SENATOR IN CONGRESS
|
EDWARD J. MARKEY 7 Townsend St., Malden
Candidate for Re-election
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| BRIAN J. HERR 31 Elizabeth Rd., Hopkinton
|
REPUBLICAN
|
|
GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
|
| BAKER and POLITO
|
REPUBLICAN
|
| COAKLEY and KERRIGAN
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| FALCHUK and JENNINGS
|
UNITED INDEPENDENT PARTY
|
| LIVELY and SAUNDERS
|
INDEPENDENT
|
| MCCORMICK and POST
|
INDEPENDENT
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL
|
| MAURA HEALEY 40 Winthrop St., Boston
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| JOHN B. MILLER 40 Westland Ave., Winchester
|
REPUBLICAN
|
|
SECRETARY OF STATE
|
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN 46 Lake St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| DAVID D'ARCANGELO 183 Bainbridge St., Malden
|
REPUBLICAN
|
| DANIEL L. FACTOR 11 Davis Rd., Acton
|
GREEN-RAINBOW
|
|
TREASURER
|
| DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG 37 Hyslop Rd., Brookline
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| MICHAEL JAMES HEFFERNAN 244 Grove St., Wellesley
|
REPUBLICAN
|
| IAN T. JACKSON 232 Highland Ave., Arlington
|
GREEN-RAINBOW
|
|
AUDITOR
|
SUZANNE M. BUMP 409 North Plain Rd., Great Barrington
Candidate for Re-election
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| PATRICIA S. SAINT AUBIN 6 Shady Way, Norfolk
|
REPUBLICAN
|
| MK MERELICE 22 White Pl., Brookline
|
GREEN-RAINBOW
|
|
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
NINTH DISTRICT
|
WILLIAM RICHARD KEATING 10 Briarwood Ln., Bourne
Candidate for Re-election
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| JOHN C. CHAPMAN 81 Holway St., Chatham
|
REPUBLICAN
|
|
COUNCILLOR
FIRST DISTRICT
|
| JOSEPH C. FERREIRA 7 Thomas Dr., Somerset
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
|
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
|
DANIEL A. WOLF 168 Main St., Harwich
Candidate for Re-election
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
| RONALD R. BEATY, JR. 245 Parker Rd., Barnstable
|
REPUBLICAN
|
|
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
FOURTH BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
|
SARAH K. PEAKE 7 Center St., Provincetown
Candidate for Re-election
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
|
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
|
MICHAEL D. O'KEEFE 2 Windy Pine Ln., Sandwich
Candidate for Re-election
|
REPUBLICAN
|
| RICHARD G. BARRY 20 Highland Ave., Barnstable
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
|
REGISTER OF PROBATE
BARNSTABLE COUNTY
|
ANASTASIA WELSH PERRINO 37 Island St., Dennis
Candidates for Re-election
|
REPUBLICAN
|
|
COUNTY COMMISSIONER
BARNSTABLE COUNTY
|
| LEO G. CAKOUNES 1601 Factory Rd., Harwich
|
REPUBLICAN
|
| MARK R. FOREST 83 Indian Memorial Dr., Yarmouth
|
DEMOCRATIC
|
|
BARNSTABLE ASSEMBLY DELEGATE
WELLFLEET
|
NED HITCHCOCK, II 25 Way #112, Wellfleet
Candidate for Re-election
|
|
|
|
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 the House
of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would
eliminate the requirement that the state’s gasoline tax, which was 24
cents per gallon as of September 2013, (1) be adjusted every year by the
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the preceding year,
but (2) not be adjusted below 21.5 cents per gallon.
A YES VOTE would eliminate the
requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually based on the
Consumer Price Index.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax.
|
QUESTION 2: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law
summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House
of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would expand
the state’s beverage container deposit law, also known as the Bottle
Bill, to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic
non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption,
except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula,
and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover containers
made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-material
packages such as juice boxes or pouches. The proposed law would require
the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to adjust
the container deposit amount every five years to reflect (to the nearest
whole cent) changes in the consumer price index, but the value could
not be set below five cents. The proposed law would increase the
minimum handling fee that beverage distributors must pay dealers for
each properly returned empty beverage container, which was 2¼ cents as
of September 2013, to 3½ cents. It would also increase the minimum
handling fee that bottlers must pay distributors and dealers for each
properly returned empty reusable beverage container, which was 1 cent as
of September 2013, to 3½ cents. The Secretary of EEA would review the
fee amounts every five years and make appropriate adjustments to reflect
changes in the consumer price index as well as changes in the costs
incurred by redemption centers. The proposed law defines a redemption
center as any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of
beverage containers and that is not ancillary to any other business.
