The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-11-07 State Election ResultsSTATE ELECTION November 7, 2006 Pursuant to the Warrant and the Constable's Return thereon, a State Election was held for all eight precincts at 55 Walkers's Brook Drive. The Warrant was partially read by the Town Clerk, Cheryl A. Johnson, when on motion of Warden Stanley Robinson, Precinct 5, 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 Police Officer on duty 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: 10248 ballots (62 %) of registered voters cast as follows: SENATOR IN CONGRESS Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Edward M. Kennedy 855 751 725 869 756 825 843 729 6353 Kenneth G. Chase 490 384 402 452 410 478 435 468 3519 All Others 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 1 11 Blanks 43 44 44 60 46 42 41 45 365 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Healey and Hillman 642 489 500 596 487 569 533 605 4421 Patrick and Murray 661 584 552 673 607 655 667 535 4934 Mihos and Sullivan 54 79 90 67 73 80 79 65 587 Ross and Robinson 20 14 14 24 27 24 30 22 175 All Others 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 7 Blanks 1 121 121 17 19 201 171 Ill 161 124 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 - 1 - ATTORNEY GENERAL Candidate Pet 1 Pct 2 Pet 3 Pet 4 1 Pet 5 Pet 6 Pet 7 Pet 8 Total Martha Coakley 917 817 770 947 835 911 941 783 6921 Larry Frisoli 413 321 356 368 328 391 329 401 2907 All Others 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Blanks 58 41 46 66 51 42 53 59 416 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 SECRETARY OF STATE Candidate Pet 1 Pet 2 Pet 3 Pct 4 Pet 5 Pet 6 Pet 7 Pet 8 Total William Francis Galvin 1028 880 854 993 878 943 982 882 7440 Jill E. Stein 202 171 198 191 198 224 192 182 1558 All Others 6 3 0 1 1 0 6 3 20 Blanks 153 125 121 196 138 178 143 176 1230 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 TREASURER Candidate Pet 1 Pet 2 Pet 3 Pet 4 Pet 5 Pet 6 Pet 7 Pet 8 Total Timothy P. Cahill 1033 863 854 997 872 976 984 903 7482 James O'Keefe 174 187 186 177 196 182 166 146 1414 All Others 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 9 Blanks 182 127 133 206 147 185 171 192 1343 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 AUDITOR Candidate Pet 1 Pct 2 Pet 3 Pet 4 Pet 5 Pet 6 Pet 7 Pct 8 Total A. Joseph DeNucci 998 839 833 941 839 917 909 817 7093 Rand Wilson 197 190 185 206 216 215 216 209 1634 All Others 1 2 0 2 0 1 3 1 10 Blanks 193 148 155 232 160 212 195 216 1511 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 REP IN CONGRESS - 6TH DISTRICT Candidate Pet 1 Pet 2 Pet 3 Pet 4 Pet 5 Pct 6 Pet 7 Pet 8 Total John F. Tierney 906 811 765 908 807 871 885 757 6710 Richard W. Barton 400 301 341 370 338 385 353 400 2888 All Others 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 5 Blanks 83 67 66 101 69 88 85 86 645 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 Irm COUNCILLOR - 6TH DISTRICT Candidate Pct 1 Pet 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pet 5 Pct 6 Pet 7 Pct 8 Total Michael J. Callahan 589 542 541 569 544 588 576 467 4416 William John Barabino 406 318 329 390 321 418 370 391 2943 Rosemary A. Macero 81 79 78 74 91 72 80 73 628 Ted Sarandis 115 102 89 126 98 97 107 110 844 All Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Blanks 1 1981 1381 1361 2221 1611 1701 1891 2021 1416 Total 1 13891 11791 11731 13811 12151 13451 13231 12431 10248 SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pet 6 Pct 7 Pet 8 Total Richard R. Tisei 1082 907 880 1030 902 996 959 968 7724 All Others 5 6 8 7 9 9 12 2 58 Blanks 302 266 285 344 304 340 352 273 2466 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 REP IN GENERAL COURT - 20TH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT Candidate Pet 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pet 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Bradley H. Jones, Jr. 1050 853 839 1028 861 994 958 964 4994 Ben Tafoya 1 10 6 5 6 1 2 2 11 All Others 6 316 328 9 348 9 8 4 36 Blanks 332 1179 1173 339 1215 341 355 273 1640 Total 1389 1381 1345 1323 1243 6681 REP IN GENERAL COURT - 30TH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT Candidate Pet 1 Pct 2 Pct 3 Pet 4 Pet 5 Pct 6 Pet 7 1 Pct 8 Total Patrick Natale 927 853 839 866 861 877 867 796 2553 All Others 3 10 6 5 6 3 9 6 22 Blanks 459 316 328 510 348 465 447 441 992 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 3567 DISTRICT ATTORNEY - NORTHERN DISTRICT Candidate Pct 1 Pct 2 Pet 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pet 7 Pct 8 Total Gerard T. Leone, Jr. 927 825 803 866 809 877 867 796 6770 All Others 3 5 1 5 3 3 9 6 35 Blanks 459 349 369 510 403 465 447 441 3443 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 CLERK OF COURTS - MIDDLESEX COUNTY Candidate Pct 1 Pet 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pet 5 Pet 6 1 Pet 7 1 Pet 8 Total Michael A. Sullivan 9401 8251 815 887 828 8921 8811 800 6868 All Others 21 41 2 3 2 21 131 4 32 Blanks 4471 3501 3563- 491 385 4511 4291 439 3348 ITotal 1 13891 11791 11731 13811 12151 13451 13231 12431 102481 REGISTER OF DEEDS - MIDDLESEX SOUTHERN DISTRICT Candidate Pct 1 Pet 2 Pct 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pet 8 Total Eugene C. Brune 900 821 809 824 812 857 823 742 6588 All Others 2 4 2 5 4 2 8 5 32 Blanks 487 354 362 552 399 .486 492 496 3628 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 13231 1243 10248 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 before May 3, 2006? Summary - This proposed law would allow local licensing authorities to issue licenses for food stores to sell wine. The proposed law defines a "food store" as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse -type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores. Holders of licenses to sell wine at food stores could sell wine either on its own or together with any other items they sell. The licensing authorities in any city or town of up to 5000 residents could issue up to 5 licenses for food stores to sell wine. In cities or towns of over 5000 residents, one additional license could be issued for each additional 5000 residents (or fraction of 5000). No person or business could hold more than 10% of the total number of the licenses that could be issued under the proposed law. Such licenses would not be counted when applying the laws that limit the number of other kinds of alcoholic beverage licenses that may be issued or held. Any applicant for a license would have to be approved by the State Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, and any individual applicant would have to be at least 21 years old and not have been convicted of a felony. In issuing any licenses for food stores to sell wine, local licensing authorities would have to use the same procedures that apply to other licenses for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Except where the pro- posed law has different terms, the same laws that apply to issuance, renewal, suspension and termination of licenses for retail sales of alcoholic beverages which are not to be consumed on the seller's premises, and that apply to the operations of holders of such licenses, would govern licenses to sell wine at food stores, and the operation of holders of such licenses. Local authorities could set fees for issuing and renewing such licenses. A Yes Vote would create a new category of licenses for food stores to sell wine, and it would allow local licensing authorities to issue such licenses. A No Vote would make no change in the laws concerning the sale of wine. Question 1 Pet 1 J Pct 2 1 Pct 3 1 Pct 4 1 Pct 5 1 Pct 6 1 Pet 7 1 Pct 8 Total Yes 1 5141 4481 4251 4861 4371 4321 4711 4331 3646 -4- The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti -trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A Yes Vote would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the state. A No Vote would make no change in the laws concerning licensed and other authorized family child care providers. Question 3 Pet 1 Pet 2 Pet 3 Pet 4 Pet 5 Pet 6 Pet 7 Pet 8 Total Yes 477 465 445 467 458 462 484 419 3677 No 779 616 631 760 600 749 694 689 5,518 Blanks 133 98 97 154 157 134 145 135 1053 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 QUESTION - 4 THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the President and Congress of the United States to end the war in Iraq? Question 4 Pet 1 Pet 2 Pct 3 Pet 4 Pet 5 Pet 6 Pet 7 Pet 8 Total Yes 665 659 678 689 575 3266 No 561 542 519 458 522 2602 Blanks 163 180 148 176 146 813 Total 1389 0 0 1381 0 1345 1323 1243 6681 A true copy: Attest 7- an election could not be listed on the ballot for that election, regardless of whether the candidate received multiple nominations. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A Yes Vote would allow a candidate for public office to be nominated for the same office by more than one political party or political designation at the same election. A No Vote would make no change in the laws concerning nomination of candidates for public office. Question 2 Pet 1 Pet 2 Pet 3 Pct 4 Pct 5 Pct 6 Pct 7 Pct 8 Total Yes 379 310 333 338 319 334 372 328 2713 No 891 778 739 888 740 901 809 790 6536 Blanks 119 91 101 155 156 110 142 125 999 Total 1389 1179 1173 1381 1215 1345 1323 1243 10248 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 before May 3, 2006? Summary - This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state's child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state - subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state's public employee labor relaltions law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in • strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present • proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed -upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could no finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de- certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. KOM No 1 8341 7011 7141 8371 6961 8731 8151 7501 6220 Blanks 1 411 301 341 581 82 401 371 601 382 Total 1 1389.1 11791 11731 13811 12151 13451 13231 12431 10248 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 before May 3, 2006? Summary - This proposed law would allow candidates for public office to be nominated by more than one political party or political designation, to have their names appear on the ballot once for each nomination, and to have their votes counted separately for each nomination but then added together to determine the winner of the election. The proposed law would repeal an existing requirement that in order to appear on the state primary ballot as a candidate for a political party's nomination for certain offices, a person cannot have been enrolled in any other party during the preceding year. The requirement applies to candidates for nominiatior for statewide office, representative in Congress, governor's councillor, member of the state Legislature, district attorney, clerk of court, register of probate, register of deeds, county commissioner, sheriff, and county treasurer. The proposed law would also allow any person to appear on the primary ballot as a candidate for a party's nomination for those offices if the party's state committee gave its written consent. The proposed law would also repeal the existing requirement that in order to be nominated to appear as an unenrolled candidate on the state election ballot, or on any city or town ballot following a primary, a person cannot have been enrolled in any political party during the 90 days before the deadline for filing nomination papers. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate were nominated by more than one party or political designation, instead of the candidate's name being printed on the ballot once, with the candidate allowed to choose the order in which the party or political designation names appear after the candidate's name, the candidate's name would appear multiple times, once for each nomination received. The candidate would decide the order in which the party or political designation nominations would appear, except that all parties would be listed before all political designations. The ballot would allow voters who vote for a candidate nominated by multiple parties or political designations to vote for that candidate under the party or political designation line of their choice. If a voter voted for the same candidate for the same office on multiple party or political designation lines, the ballot would remain valid but would be counted as a single vote for the candidate on a line without a party or political designation. If voting technology allowed, voting machines would be required to prevent a voter from voting more than the number of times permitted for any one office. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate received votes under more than one party or political designation, the votes would be combined for purposes of determining whether the candidate had won the election. The total number of votes each candidate received under each party or political designation would be recorded. Election officials would announce and record both the aggregate totals and the total by party or political designation. , The proposed law would allow a political party to obtain official recognition if its candidate had obtained at least 3% of the vote for any statewide office at either of the two most recent state elections, instead of at L only the most recent state election as under current law. The proposed law would allow a person nominated as a candidate for any state, city or town office to withdraw his name from nomination within six days after any party's primary election for that office, whethe or not the person sought nomination or was nominated that primary. Any candidate who withdrew from