 | |
| STATE PRIMARY ELECTION | |
| William Francis Galvin | CAMBRIDGE |
| Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts | Ward 06 Precinct 01 |
| TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14th, 2010 | |
| Please Note: This is NOT a valid Ballot. | |
GOVERNOR | |
| DEVAL L. PATRICK 75 Hinckley Rd., Milton | DEMOCRAT |
| Candidate for Re-nomination | |
| CHARLES D. BAKER 49 Monument Ave., Swampscott | REPUBLICAN |
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR | |
| TIMOTHY P. MURRAY 11 Kinnicutt Rd., Worcester | DEMOCRAT |
| RICHARD R. TISEI 703 Main St., Wakefield | REPUBLICAN |
| Present State Senator | |
ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| NO NOMINATIONS | REPUBLICAN |
| MARTHA COAKLEY 46 Coolidge Rd., Medford | DEMOCRAT |
| Current Attorney General; Former District Attorney | |
SECRETARY OF STATE | |
| WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN 46 Lake St., Boston | DEMOCRAT |
| Present Secretary of the Commonwealth | |
| WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL 45 Arlington Rd., Woburn | REPUBLICAN |
| Current Woburn City Clerk; Former Woburn Alderman | |
TREASURER | |
| STEVEN GROSSMAN 30 Huntington Rd., Newton | DEMOCRAT |
| KARYN E. POLITO 11 Coachman Ridge Rd., Shrewsbury | REPUBLICAN |
| STEPHEN J. MURPHY 141 Warren Ave., Boston | DEMOCRAT |
AUDITOR | |
| SUZANNE M. BUMP 409 North Plain Rd., Great Barrington | DEMOCRAT |
| Former Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development | |
| MARY Z. CONNAUGHTON 1 Tomkins Ln., Framingham | REPUBLICAN |
| GUY WILLIAM GLODIS 39 Old Cart Rd., Auburn | DEMOCRAT |
| Present Sheriff; Former State Senator | |
| KAMAL JAIN 20 Butterfield St., Lowell | REPUBLICAN |
| MIKE LAKE 103 Gainsborough St., Boston | DEMOCRAT |
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS EIGHTH DISTRICT | |
| NO NOMINATIONS | REPUBLICAN |
| MICHAEL E. CAPUANO 172 Central St., Somerville | DEMOCRAT |
| Candidate for Re-nomination | |
COUNCILLOR SIXTH DISTRICT | |
| SUZANNE R. ENGLISH-MERULLO 31 Clark St., Winchester | DEMOCRAT |
| PAUL A. CARUCCIO 1 Seal Harbor Rd., Winthrop | REPUBLICAN |
| TERRENCE W. KENNEDY 3 Stafford Rd., Lynnfield | DEMOCRAT |
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT MIDDLESEX, SUFFOLK & ESSEX DISTRICT | |
| SAL N. DiDOMENICO 125 Clarence St., Everett | DEMOCRAT |
| Candidate for Re-nomination | |
| BARBARA T. BUSH 30 Monument Sq., Boston | REPUBLICAN |
| TIMOTHY R. FLAHERTY 103 Fresh Pond Pkwy, Cambridge | DEMOCRAT |
| Former Assistant District Attorney | |
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT TWENTY-SIXTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT | |
| NO NOMINATIONS | REPUBLICAN |
| TIMOTHY J. TOOMEY, JR. 88 6th St., Cambridge | DEMOCRAT |
| Candidate for Re-nomination | |
DISTRICT ATTORNEY NORTHERN DISTRICT | |
| NO NOMINATIONS | REPUBLICAN |
| GERARD T. LEONE, JR. 171 Ash St., Hopkinton | DEMOCRAT |
| Candidate for Re-nomination | |
SHERIFF MIDDLESEX COUNTY | |
| NO NOMINATIONS | REPUBLICAN |
| JAMES V. DiPAOLA 181 Kimball St., Malden | DEMOCRAT |
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 before May 6, 2008? |
This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. |
A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. |
A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws. |
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 before May 6, 2008? |
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty. Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse. The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body. Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana. The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred. |
A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. |
A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana. |
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 before May 6, 2008? |
This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. 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, 2010. 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 dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective January 1, 2010. |
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing. |