Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Massachusetts Question 1, Authorization of a Second Slots Location (2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Massachusetts Question 1
Flag of Massachusetts.png
Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Gambling
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens
2016 measures
Seal of Massachusetts.png
November 8
Question 1 Defeatedd
Question 2 Defeatedd
Question 3 Approveda
Question 4 Approveda
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
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No1,919,89360.74%
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

MAYesto1logo.jpg

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]
“
  • Over $80 Million Dollars in new Revenue to the State per year
  • $12 Million Dollars to support Horse Racing in Massachusetts
  • 1000’s of new jobs both Direct and Indirect for Massachusett citizens
  • $5 million dollars in guaranteed new revenue to the Host City[3]
 ”

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

SRED.jpg

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:
“
  • Question 1 is a flagrant abuse of the ballot question process. It was filed by one developer, for one site, for one purpose: his own financial benefit. The drafters of the Massachusetts Constitution designed our ballot question process to give the people a voice on statewide issues, not as an an end-run around the legislative process for wealthy developers and corporate interests.
  • Question 1 would allow for a fourth casino proposal in the vicinity of Suffolk Downs. The question of a casino near Suffolk Downs has already been asked and answered three times, and there is no reason to revisit it now. The first proposal was withdrawn due to serious questions raised by allegations of criminal ties and inappropriate conduct on the part of Caesars Entertainment. The second was voted down by East Boston residents, and the third was denied by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission even after the Commission changed its own rules to give Suffolk Downs a second chance.
  • Question 1 opens the door to even more casinos before we have had an opportunity to assess negative impacts in their host communities and statewide. Only one casino will have opened in the Commonwealth as of Election Day, and up to three massive resort casinos and at least one tribal casino could be operating within the next few years. Even at this early stage, casino lobbyists already wield disproportionate power in the Massachusetts legislature. If Question 1 were to pass, we should expect that this result will immediately be used in support of more campaigns for new casino licenses, with even more illusory promises of jobs and revenues. This early push for expansion is especially concerning given the Wall Street Journal‘s warning that the Northeastern U.S. casino market was approaching a “saturation point” even before the first Massachusetts casino opened in June 2015. In the words of Boston Globe columnist and long-time casino supporter Shirley Leung: “Enough is enough.”
  • Question 1 in no way directly benefits Suffolk Downs or any other horse racing track. Suffolk Downs itself would have no ownership interest in the proposed casino, and would receive no direct benefit from it. While a percentage of any Massachusetts casino’s profits are legally required to go toward the statewide Horse Racing Fund, this fund alone may not be enough to save New England horse racing.
  • Opposition to casinos is not a partisan issue. No matter your choices in local, state, and national elections–and no matter your views on charter schools (Question 2), humane treatment of farm animals (Question 3), or the legalization of marijuana (Question 4)–surveys show that both Republicans and Democrats tend to oppose casinos in comparable numbers. Liberal and progressive voters are often justifiably concerned by the casino industry’s predatory practices and knowing exploitation of the poor, people of color, and the elderly to create and sustain the gambling addicts who keep casinos in business. Conservatives and libertarians just as rightly take issue with the industry’s inappropriate influence over state and local governments (often inevitably leading to taxpayer-funded bailouts when casinos fail), invasive data collection, and the widespread social, economic, and other known harms to their host communities and beyond. And even dedicated casino supporters can recognize that.[3]
 ”
  • 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.

  • Only one slot parlor has opened in Massachusetts, and it is significantly underperforming.
  • Five casinos are expected to open in Massachusetts by 2019. The Wall Street Journal warns that New England already has

more casinos than the market wants or needs.

  • This ballot question was written by one casino developer, for one purpose: his own financial gain. It disrupts the process and

limits established by the Legislature to protect communities and existing businesses.

  • Proponents of the ‘Act Relative to Gaming’ have traveled across the globe to exploit the Commonwealth and send a message to

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]

Polls

Massachusetts Question 1
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
Western New England University
10/23/2016-11/2/2016		 34%47%18%+/-4.5470
Suffolk University/Boston Globe
10/24/2016-10/26/2016		 29.6%56.6%13.2%+/-4.4500
WBUR/MassInc
10/13/2016 - 10/16/2016		 34%58%8%+/-4.4502
Western New England University Polling Institute
9/24/2016 - 10/3/2016		 34%44%21%+/-5467
WBUR/MassInc
9/7/2016 - 9/10/2016		 37%52%11%+/-4.4506
WBZ/UMass Amherst
9/15/2016 - 9/20/2016		 44%35%22%+/-4.3700
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

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.


See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

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

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

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
 MassachusettsU.S.
Total population:6,784,240316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):7,8003,531,905
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

See also: Presidential voting trends in Massachusetts

Massachusetts voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.


More Massachusetts coverage on Ballotpedia

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.

Massachusetts Question 1, Authorization of a Second Slots Location (2016) - Google News

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 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. ↑ 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. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ Mass.gov, "15-34 summary," accessed December 4, 2015
  5. ↑ Mass.gov, "15-34," accessed December 4, 2015
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Yes to 1, "Home," accessed September 30, 2016
  7. ↑ Yes to 1, "Endorsements," accessed November 7, 2016
  8. ↑ Vote No on 1, "Home," accessed September 30, 2016
  9. ↑ Boston Globe, "Plan for second Mass. slots parlor faces steep odds," July 27, 2016
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 22 News WWLP.com, "Opposing Question 1, Baker says he wants to see casino impacts first," September 26, 2016
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Boston Globe, "Two mayors say no to more slots. Will casino mogul Steve Wynn?" July 8, 2016
  12. ↑ No Eastie Casino, "Home," accessed August 19, 2016
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Vote No on 1, "United Against 1," accessed September 30, 2016
  14. ↑ Twitter, "Adrian Madaro," accessed October 20, 2016
  15. ↑ WBUR, "Revere Rejects Slots Parlor Plan In Special Non-Binding Referendum Ahead Of Ballot Q," October 19, 2016
  16. ↑ Lowell Sun, "'No' on Question 1," October 26, 2016
  17. ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "'No' on Question 1," October 26, 2016
  18. ↑ American Gaming Association, "2013 State of the State," May 2014
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Firms declined to provide data to the AGA.
  20. ↑ CBS Boston, "WBZ-UMass Poll: Voters Favor Legal Recreational Marijuana, But Have Reservations," September 28, 2016
  21. ↑ Boston Globe, "Voters split on charter schools, favor legal pot," October 27, 2016
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, "Search," accessed March 3, 2025
  23. ↑ The Millbury Sutton Chronicle, "Major signature hurdle cleared by seven ballot question campaigns," accessed December 23, 2015
  24. ↑ The Boston Herald, "Ballot initiative supporters face key deadline," November 29, 2015
  25. ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "New signature deadline in Mass. for ballot question backers," May 4, 2016
  26. ↑ Sun Chronicle, "SJC clears slots parlor question for November ballot," June 28, 2016
  27. ↑ Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance
  28. ↑ MassLive, "Anti-casino activists sue to block ballot question allowing 2nd Massachusetts slots parlor," December 22, 2015
  29. ↑ MassLive, "SJC approves ballot question allowing second Massachusetts slots parlor," June 28, 2016
v • e
2016 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay
Other
Flag of Massachusetts
v • e
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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Massachusetts_Question_1,_Authorization_of_a_Second_Slots_Location_(2016)&oldid=10465934"