Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-04 State Election65 STATE ELECTION November 4, 1986 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 Joseph E. Callahan Precinct 2 J. Warren Killam School Eleanor M. Brown Precinct 3 Joshua Eaton School Maria E. Silvaggi Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School John H. Crooker Precinct 5 Alice M. Barrows School Edward P.Cameron Precinct 6 Alice M. Barrows School Louis R. Gardner Precinct 7 Birch Meadow School Henry A. Murphy, Jr. Precinct 8 Birch Meadow School Kenneth C. Latham who then partially read the Warrant, when on motion of Elizabeth C. Cronin, George J. Robinson, Stephen G. Viegas, John F. Cronin, Maureen T. O'Brien, John Andreola, Florence G. Kelly, and Carol S. Beckwith 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 respective Wardens. - - 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 8414. Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total GOVERNOR - Vote for One Dukakis & Murphy 607 616 522 664 537 649 621 650 4866 Kariotis & Nikitas 466 330 292 479 300 374 429 451 3121 Blanks 60 54 34 45 51 60 65 58 427 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 ATTORNEY GENERAL - Vote for One Edward F. Harrington 612 459 402 678 434 525 587 607 4304 James M. Shannon 455 483 397 451 403 498 470 502 3659 Blanks 66 58 49 59 51 60 58 50 451 TOTAL ~T3'3 8~6 -$T$ ~T$$ 8T13 8~ 5~ + SECRETARY OF STATE - Vote for One Michael Joseph Connolly 567 589 505 580 523 609 609 628 4610 Deborah R. Cochran 477 324 271 504 291 397 417 428 3109 Blanks 89 87 72 104 74 77 89 103 695 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 TREASURER - Vote for One Robert Q. Crane 451 499 428 518 430 504 532 520 3882 L. Joyce Hampers 586 426 346 570 379 498 506 534 3845 Blanks 96 75 74 100 79 81 77 105 687 TOTAL 8O 87+$ --M - TT5 X59 AUDITOR - Vote for One A. Joseph DeNucci 440 428 _ 386 462 406 466 450 486 3524 William "Bill" Robinson 595 483 400 625 415 533 578 581 4210 Blanks 98 89 62 101 67 84 87 92 680 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS - Seve nth District - Vote for One Edward J. Markey 755 744 605 786 635 792 774 801 5892 Blanks 378 256 243 402 253 291 341 358 2522 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 66 Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total COUNCILLOR - Fifth District - Vote for One John F. Markey 490 540. 544 531 553 2658 John Patrick Harris 477 321 385 424 427 2034 Blanks 166 139 154 160 179 798 TOTAL 1133 1000 1083 1115 1159 : 5,490 COUNCILLOR - Sixth District - Vote for One Joseph A. Langone, III 526 694 555 1175 Blanks 322 494 333 1149 TOTAL 848 1188 888 2924 SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT - First Essex & Middlesex District - Vote for One Robert C. Buell 836 737 812 827 868 4080 Blanks 297 263 271 288 291 1410 TOTAL 1133 1000 1083 1115 1159 5,490 SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT - Third Middlesex District - Vote for One John A. Brennan, Jr. 557 756 588 1901 Blanks 291 432 300 1023 TOTAL 848 1188 888 2924 REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT - Twenty-first Middlesex District - Vote for One Geoffrey C. Beckwith 834 788 632 886 679 854 849 884 6406 Blanks 299 212 216 302 209 229 266 275 2008 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 DISTRICT ATTORNEY - Northern District - Vote for One L. Scott Harshbarger 782 736 591 821 633 790 791 831 5975 - Blanks 351 264 257 367 255 293 324 328. 2439 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 SHERIFF - Middlesex County - V ote for One John P. McGonagle 744 713 538 750 570 730 737 755 5537 Blanks 389 287 310 438 318 353 378 404 2877 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 COUNTY COMMISSIONE R - Middlesex County - Vote for One Bill Schmidt 516 525 443 515 457 557 534 539 4086 Albert Joseph Onessimo 445 323 255 452 278 351 391 424 2919 Blanks 172 152 150 221 153 175 190 196 1409 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 _ 8414 MIDDLESEX COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSIONER - Fourth District - Vote for One. Robert J. Cain 749 681 528 764 573 745 759 749 5548 Blanks 384 319 320 424 315 338 356 410- 2866 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 QUESTION A Shall a charter study commission be created to study the present governmental structure of Middlesex County to consider and make findings concerning the form of government and make recommendations thereon? Yes 615 568 434 700 502 659 660 645 4783 No 356 314 266 330 277 293 309 346 2491 Blanks 162 118 148 158 109 131 146 168 1140 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 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 June 27, 1984 by a vote of 120-67, and on April 30, 1986 by a vote of 123-69? 67 Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total SUMMARY The proposed constitutional amendment would allow the legislature to prohibit or regulate abortions to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution. It would also provide that the state constitution does not require public or private funding of abortions, or the provision of services or facilities for performing abortions, beyond what is required by the United States Constitution. The provisions of this amendment would not apply to abortions required to prevent the death of the mother. Yes 393 396 257 444 351 385 389 410 3025 -No 698 580 563 7,13 514 664 704 711 5147 Blanks 42 24 28 31 23 34 22 38 242 TOTAL --m -1'T$'$ ___M -IT''3 _TM QUESTION 2 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 December 12, 1984 by a vote of 108-79, and on April 16, 1986 by a vote of 107- 87? SUMMARY The proposed constitutional amendment would allow the expenditure of public funds for private schools and private school students. It would remove primary and secondary schools from the list of non-public institutions barred from receiving public aid and would allow public money, property, or loans of credit to be used for founding, maintaining; or aiding those schools. The proposed amendment would also allow public financial aid, materials, or services to be provided to a non-public school student requesting such aid, but only if that school does not discriminate in its entrance requirements on the basis of race, color, national origin, religious belief, sex or physical handicap. The state legislature would have the power to impose limits on aid, materials, or services provided to students. Yes 248 225 167 279 223 251 227 240 1860 ' No 856 750 659 885 651 813 870 899 6383 Blanks 29 25 22 24 14 19 18 20 171 TOTAL 1133 8000 848 8T8 ___8-8$ 0~3 8TH X59 _-8-M 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, 1986, by a vote of 49-93, and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1986? SUMMARY The proposed law would reduce and then repeal the 7%z% surtax on Massachusetts state income taxes and would limit state tax revenue growth to the level of growth in total wages and salaries of the citizens of the state. It would set the rate of the surtax on Massachusetts state income taxes at 3 3/4% for tax years beginning during 1986, and it would repeal the surtax for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 1987. The allowable state tax revenues for any fiscal year are limited to the allowable state tax revenues for the prior fiscal year as increased by the average rate of growth of Massachusetts wages and salaries for the three immediately preceding calendar years. For purposes of calculating the proposed limit for fiscal year 1987, allowable state tax revenues for fiscal 1986 are the net tax revenues for that fiscal year, but excluding revenues derived from the surtax on state personal income tax. Further, if in any fiscal year the calculation of the limit results in allowable state tax revenues less than the amount of allowable state tax revenues for the prior year, then allowable state tax revenues for that fiscal year shall be equal to the allowable state tax revenues for the prior year. The revenues limited by this law would not include non-tax revenues such as federal reimbursements, tuitions, fees and earnings on investments. The amount of allowable state tax revenues for any fiscal year would have to be reduced if a new state law were enacted allowing local governments to impose new or increased taxes or excises. The reduction would be equal to the amount of revenue derived from the new tax or increase. The reduction in state tax revenues would first take effect in the fiscal year following the enactment of the new law authorizing new local taxes or increases. 68 Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total If state tax revenues exceed the limit imposed by the proposed law, as determined by the State Auditor, a tax credit would have to be granted equal to the total amount of.excess tax revenue. The credit would be applied to the then current personal income tax liability of all taxpayers in proportion to their personal income tax liability in the preceding year. The provisions of this Act could be enforced in court by a group of taxpayers. Yes 606 495 403 641 468 522 559 633 4327 No 462 453 396 494 365 499 501 471 3641 Blanks 65 52 49 53 55 62 55 55 446 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 QUESTION 4 LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on May 5, 1986, by a vote of 145-0, and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1986? SUMMARY The proposed law would require the state Department of Environmental 'Quality Engineering (DEQE) to search for sites in the Commonwealth where oil or hazardous materials have been disposed of and to take all steps necessary to clean up those sites within specified time limits. Provisions are made for informing the public about sites in their communities. Beginning on January 15, 1987, DEQE would be required to publish lists every three months of all sites where it has confirmed that uncontrolled oil or hazardous materials have been disposed of and locations to be investigated as possible disposal sites. The lists would describe what actions have been taken at each site or location. DEQE would be required. to list, to the extent that it has identified, at least 400 possible disposal sites by January 45, 1987, 600 additional locations by January 15, 1988, and 1,000 additional locations in each subsequent year. Within one year after a location is listed as a possible disposal site DEQE would be required to determine if further investigation is warranted. If so, within two years after the listing, DEQE must confirm whether the location is a disposal site, and whether it poses an imminent or substantial hazard to health, safety, public welfare or the environment. For sites found to pose a substantial hazard, DEQE would be required, within the next two years, to ensure that those hazards are eliminated and to develop a plan to eliminate permanently future risks from those sites. Imminent hazards would have to be eliminated immediately. For sites found not to pose any substantial hazards DEQE must, within seven years after the listing, ensure that the full extent of contamination is evaluated and that a plan to eliminate permanently future risks. is developed. The proposed law would require DEQE to provide public notice and encourage public participation. Within 30 days after completing a site investigation, DEQE would have to inform the public through local newspapers of the results of that investigation and of the rights of local citizens under the state law. If the citizens of a town potentially affected by a site submit a request, DEQE would be required to develop a plan for involving the public in its clean-up decisions and present that plan at a public meeting. The chief municipal officer of a city or town in which a disposal site is located could appoint individual(s) to inspect the site on behalf of the community. Massachusetts residents could bring lawsuits to enforce the provisions of the proposed law or to lessen a hazard related to oil or hazardous materials. If such a lawsuit is brought, a court could award costs, including reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. Yes 781 722 568 809 614 766 795 832 5887 No 298 239 241 333 240 275 277 269 2172 Blanks 54 39 39 46 34 42 43 58 355 TOTAL -1T33 -I~66 __M -TI$$ $ ZO$ -IT73 -TI53 QUESTION 5 REFERENDUM ON AN EXISTING LAW Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on October 17, 1985, by a vote of 77-62, and which was approved by the Senate on October 17, 1985? SUMMARY The law requires all drivers and passengers to wear properly adjusted and fastened safety belts while traveling in motor vehicles on public ways. It does. not apply to: children under five years old who are required by another law to wear safety belts or be restrained in safety car seats; passengers in vehicles where all safety belts are being used by others; passengers in buses; persons riding in vehicles built before July 1, 1966, or in which safety belts were not 69 Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total installed as original equipment; or persons who are certified by a physician to be physically unable to use safety belts. The law also does not apply to police officers, rural mail carriers, or drivers or passengers of other vehicles that stop frequently and travel at speeds not exceeding 15 miles per hour between stops. Drivers or passengers sixteen years or older who do not wear safety belts are subject to a $15.00 fine. The driver of a vehicle is also subject to a $15.00 fine for each passenger under sixteen who does not wear a safety belt. This law, however, can be enforced only if the driver is;stopped for a violation of another motor vehicle law. Safety belt violations will not result in i surcharges on motor vehicle insurance premiums. The law also requires that when the Commissioner of Insurance sets motor vehicle insurance rates, the rates must reflect any savings attributable to increased use of safety belts. The law also requires that all motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1989, that are sold or registered in Massachusetts be equipped with crash protection devices, as specified by federal regulations. Any manufacturer who sells or delivers motor vehicles that are not equipped with such safety devices will be subject to a fine of not more than $100 for each sale or delivery. This law is not intended to eliminate the federal requirements for passive crash protection devices in motor vehicles. The law also provides that a non-binding question, unlike this binding referendum, shall be placed on the 1986 general election ballot asking whether the voters approve of the law. Yes 478 441 339 625 442 542 529 539 3935 No 637 546 490 546 427 527 578 598 4349 Blanks 18 13 19 17 19 14 8 22 130 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 QUESTION 6 LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was disapproved by the House of Representatives on May 6, 1986, by a vote of 56-93, and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1986? SUMMARY The proposed law would provide a system of voter registration by mail applicable to all I qualified voters and would eliminate statutory provisions permitting certain persons to vote only for presidential electors. Under this proposed law, the State Secretary would be required to prepare blank forms for affidavits of registration. The Secretary and local boards of registrars would be required to make such forms available to any person eligible to vote in whatever quantity the person requests and to transmit such forms, upon written request, to any person claiming to be qualified to vote. Registrars would also be required to make these forms available at all post offices and at other places within their municipalities. The Secretary would be required to establish a reasonable fee for providing more than 50 forms and to prepare instructions to accompany the forms. A person seeking to register to vote would be required to complete the affidavit of registration and sign it under oath in the presence of a witness who is at least eighteen years old. The witness would be required to certify that the affidavit was signed in his presence and to date the affidavit. A completed affidavit of registration could be either delivered or mailed to the appropriate registrar's office. If, from the facts set forth in the affidavit, it appears that the person is qualified to vote, the registrars would be required to add the person's name to the list of registered voters and to so notify the person by first-class, non forwardable mail, unless the person's name already appears on' the local list of residents at the same address. The cost of mailing such notices would be assumed by the Commonwealth, subject to appropriation. If in any year the General Court fails to appropriate funds for that purpose, such notices would not have to be sent. If such a notice is returned undelivered, the city or town clerk would be required to instruct election officials to challenge the person's right to vote at the next election in which he attempts to vote. The proposed law would also impose criminal penalties of imprisonment for up to two years or a fine up to $2,000 for knowingly or willfully making a false affidavit, taking a false oath, or signing a false certificate relative to the qualifications or registration of any person to vote. Yes 370 341 291 383 305 361 338 388 2777 No 703 614 509 750 541 663 727 706 5213 Blanks 60 45 48 55 42 59 50 65 424 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 7® Prec 1 Prec 2 Prec 3 Prec 4 Prec 5 Prec 6 Prec 7 Prec 8 Total QUESTION 7 THIS QUESTION IS NONBINDING Shall the Commonwealth of Massachusetts urge the United States Congress to enact a national health program which: provides high quality comprehensive personal health care including preventive, curative_ and occupational health services; is universal in coverage, community controlled, rational organized, equitably financed, with no out-of-pocket charges, is sensitive to the particuk health needs of all, and is efficient in containing its cost; and whose yearly expenditure does n~_ exceed the proportion of the Gross National Product spent on health care in the immediately preceding fiscal year? Yes 620 652 507 607 527 633 616` 671 4833 No 443 291 288 518 307 386 431 424 3088 Blanks 70 57 53 63 54 64 68 64 493 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 QUESTION 8 THIS QUESTION IS NONBINDING Shall the Commonwealth of Massachusetts urge the President of the United States and the United States Congress to enact a national acid rain control program which would require a fifty percent reduction in total national sulfur dioxide emissions by the year nineteen hundred and ninety-five and which would allocate the required reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions, and the costs of achieving those reductions, equitably among the states? Yes 861 761 633 904 688 863 861 879 6450 No 205 164 146 204 149 153 181 190 1392 Blanks 67 75 69 80 51 67 73 90 572 TOTAL 1133 1000 848 1188 888 1083 1115 1159 8414 ~ I The votes were publicly announced in open meeting, locked in ballot cases and placed by the Town Clerk in the vault for safe keeping. Voted to adjourn at 9:45 P. M., November 4, 1986. A true copy. Attest: Lawrence Drew Town Clerk