SENATOR IN
CONGRESS
EDWARD J. MARKEY 7 Townsend St., Malden
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
BRIAN J. HERR 31 Elizabeth Rd., Hopkinton
REPUBLICAN
GOVERNOR
AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
BAKER and POLITO: REPUBLICAN
COAKLEY and KERRIGAN: DEMOCRATIC
FALCHUK and JENNINGS:
UNITED INDEPENDENT PARTY
LIVELY and SAUNDERS: INDEPENDENT
MCCORMICK and POST: INDEPENDENT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
MAURA HEALEY 40 Winthrop St., Boston
DEMOCRATIC
JOHN B. MILLER 40 Westland Ave., Winchester
REPUBLICAN
SECRETARY
OF STATE
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN
46 Lake St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
DAVID D'ARCANGELO
183 Bainbridge St., Malden
REPUBLICAN
DANIEL L. FACTOR 11
Davis Rd.,
Acton
GREEN-RAINBOW
TREASURER
DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG
37 Hyslop Rd., Brookline
DEMOCRATIC
MICHAEL JAMES HEFFERNAN
244 Grove St., Wellesley
REPUBLICAN
IAN T. JACKSON 232 Highland Ave., Arlington
GREEN-RAINBOW
AUDITOR
SUZANNE M. BUMP 409
North Plain Rd., Great Barrington
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
PATRICIA S. SAINT AUBIN
6 Shady Way, Norfolk
REPUBLICAN
MK MERELICE 22
White Pl., Brookline
GREEN-RAINBOW
REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS
EIGHTH
DISTRICT
STEPHEN F. LYNCH 55
G St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
COUNCILLOR
FOURTH DISTRICT
CHRISTOPHER A. IANNELLA, JR. 263
Pond St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
JASON M. CROSBY
1509 Thayer St., Abington
INDEPENDENT
JOE URENECK 2 Marlowe St., Boston
WORKING FAMILIES
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
FIRST SUFFOLK DISTRICT
LINDA DORCENA FORRY
110 Richmond St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
ROBERT E. POWERS, JR.
45 Pierce Ave.,
Boston
INDEPENDENT
REPRESENTATIVE
IN GENERAL COURT
FOURTH
SUFFOLK DISTRICT
NICK COLLINS 590
East Sixth St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
DISTRICT
ATTORNEY
SUFFOLK
DISTRICT
DANIEL F. CONLEY
265 Corey St., Boston
Candidate for Re-election DEMOCRATIC
REGISTER OF
PROBATE
SUFFOLK COUNTY
FELIX D. ARROYO 36 Seymour St., Boston
DEMOCRATIC
SHERIFF
(VACANCY)
SUFFOLK COUNTY
STEVEN W. TOMPKINS
106 Williams Ave.,
Boston
DEMOCRATIC
HASSAN A. SMITH 80
Intervale St., Boston
Independent UNENROLLED
QUESTION 1: Eliminate the state's gas tax indexing method of calculation
SUMMARY
This
proposed law would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gasoline tax,
which was 24 cents per gallon as of September 2013, (1) be adjusted every year
by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the preceding year,
but (2) not be adjusted below 21.5 cents per gallon.
A YES VOTE
would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually
based on the Consumer Price Index.
A NO VOTE
would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax.
QUESTION 2: Expand the state’s beverage container deposit law
SUMMARY
This
proposed law would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law, also
known as the Bottle Bill, to require deposits on containers for all
non-alcoholic non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human
consumption, except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant
formula, and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover
containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic
multi-material packages such as juice boxes or pouches. The proposed law would
require the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to adjust
the container deposit amount every five years to reflect (to the nearest whole
cent) changes in the consumer price index, but the value could not be set below
five cents. The proposed law would increase the minimum handling fee that
beverage distributors must pay dealers for each properly returned empty
beverage container, which was 2¼ cents as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. It
would also increase the minimum handling fee that bottlers must pay
distributors and dealers for each properly returned empty reusable beverage
container, which was 1 cent as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. The Secretary of
EEA would review the fee amounts every five years and make appropriate
adjustments to reflect changes in the consumer price index as well as changes
in the costs incurred by redemption centers. The proposed law defines a
redemption center as any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of
beverage containers and that is not ancillary to any other business. The
proposed law would direct the Secretary of EEA to issue regulations allowing
small dealers to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit containers. The
proposed law would define small dealer as any person or business, including the
operator of a vending machine, who sells beverages in beverage containers to
consumers, with a contiguous retail space of 3,000 square feet or less,
excluding office and stock room space; and fewer than four locations under the
same ownership in the Commonwealth. The proposed law would require that the
regulations consider at least the health, safety, and convenience of the
public, including the distribution of dealers and redemption centers by
population or by distance or both. The proposed law would set up a state Clean
Environment Fund to receive certain unclaimed container deposits. The Fund
would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, to support
programs such as the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection,
parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection. The proposed law
would allow a dealer, distributor, redemption center or bottler to refuse to
accept any beverage container that is not marked as being refundable in Massachusetts. The
proposed law would take effect on April 22, 2015.
A YES VOTE
would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on
containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain
exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to
the law.
A NO VOTE
would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
QUESTION 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming & Casinos
SUMMARY
This
proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from
issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games
and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot
machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses
that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and
(3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races. The proposed
law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to
include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table
games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at
other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of
gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or
otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming. The
proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other
parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE
would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering
on simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE
would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.
QUESTION 4: Earned Sick Time for Employees
SUMMARY
This
proposed law would entitle employees in Massachusetts
to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions. Employees who work
for employers having eleven or more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours
of paid sick time per calendar year, while employees working for smaller
employers could earn and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per calendar
year. An employee could use earned sick time if required to miss work in order
(1) to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition
affecting the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a
spouse; (2) to attend routine medical appointments of the employee or the
employee’s child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; or (3) to address the
effects of domestic violence on the employee or the employee’s dependent child.
Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, and would
begin accruing those hours on the date of hire or on July 1, 2015, whichever is
later. Employees could begin to use earned sick time on the 90th day after
hire. The proposed law would cover both private and public employers, except
that employees of a particular city or town would be covered only if, as
required by the state constitution, the proposed law were made applicable by
local or state legislative vote or by appropriation of sufficient funds to pay
for the benefit. Earned paid sick time would be compensated at the same hourly
rate paid to the employee when the sick time is used. Employees could carry
over up to 40 hours of unused sick time to the next calendar year, but could
not use more than 40 hours in a calendar year. Employers would not have to pay
employees for unused sick time at the end of their employment. If an employee
missed work for a reason eligible for earned sick time, but agreed with the
employer to work the same number of hours or shifts in the same or next pay
period, the employee would not have to use earned sick time for the missed
time, and the employer would not have to pay for that missed time. Employers
would be prohibited from requiring such an employee to work additional hours to
make up for missed time, or to find a replacement employee. Employers could
require certification of the need for sick time if an employee used sick time
for more than 24 consecutively scheduled work hours. Employers could not delay
the taking of or payment for earned sick time because they have not received
the certification. Employees would have to make a good faith effort to notify
the employer in advance if the need for earned sick time is foreseeable.
Employers would be prohibited from interfering with or retaliating based on an
employee’s exercise of earned sick time rights, and from retaliating based on
an employee’s support of another employee’s exercise of such rights. The
proposed law would not override employers’ obligations under any contract or
benefit plan with more generous provisions than those in the proposed law.
Employers that have their own policies providing as much paid time off, usable
for the same purposes and under the same conditions, as the proposed law would
not be required to provide additional paid sick time. The Attorney General
would enforce the proposed law, using the same enforcement procedures
applicable to other state wage laws, and employees could file suits in court to
enforce their earned sick time rights. The Attorney General would have to
prepare a multilingual notice regarding the right to earned sick time, and
employers would be required to post the notice in a conspicuous location and to
provide a copy to employees. The state Executive Office of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, would develop a
multilingual outreach program to inform the public of the availability of
earned sick time. The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2015, and
states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would
stay in effect.
A YES VOTE
would entitle employees in Massachusetts
to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions.
A NO VOTE
would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.
