2006 State Ballot Questions

Question 1 - Sale of Wine by Food Stores

Summary

English | Spanish

Arguments

As provided by law the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: Today, consumers in 34 states can buy wine at grocery stores. But in Massachusetts, a 72-year-old law prevents most grocery stores from selling wine – and creates a virtual monopoly for package stores.

Voting “yes” on Question 1 will:

  • Bring Massachusetts up to date, by giving cities and towns the local option to issue wine-only licenses to qualified grocery stores.
  • Save consumers an estimated $26 to $36 million every year, by allowing more competition and consumer choice in wine sales.

The liquor lobby and its allies use scare tactics and false claims against this measure. The truth is, they just want to protect the current package store monopoly system.

Other states allow grocery stores to sell wine without any problems. There’s no legitimate reason why Massachusetts consumers shouldn’t be allowed to buy wine at their local grocery stores.

Vote “yes” for consumer choice and fair competition in wine sales.

Authored by:
YES on 1:
Grocery Stores and Consumers for Fair Competition
31 Milk Street, Suite 518
Boston, MA 02109
800-817-3507
www.WineAtFoodStores.com

AGAINST: Today there are over 2800 licenses to sell wine, beer and liquor in Massachusetts. A “yes” vote on Question 1 would radically alter current law and would result in over 2800 more licenses to sell alcohol in Massachusetts with no funding for increased enforcement. This will increase underage youth’s access to alcohol, and research demonstrates that more alcohol outlets inevitably lead to increases in drinking related problems, and drunk driving fatalities.

Voters should also know voting “yes” would allow most convenience stores to sell wine, a controlled substance. Young people frequent convenience stores where alcohol could be more readily available for purchase. Also, store clerks in convenience stores do not have the training and experience that experienced package store owners have to stop an underage drinker from purchasing alcohol.

Existing law limits supermarkets and convenience stores to hold only three licenses to sell alcohol. Vote “no” and keep this law.

Authored by:
Wine Merchants and Concerned Citizens for S.A.F.E.T.Y. (Stop Alcohol’s Further Extension to Youth)
One Beacon Street, Suite 1320
Boston, MA 02108
800-955-0626
www.noonquestionone.com

Question 2 - Nomination of Candidates for Public Office

Summary

English | Spanish

Arguments

As provided by law the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: Voting “yes” will strengthen your vote and that of every citizen in Massachusetts. Because this initiative will give you the freedom to support third parties while still voting for a candidate with a real chance of winning, you’ll be able to hold politicians more accountable to their campaign promises – and keep them working on the issues that matter most to you.

A sample ballot might look like this…

Major Party1

Waffling Wally

48%

Major Party2

Steady Sue

42%

Good Jobs Party

Steady Sue

10%

…where Steady Sue wins with 52%.

Because she sees that 10% of her vote came from the Good Jobs Party, she’ll have to prioritize that issue. So whether you care about jobs, taxes, schools or health care, voting “yes” will let you send politicians a message they can’t ignore. Vote “yes” for more power at the polls.

Authored by:
Mass Ballot Freedom Campaign
1486 Dorchester Ave.
Dorchester, MA 02122
617-282-2002
www.massballotfreedom.com

AGAINST: If Question 2 is approved massive voter confusion will be the result.
A “no” vote on this question will protect voters from confusing ballots and prevent candidates from having their names appear on the ballot more than once for the same office.

Under present law a candidate may only have their name printed on the ballot once. A “yes” vote would change this law. Counting votes will be more complicated.

This change is only a benefit to fringe political parties and designations at the expense of voters. It makes it more difficult for voters to make a clear choice.

Remember the mess in Florida’s 2000 Presidential Elections. One of the contributing factors was a confusing ballot layout. Let’s keep the clear, orderly voter friendly layout we now have. Elections should be about voters, not political movements and candidates. Keep voter’s rights first.

Vote “no” on Question 2.

The Honorable Anthony W. Petrucelli
Chairman
House Committee on Election Laws
State House, Room 26
Boston, Massachusetts 02133
617-722-2080

 

Question 3 - Family Child Care Providers

Summary

English | Spanish

Arguments

As provided by law the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: Your “yes” vote will help working families have better access to affordable, quality child care by giving home-based child care providers the ability to work with the Commonwealth to improve the services they provide our children. This proposed law will not increase taxes or child care costs for Massachusetts residents.

Voting yes will give child care providers the ability to unite and speak with one voice in favor of improvements including:

  • Higher safety standards to protect children;
  • More training for child care providers to raise the quality of care ; and
  • Measures to reduce turnover and stabilize the child care profession so children get the consistent, quality care they need.

Without raising taxes or costs to Massachusetts residents, it will ensure that public resources invested in child care help make quality child care services more accessible and affordable for working families.

Vote yes for our children’s future.

Authored by:
Andrew Tripp
Campaign for our Children’s Future
529 Main Street, Suite 222
Charlestown, MA 02129
617-241-3300

AGAINST: A “no” vote will allow home-based child care providers to retain their independent status with respect to negotiations for state-subsidized provided care.

This proposed law would allow home-based child care providers to form a union to negotiate terms and conditions of child care provider services instead of continuing to negotiate such terms on a case by case basis based on the individual needs for the child.

Authored by:
The law requires the Secretary to seek arguments for and against each ballot question from the principal proponents or opponents of each measure. If no argument is timely received, the law requires the Secretary to prepare an argument.

Late Submission

There are nearly 9,000 family child care providers in Massachusetts, but they are not the ones pushing for Question 3. These providers are self-employed small business owners who take great pride in being licensed to provide child care in their homes. Thousands of parents across the state decide to entrust their children to their care every day. Question 3 would give collective bargaining rights to family child care providers because low-income parents receiving assistance from the state also choose to bring their children there. It would put the entire state’s child care regulatory system on the bargaining table, subjecting nationally-recognized quality standards to union concerns rather than parent concerns. Organizers backing Question 3 call themselves the “Campaign for our Children’s Future”, but they do not represent the best interests of children, families, or the providers they claim to represent. What’s best for children is a “no” vote on Question 3.

Authored by:
Associate Commissioner for Coordination and Outreach
Department of Early Education and Care
51 Sleeper Street
Boston.MA.02210
617-988-6600