The proposed law would direct the Secretary of EEA to issue regulations
allowing small dealers to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit
containers. The proposed law would define small dealer as any person or
business, including the operator of a vending machine, who sells
beverages in beverage containers to consumers, with a contiguous retail
space of 3,000 square feet or less, excluding office and stock room
space; and fewer than four locations under the same ownership in the
Commonwealth. The proposed law would require that the regulations
consider at least the health, safety, and convenience of the public,
including the distribution of dealers and redemption centers by
population or by distance or both. The proposed law would set up a state
Clean Environment Fund to receive certain unclaimed container deposits.
The Fund would be used, subject to appropriation by the state
Legislature, to support programs such as the proper management of solid
waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality
and climate protection. The proposed law would allow a dealer,
distributor, redemption center or bottler to refuse to accept any
beverage container that is not marked as being refundable in
Massachusetts. The proposed law would take effect on April 22, 2015.
A YES VOTE would expand the
state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers
for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions,
increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the
law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
|
QUESTION 3: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law
summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House
of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would (1)
prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license
for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot
machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines;
(2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses
that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took
effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound
races. The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming”
under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live
greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at
Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other
Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types
of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties
for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving
illegal gaming. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were
declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit
casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on
simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.
|
QUESTION 4: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law
summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House
of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would entitle
employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to
certain conditions. Employees who work for employers having eleven or
more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per
calendar year, while employees working for smaller employers could earn
and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per calendar year. An
employee could use earned sick time if required to miss work in order
(1) to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical
condition affecting the employee or the employee’s child, spouse,
parent, or parent of a spouse; (2) to attend routine medical
appointments of the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or
parent of a spouse; or (3) to address the effects of domestic violence
on the employee or the employee’s dependent child. Employees would earn
one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, and would begin
accruing those hours on the date of hire or on July 1, 2015, whichever
is later. Employees could begin to use earned sick time on the 90th day
after hire. The proposed law would cover both private and public
employers, except that employees of a particular city or town would be
covered only if, as required by the state constitution, the proposed law
were made applicable by local or state legislative vote or by
appropriation of sufficient funds to pay for the benefit. Earned paid
sick time would be compensated at the same hourly rate paid to the
employee when the sick time is used. Employees could carry over up to 40
hours of unused sick time to the next calendar year, but could not use
more than 40 hours in a calendar year. Employers would not have to pay
employees for unused sick time at the end of their employment. If an
employee missed work for a reason eligible for earned sick time, but
agreed with the employer to work the same number of hours or shifts in
the same or next pay period, the employee would not have to use earned
sick time for the missed time, and the employer would not have to pay
for that missed time. Employers would be prohibited from requiring such
an employee to work additional hours to make up for missed time, or to
find a replacement employee. Employers could require certification of
the need for sick time if an employee used sick time for more than 24
consecutively scheduled work hours. Employers could not delay the
taking of or payment for earned sick time because they have not received
the certification. Employees would have to make a good faith effort to
notify the employer in advance if the need for earned sick time is
foreseeable. Employers would be prohibited from interfering with or
retaliating based on an employee’s exercise of earned sick time rights,
and from retaliating based on an employee’s support of another
employee’s exercise of such rights. The proposed law would not override
employers’ obligations under any contract or benefit plan with more
generous provisions than those in the proposed law. Employers that have
their own policies providing as much paid time off, usable for the same
purposes and under the same conditions, as the proposed law would not
be required to provide additional paid sick time. The Attorney General
would enforce the proposed law, using the same enforcement procedures
applicable to other state wage laws, and employees could file suits in
court to enforce their earned sick time rights. The Attorney General
would have to prepare a multilingual notice regarding the right to
earned sick time, and employers would be required to post the notice in a
conspicuous location and to provide a copy to employees. The state
Executive Office of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the
Attorney General, would develop a multilingual outreach program to
inform the public of the availability of earned sick time. The proposed
law would take effect on July 1, 2015, and states that if any of its
parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would entitle
employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to
certain conditions.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.
|
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
SUMMARY
Shall the state senator from
this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation to expand
the radiological Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone around the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, an approximately
10-mile-radius area, to include all of Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket
Counties?
|
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
SUMMARY
Shall the state representative
from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that
would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner
as alcohol?
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment