The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-11-05 State Election ResultsSTATE ELECTION November 5, 2002 Pursuant to the Warrant and the Constable's Return thereon, a State Election was held for all a eight precincts at the Hawkes Field House. The Warrant was partially read by the Town Clerk, Cheryl A. Johnson, when on motion of Warden Helen Monroe, Precinct 1, it was voted to dispense with the further reading of the Warrant, except the Constable's Return, which was then read by the Town Clerk. The ballot boxes were examined by the respective Wardens and each found to be empty and registered 00. The Town Clerk declared the polls open at 7:00 a.m. and closed at 8:00 p.m., with the following results: 10932 ballots (68 %) of registered voters) cast as follows: SENATOR IN CONGRESS n idate Pet 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 1 Pct 5 Pet 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total John F. Kerry 999 886 906 1029 938 1020 1053 900 7731 Michael E. Cloud 270 217 222 286 222 256 224 253 1950 Randall Caroline Forsberg 8 0 4 12 15 5 9 4 57 All Others 3 1 4 1 4 0 0 7 20 Blanks 161 146 124 167 1221 156 118 1801 1174 Total 1441 12 01 12601 14951 13011 14371 1404 13441 10932 GOVERNOR and LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pet 8 Total Howell and Aucoin 13 8 8 13 9 9 13 5 78 O'Brien and Gabarieli 516 458 484 543 517 516 555 442 4031 Romney and Healey 853 695 692 859 692 833 760 847 6231 Stein and Lorenzen 40 40 36 53 53 61 54 24 361 Johnson and Schebel 21 81 71 11 5 2 5 6 36 All Others 1 1 01 01 01 1 01 1 0 3 Blanks 16 41 331 261 241 161 161 20 192 Total 1441 12501 12601 14951 13011 14371 14041 1344 10932 ATTORNEY GENERAL fqn&ijiqtf Pet 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 1 Pet 8 Total Thomas Reilly 1030 906 914 1045 936 1047 1029 943 7850 All Others 8 3 3 4 5 2 6 5 36 Blanks 403 341 343 446 360 388 369 396 3046 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 SECRETARY OF STATE Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pet 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total 'William F. Galvin 937 828 822 951 902 971 968 826 7205 Jack E. Robinson, 111 360 284 299 383 287 321 293 354 2581 All Others 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Blanks 1 144 137 139 161 111 145 143 164 1144 Total 1 14411 12501 12601 14951 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 TREASURER Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Timothy P. Cahill 565 517 532 572 555 580 584 519 4424 Daniel A. Grabauskas 707 557 567 714 572 686 620 637 5060 James O'Keefe 67 75 70 80 96 76 90 71 625 All Others 0 0 l 1 0 0 1 0 3 Blanks 102 101 90 128 78 95 109 1171 820 Total 1 14411 12501 1260 14951 13011 14371 14041 13441 10932 AUDITOR Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pet 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total A. Joseph DeNucci 954 845 832 936 864 990 948 857 7226 Kamal Jain 97 63 72 97 70 69 76 75 619 John James Xenakis 158 145 154 189 184 165 161 152 1308 All Others 0 0 1 0 I 0 l 2 5 Blanks 1 232 197 201 273 1821 213 218 258 1774 Total 1 14411 1250 1260 14951 13011 1437 14041 1344 10932 REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS - Sixth District Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total John F. Tierney 831 732 749 812 777 852 844 742 6339 Mark C.Smith 500 405 410 548 425 470 439 485 3682 All Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 l Blanks 110 113 101 135 99 115 120 117 910 Total 1 1441 1250 1260 1495 13011 1437 1404 1344 10932 COUNCILLOR Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Michael J. Callahan 852 778 807 875 813 899 880 787 6691 All Others 4 1 2 3 6 1 2 5 24 Blanks 585 471 451 617 482 537 522 552 4217 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT Candidate Pct I Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Richard R.Tisei 1085 930 942 1107 924 1075 999 1014 8076 All Others 1 1 4 6 7 1 5 7 32 Blanks 355 319 314 382 370 361 400 323 2824 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 14041 1344 10932 REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT - Twentieth Middlesex District Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 1 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Bradley H. Jones, Jr. 1065 799 832 1118 839 1047 968 977 5175 Mary Steuart 3 1 4 1 5 2 3 2 10 All Others 3 450 424 6 457 2 7 5 23 Blanks 370 1250 1260 371 1301 386 426 360 1913 Total 1 1441 1250 1 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 7121 REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT - Thirtieth Middlesex District Candidate Pct I Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Carol A. Donovan 998 799 832 1031 839 1029 1013 910 2470 All Others 1 1 4 1 5 1 3 5 10 Blanks 442 450 424 463 457 407 388 429 1331 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 3811 DISTRICT ATTORNEY Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Martha Coakley 998 853 889 1031 899 1029 1013 910 7622 All Others 1 1 5 1 6 1 3 5 23 Blanks 442 396 366 463 396 407 388 429 3287 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 REGISTER OF PROBATE Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total John R.Buonomo 672 615 649 667 677 715 707 591 5293 John W. Lambert 511 432 415 551 430 493 454 485 3771 All Others 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Blanks 258 203 196 277 193 229 243 267 1866 Total 1 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 13441 10932 n QUESTION 1 - ELIMINATING STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which a no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 2002? Summary - This proposed law would provide that no income or other gain realized on or after July 1, 2003, would be subject to the state personal income tax. That tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals or 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 before July 1, 2003. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. i QUESTION 2 - ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which a no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 2002? Summary - This proposed law would replace the current state law providing for transitional bilingual education in public school with a law requiring that, with limited exceptions, all public school children mus be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English language classrooms. The propsoed law would require public schools to educate English learners (children who cannot do ordin" classwork in English and who either do not speak English or whose native language is not English) throng a sheltered English immersion program, normally not lasting more than one year. In the program, all books and nearly all teaching would be in English, with the curriculum designed for children learning English, although a teacher could use a minimal amount of a child's native language when necessary. Schools would be encouraged to place in the same classroom children who are from different native - language groups but who have the same level of English skills. Once a student is able to do regular schoolwork in English, the student would be transferred to an English language mainstream classroom. These requirements would not affect special education programs for physically or mentally impaired students or foreign language classes for children who already know English. Parents or guardians of certain children could apply each year to have the requirements waived, so as to place their child in bilingual education or other classes, if the parents or guardians visit the school to be t.... informed, in a language they can understand, about all available options. To obtain a waiver, the child must either (1) already know English; or (2) be at least 10 years old, and the school principal and staff believe that another course of study would be better for the child's educational progress and rapid Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Yes 599 506 500 566 484 513 519 569 4256 No 738 616 644 824 718 837 771 658 5806 Blanks 104 128 116 105 99 87 114 117 870 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 i QUESTION 2 - ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which a no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 2002? Summary - This proposed law would replace the current state law providing for transitional bilingual education in public school with a law requiring that, with limited exceptions, all public school children mus be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English language classrooms. The propsoed law would require public schools to educate English learners (children who cannot do ordin" classwork in English and who either do not speak English or whose native language is not English) throng a sheltered English immersion program, normally not lasting more than one year. In the program, all books and nearly all teaching would be in English, with the curriculum designed for children learning English, although a teacher could use a minimal amount of a child's native language when necessary. Schools would be encouraged to place in the same classroom children who are from different native - language groups but who have the same level of English skills. Once a student is able to do regular schoolwork in English, the student would be transferred to an English language mainstream classroom. These requirements would not affect special education programs for physically or mentally impaired students or foreign language classes for children who already know English. Parents or guardians of certain children could apply each year to have the requirements waived, so as to place their child in bilingual education or other classes, if the parents or guardians visit the school to be t.... informed, in a language they can understand, about all available options. To obtain a waiver, the child must either (1) already know English; or (2) be at least 10 years old, and the school principal and staff believe that another course of study would be better for the child's educational progress and rapid learning of English; or (3) have special physical or psychological needs (other than lack of English skills), have already spent 30 days in an English language classroom during that school year, the school principal and staff document their belief that the child's special needs make another course of study better for the child's educational progress and rapid learning of English, and the school superintendent approves the a waiver. If 20 or more students in one grade level at a school receive waivers, the school would have to offer either bilingual education classes providing instruction in both the student's native language and Engl iJH- or classes using other generally recognized educational methodologies permitted by law. In other cases, a student receiving a waiver would have to be allowed to transfer to a school offering such classes. A parent or guardian could sue to enforce the proposed law and, if successful, would receive attorney's fees, costs and coompensatory money damages. Any school employee, school committee member or other elected official or administrator who willfully and repeatedly refused to implement the proposed law could be personally ordered to pay such fees, costs, and damages; could not be reimbursed for that payment by any public or private party; and could not be elected to a school committee or employed in the public schools for 5 years. Parents or guardians of a child who received a waiver based on special needs could sue if, before the child reaches age 18, they discover that the application for a waiver was induced by fraud or intentional misrepresentation and injured the child's education. All English learners in grades kindergarten and up would take annual standardized tests of English skills. All English learners in grades 2 and up would take annual written standardized tests, in English, of academic subjects. Severely leaming disabled students could be exempted from the tests. Individual scores would be released only to parents, but aggregate scores, school and school district rankings, the number of English learners in each school and district, and related data would be made public. The proposed law would provide, subject to the state Legislature's appropriation, $5 million each year for 10 years for school committees to provide free or low -cost English language instruction to adults who pledged to tutor English learners. The proposed law would replace the current law, under which a school committee must establish a transitional bilingual education program for any 20 or more enrolled children of the same language group who cannot do ordinary classwork in English and whose native language is not English or whose parents do not speak English. In that program, schools must teach all required courses in both English and the child's native language; teach both the native language and English; and teach the history and culture of both the native land of the child's parents and the United States. Teaching of non - required subjects may be in a language other than English, and for subjects where verbalization is not essential (such as art or music), the child must participate in regular classes with English- speaking students. Under the current law, a child stays in the program for 3 years or until the child can perform successfully in English -only classes, whichever occurs first. A test of the child's English skills is given each year. A school committee may not transfer a child out of the program before the third year unless the parents approve and the child has received an English- skills test score appropriate to the child's grade level. A child may stay in the program longer than 3 years if the school committee and the parent or guardian approve. Parents must be informed of their child's enrollment in the program and have the right to withdraw their child from the program. The proposed law's testing requirements would take effect immediately, and its `other requirements would govern all school years beginning after the proposed law's effective date. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would require that, with limited exceptions, all public school children must be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English language classrooms. A NO VOTE would make no changes in English language education in public schools. C ! Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Yes 967 841 879 974 838 968 950 917 7334 No 385 _3131 313 436 372 407 386 305 2917 Blanks 89 96 68 85 91 62 68 122 681 Total 14411 14JVJ 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 QUESTION 3 - TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS Do you support taxpayer money being used to fund political campaigns for public office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? aQUESTION - 4 DEBT EXCLUSION FROM PROPOSITION TWO AND ONE -HALF TO FUND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF READING Shall the Town of Reading be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one - half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to fund road improve- ments including constructing, and doing major repairs to roads within the Town of Reading, including the costs of engineering fees, plans, documents, cost estimates, and all related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith? Pct I Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Yes 378 294 309 398 368 396 357 284 2784 No 969 868 872 999 846 987 965 936 7442 Blanks 94 88 79 98 87 54 82 124 706 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 aQUESTION - 4 DEBT EXCLUSION FROM PROPOSITION TWO AND ONE -HALF TO FUND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF READING Shall the Town of Reading be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one - half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to fund road improve- ments including constructing, and doing major repairs to roads within the Town of Reading, including the costs of engineering fees, plans, documents, cost estimates, and all related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith? A true copy. Attest: L(ZJJ�_�� heryl A. Johnson Town erk Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Yes 616 453 492 683 554 625 645 544 4612 No 696 670 652 689 612 716 637 662 5334 Blanks 129 127 116 123 135 96 122 138 986 Total 1441 1250 1260 1495 1301 1437 1404 1344 10932 A true copy. Attest: L(ZJJ�_�� heryl A. Johnson Town erk