's language was broad enough to apply to multiple locations.[28]
On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the measure was legal and would impact the state more broadly, not just a specific locality. The ruling stated, "The construction workers who would build such a slots parlor, the employees who would operate it, and the visitors who would play the slots would not be limited to those residing in the host community, and the tax revenues anticipated from its operation would benefit State coffers."[29]
State profile
Demographic data for Massachusetts | ||
---|---|---|
Massachusetts | U.S. | |
Total population: | 6,784,240 | 316,515,021 |
Land area (sq mi): | 7,800 | 3,531,905 |
Race and ethnicity** | ||
White: | 79.6% | 73.6% |
Black/African American: | 7.1% | 12.6% |
Asian: | 6% | 5.1% |
Native American: | 0.2% | 0.8% |
Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
Two or more: | 2.9% | 3% |
Hispanic/Latino: | 10.6% | 17.1% |
Education | ||
High school graduation rate: | 89.8% | 86.7% |
College graduation rate: | 40.5% | 29.8% |
Income | ||
Median household income: | $68,563 | $53,889 |
Persons below poverty level: | 13.1% | 11.3% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Massachusetts. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. |
Presidential voting pattern
Massachusetts voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More Massachusetts coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Massachusetts
- United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts
- Public policy in Massachusetts
- Endorsers in Massachusetts
- Massachusetts fact checks
- More...
Related measures
No measures concerning Gambling are certified for the ballot in 2016. They will be listed below if and when any are certified for the ballot.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Massachusetts Authorization of Second Slots Question 1. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Massachusetts 2016 ballot measures
- 2016 ballot measures
- Massachusetts Legislature
- List of Massachusetts ballot measures
External links
Support
Opposition
- Vote No on 1 and Committee for Sustainable & Responsible Economic Development (S.R.E.D) website
- Vote No on 1 and Committee for Sustainable & Responsible Economic Development (S.R.E.D) Facebook
Footnotes
- ↑ MassLive.com, "Here are your Mass. ballot questions for Nov. 2016: Charter schools, marijuana, farm animal cruelty, and 2nd slot parlor," July 11, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Massachusetts Secretary of State, "Massachusetts Information for Voters 2016 Ballot Questions," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Mass.gov, "15-34 summary," accessed December 4, 2015
- ↑ Mass.gov, "15-34," accessed December 4, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Yes to 1, "Home," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ Yes to 1, "Endorsements," accessed November 7, 2016
- ↑ Vote No on 1, "Home," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Plan for second Mass. slots parlor faces steep odds," July 27, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 22 News WWLP.com, "Opposing Question 1, Baker says he wants to see casino impacts first," September 26, 2016
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Boston Globe, "Two mayors say no to more slots. Will casino mogul Steve Wynn?" July 8, 2016
- ↑ No Eastie Casino, "Home," accessed August 19, 2016
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Vote No on 1, "United Against 1," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ Twitter, "Adrian Madaro," accessed October 20, 2016
- ↑ WBUR, "Revere Rejects Slots Parlor Plan In Special Non-Binding Referendum Ahead Of Ballot Q," October 19, 2016
- ↑ Lowell Sun, "'No' on Question 1," October 26, 2016
- ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "'No' on Question 1," October 26, 2016
- ↑ American Gaming Association, "2013 State of the State," May 2014
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Firms declined to provide data to the AGA.
- ↑ CBS Boston, "WBZ-UMass Poll: Voters Favor Legal Recreational Marijuana, But Have Reservations," September 28, 2016
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Voters split on charter schools, favor legal pot," October 27, 2016
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, "Search," accessed March 3, 2025
- ↑ The Millbury Sutton Chronicle, "Major signature hurdle cleared by seven ballot question campaigns," accessed December 23, 2015
- ↑ The Boston Herald, "Ballot initiative supporters face key deadline," November 29, 2015
- ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "New signature deadline in Mass. for ballot question backers," May 4, 2016
- ↑ Sun Chronicle, "SJC clears slots parlor question for November ballot," June 28, 2016
- ↑ Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance
- ↑ MassLive, "Anti-casino activists sue to block ballot question allowing 2nd Massachusetts slots parlor," December 22, 2015
- ↑ MassLive, "SJC approves ballot question allowing second Massachusetts slots parlor," June 28, 2016
![]() |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |