The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-11-04 State ElectionState Election STATE ELECTION November 4, 1980 269 Pursuant to the Warrant and the Constable's Return thereon, a State Election was held at the time and places specified in the Warrant and was called to order by the Wardens in the precincts as follows: Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School John J. Andreola Precinct 2 J. Warren Killam School Eleanor M. Brown Precinct 3 Joshua Eaton School Joseph P. Riemer Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School John H. Crooker Precinct 5 Community Center Edward P. Cameron Precinct 6 Alice M. Barrows School C. Dewey Smith Precinct 7 Highland School Fred C. Kenney Precinct 8 Memorial High School Kenneth C. Latham who partially read the Warrant, when on motion of Louis R. Gardner, Stephen G. Viegas, Henry A. Murphy, Jr., Norma T. Sweeney, Ann Cusato, Phyllis A. Maloney, Elizabeth C. Cronin and Francis X. Day in Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively it was voted to dispense with the further reading of the Warrant, except the Officer's Return, which was then read by the Wardens in charge. The ballot boxes were examined by the Wardens in charge and each found to be empty and all registered 000. The polls were then declared open at 7:00 A.M. and were closed at 8:00 P.M. with the following results: Whole number of votes cast 12,418. Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT - Vote for One Anderson and Lucey 249 283 260 292 264 339 292 301 2280 Carter and Mondale 460 551 437 444 489 522 455 478 3836 Clark and Koch 12 5 14 6 14 10 15 9 85 Deberry and Zimerman 1 2 2 1 1 7 Reagan and Bush 848 689 640 825 631 743 831 779 5986 Commoner 1 1 Ford 2 2 Others 2 4 6 Blanks 21 12 24 48 38 21 27 24 215 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS - Seventh District - Vote for One Edward J. Markey 1123 1145 960 1106 992 1208 1216 1140 8890 Richard Arsenault 1 1 Blanks 468 396 418 511 446 428 409 451 3527 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 COUNCILLOR - Fifth District - Vote for One John F. Markey 1028 1051 1088 1068 1044 5279 Alan Foulds 1 1 Blanks 563 490 548 557 547 2705 Total 1591 1542 1636 1625 1591 7985 COUNCILLOR - Sixth District - Vote for One Joseph A. Langone III 859 899 855 2613 Blanks 519 718 583 1820 Total 1378 1617 1438 4433 SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT - First Essex & Middlesex District - Vote for One Robert C. Buell 541 436 515 586 527 2605 William J. Gustus 929 1018 998 920 937 4802 John Brennan, Jr. 1 1 Blanks 121 88 123 118 127 577 Total 1591 1542 1636 1625 1591 7985 270 State Election November 4, 1980 Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT - Third Middlesex District - Vote for One John A. Brennan, Jr. 749 768 887 965 887 805 734 737 2739 Blanks 734 735 491 652 551 767 713 688 1694 Total 377 1 1378 1617 1438 2501 Total 1591 1542 4433 REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT - Twenty -first Middlesex District - Vote for One Michael J. Barrett 1023 1090 942 1066 972 1189 1107 1075 8464 Michael J. Crowley 466 379 320 449 370 368 430 419 3201 Blanks 102 73 116 102 96 79 88 97 753 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 COUNTY COMMISSIONER - Middlesex County - Vote for Not More Than Two Michael E. McLaughlin 749 768 700 681 681 805 734 737 5855 Thomas J. Larkin 734 735 611 766 670 767 713 688 5684 William A. Boland 377 1 301 371 322 2501 Total 1591 1542 1 Blanks 1699 1580 1445 1787 1523 1700 1802 1757 13295 Total 3182 3084 2756 3234 2876 3272 3249 3182 24835 SHERIFF - Middlesex County - Vote for One Edward F. Henneberry, Jr. 721 785 709 662 677 803 694 743 5794 Philip T. Razook 576 500 384 578 467 532 560 526 4123 Blanks 294 257 285 377 294 301 371 322 2501 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 QUESTION 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution summarized below, which was approved by the General Court in joint sessions of the House of Representatives and the Senate on September 7, 1977, by a vote of 262 -1, and on May 28, 1980, by a vote of 192 -0? SUMMARY The proposed amendment would add a new article to the state constitution which would prohibit discrimination against handicapped people. It would provide that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual could, on the sole basis of that handicap, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in any program or activity. Yes 901 1004 868 923 908 987 938 948 7477 No 607 461 427 605 434 571 568 563 4236 Blanks 83 77 83 89 96 78 119 80 705 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 QUESTION 2 LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was disapproved by the House of Representatives on May 6, 1980, by a vote of 5 -146, and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1980? SUMMARY The proposed law would limit certain taxes, and change laws relating to school budgets and compulsory binding arbitration. It would impose a limit on state and local taxes on real estate and personal property equal to 2Yz% of the full and fair cash value of the property being taxed. If a locality currently imposes a tax greater than 2Yz% of that cash value, the tax would have to be decreased by 15% each year until the 2Yz% level is reached. If a locality currently imposes a tax of les than 2Y4 %, it would not be allowed to increase the tax rate. In either situation, a city or town could raise its limit by a 2/3 local vote at a general election. The proposed law would provide that the total taxes on real estate and personal property imposed by the state or by localities could never be increased by more than 2Yz% of the total taxes imposed for the preceding year, unless two thirds of the voters agreed to the increase at a general election. It would further provide that no law or regulation which imposes additional costs on a city or town, or a law granting or increasing tax ememptions, would be effective unless the state agrees to assume the added cost. A division of the State Auditor's Department would determine the financial effect of laws and regulations on the various localities. State Election November 4, 1980 271 The proposal would limit the amount of money required to be appropriated for public schools to that amount voted upon by the local appropriating authority. It would also repeal the law which provides for compulsory binding arbitration when labor negotiations concerning police and fire personnel come to an impasse. In addition, the petition would provide that no county, district, or authority could impose any annual increase in costs on a locality of greater than 4% of the total of the year before. The proposed law would also reduce the maximum excise tax rate on motor vehicles from $66 per thousand to $25 per thousand, and it would allow a state income tax deduction equal tc QUESTION 3 LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was disapproved by the House of Representatives on May 6, 1980, by a vote of 2- 147,and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1980? SUMMARY The proposed law would limit local property taxes and state taxes and would provide for increased state aid for local educational purposes. The act would limit local property taxes in the years 1981 through 1984 to the amount levied in the previous year increased by the percentage increase in personal income of the residents of the Commonwealth during the previous year. The local property tax limit could be exceeded to offset decreases in local aid, to cover shortages for prior years and to pay court judgments. Pension and retirement allowances, payments to other governmental units, principal and interest on any indebtedness, unemployment compensation, amounts required to be raised as a condition of a state or federal grant, and costs for special education programs would be excluded from the property tax limit. These local limits would be reduced by any excess taxes actually collected over the tax limit for he preceding year. The limit would not apply to any municipality having a general tax rate of less than $35 per thousand of equalized valuation. The tax limit could be exceeded by a two - thirds vote of the local appropriating body. The cost of regional and independent vocational schools would be subject to the same limitations. The proposed law would also limit .state taxes imposed in the years 1981 through 1984 to an amount no greater than that imposed the previous year, increased by the percentage increase in the personal income of Massachusetts residents in the previous year. This state tax limit could be exceeded only to increase local aid or to assume other costs approved by a two - thirds vote of the state legislature. The amounts necessary to pay principal and interest on state indebtedness, pensions, retirement allowances, unemployment compensation, and court judgments, and money required to be raised as a condition of a federal grant would not be subject to the state tax limit. The total amount of local aid for any year which would be subject to legislative appropriation could not be less than the total amount of aid for the preceding year increased by half the increase in collected state taxes during that preceding year. The state tax limit would be reduced by any excess taxes actually collected over the tax limit for the preceding year. The proposed law also would require, subject to legislative appropriation, a gradual increase in the percentage of local educational costs paid by the Commonwealth to a level of MIN 50% in 1984. The proposal would also require, again subject to legislative appropriation, that ` � school aid paid by the Commonwealth in any year between 1981 through 1984 must be at least 15% greater than that provided in 1980. Yes one half of the rent paid for the taxpayer's principal place of residence. 482 456 519 475 548 Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total 986 Yes 1093 1000 851 969 836 990 931 1032 7702 111 No 462 504 493 600 560 616 650 530 4415 1591 Blanks 36 38 34 48 42 30 44 29 301 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 QUESTION 3 LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was disapproved by the House of Representatives on May 6, 1980, by a vote of 2- 147,and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1980? SUMMARY The proposed law would limit local property taxes and state taxes and would provide for increased state aid for local educational purposes. The act would limit local property taxes in the years 1981 through 1984 to the amount levied in the previous year increased by the percentage increase in personal income of the residents of the Commonwealth during the previous year. The local property tax limit could be exceeded to offset decreases in local aid, to cover shortages for prior years and to pay court judgments. Pension and retirement allowances, payments to other governmental units, principal and interest on any indebtedness, unemployment compensation, amounts required to be raised as a condition of a state or federal grant, and costs for special education programs would be excluded from the property tax limit. These local limits would be reduced by any excess taxes actually collected over the tax limit for he preceding year. The limit would not apply to any municipality having a general tax rate of less than $35 per thousand of equalized valuation. The tax limit could be exceeded by a two - thirds vote of the local appropriating body. The cost of regional and independent vocational schools would be subject to the same limitations. The proposed law would also limit .state taxes imposed in the years 1981 through 1984 to an amount no greater than that imposed the previous year, increased by the percentage increase in the personal income of Massachusetts residents in the previous year. This state tax limit could be exceeded only to increase local aid or to assume other costs approved by a two - thirds vote of the state legislature. The amounts necessary to pay principal and interest on state indebtedness, pensions, retirement allowances, unemployment compensation, and court judgments, and money required to be raised as a condition of a federal grant would not be subject to the state tax limit. The total amount of local aid for any year which would be subject to legislative appropriation could not be less than the total amount of aid for the preceding year increased by half the increase in collected state taxes during that preceding year. The state tax limit would be reduced by any excess taxes actually collected over the tax limit for the preceding year. The proposed law also would require, subject to legislative appropriation, a gradual increase in the percentage of local educational costs paid by the Commonwealth to a level of MIN 50% in 1984. The proposal would also require, again subject to legislative appropriation, that ` � school aid paid by the Commonwealth in any year between 1981 through 1984 must be at least 15% greater than that provided in 1980. Yes 479 482 456 519 475 548 513 521 3993 No 1019 981 842 992 849 986 1001 974 7644 Blanks 93 79 80 106 114 102 111 96 781 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 0 �7 G State Election November 4, 1980 QUESTION 4 REFERENDUM ON AN EXISTING LAW Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on November 1, 1979, by a vote of 83 -62, and which was approved by the Senate on November 1, 1979? SUMMARY The law provides for increases in the salaries of members of the legislature and the constitutional officers of the Commonwealth. The law increases salaries of members of the legislature by an annual amount varying from $1,853 to $17,923. The size of the raise conferred on a particular individual depends upon his position within the legislature. The law has the effect of setting the base salary for a legislator at $20,335, but under the law legislative salaries range as high as the approximately $55,920 paid to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The salaries of the constitutional officers are increased either by $20,000, in the case of the Governor, or $10,000 in all other cases. The law raises the annual salary of the Governor to $60,000, that of the Attorney General to $47,500, and the salaries of the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Treasurer and Receiver General, and the Auditor to $40,000. The law also amends the statutes pertaining to the organization of the offices of the Secretaries of Administration and Finance and of Human Services and to the compensation of senior officials within those offices. It gives the Secretaries of Administration and Finance and of Human Services greater flexibility in establishing positions and setting salaries for those under their supervision. Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total Yes 159 159 116 233 174 209 170 147 1367 No 1367 1322 1190 1273 1178 1341 1313 1349 10333 Blanks 65 61 72 111 86 86 142 95 718 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 QUESTION 5 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution summarized below, which was approved by the General Court in joint sessions of the House of Representatives and the Senate on November 30, 1977, by a vote of 257 -8, and on September 18, 1980, by a vote of 179- 6? SUMMARY The proposed amendment would limit the power of the legislature to impose certain costs on cities and towns. It would provide that any law which imposes additional costs upon two or more cities or towns by regulating the compensation, hours, status, conditions, or benefits of municipal employment would not be effective within a municipality until it accepts the law by vote or appropriation of money. Local acceptance would not be required if the legislature either passed the law by a two - thirds vote, or provided, during the same session in which the law was enacted, that the additional costs would be assumed by the Commonwealth. Yes 1043 958 853 1111 895 1095 1044 1031 8030 No 383 435 372 322 360 401 409 376 3058 Blanks 165 149 153 184 183 140 172 184 1330 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 QUESTION 6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution summarized below, which was approved by the General Court in joint sessions of the House of Representatives and the Senate on September 7, 1977, by a vote of 264 -0, and on September 19, 1980, by a vote of 160- 0? SUMMARY The proposed amendment would change the procedure by which the Legislature declares a measure to be an emergency law, making it effective when it is signed by the Governor. The amendment would allow the Legislature to make such a declaration by a voice vote, rather than by a recorded vote, as now required. The amendment would maintain the existing option allowing for a formal roll call vote. Yes 362 418 357 400 352 388 401 366 3044 No 990 900 781 991 824 1027 982 972 7467 Blanks 239 224 240 226 262 221 242 253 1907 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 State Election November 4, 1980 273. Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total QUESTION 7 E. Shall licenses be granted in this town for the sale therein of alcoholic beverages by restaurants and function rooms having a seating capacity of not less than one hundred persons? Yes 993 1035 924 1030 937 1085 1083 1004 8091 No 513 428 367 485 410 453 434 498 3588 Blanks 85 79 87 102 91 98 108 89 739 Total 1591 1542 1378 1617 1438 1636 1625 1591 12418 The votes were publicly announced in open meeting, locked in ballot cases and transmitted to the Town Clerk to be placed in the vault for safe keeping. Voted to adjourn, 11:00 P. M., November 4, 1980. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk