From Campaigns Wikia
Massachusetts
|
|
Date of statehood:
6 February 1788
|
| Capital:
| Boston
|
| Population:
| 6,349,097 (2000)
|
| Number of US Representatives:
| 10
|
| Number of Electoral votes:
| 12
|
State Legislature
State Senate size
State House size
| General Court
40
160
|
State officials
Governor
US Senators
|
[[{{{Governor}}}]]
[[{{{USsen1}}}]]
[[{{{USsen2}}}]]
|
|
|
[edit] Massachusetts Voter Information
Find Massachusetts district information -- A great website the uses a street address to generate a complete ballot for the upcoming election.
The Massachusetts primary elections are scheduled for September 19, 2006.
You must register by August 30 to vote in the primaries.
The Massachusetts general election is scheduled for November 7, 2006.
You must register by October 18 to vote in the general election.
Massachusetts Election Results 2006
[edit] 2006 Elections
[edit] Federal Representatives
[edit] Senate
| Senator (Class 1)
| Edward Kennedy (D)
| Next election: 2012
|
| Senator (Class 2)
| John F. Kerry (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
[edit] House of Representatives
| US Representative (1st District)
| John W. Olver (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (2nd District)
| Richard E. Neal (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (3rd District)
| James P. McGovern (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (4th District)
| Barney Frank (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (5th District)
| Marty Meehan (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (6th District)
| John F. Tierney (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (7th District)
| Edward J. Markey (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (8th District)
| Michael E. Capuano (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (9th District)
| Stephen Lynch (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
| US Representative (10th District)
| William Delahunt (D)
| Next election: 2008
|
[edit] State-wide elected officials
| Attorney General
| Martha Coakley (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Secretary of State
| William F. Galvin (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Treasurer
| Timothy Cahill (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Auditor
| A. Joseph DeNucci (D)
| Next election: ?
|
[edit] District-based elected officials
Only people living in the appropriate districts can vote on these offices.
[edit] Governor's Council
| Councilor (1st district)
| Carole A. Fiola (D)
| Philip C. Paleologos (R)
| Paul R. Viveros (Ind)
|
| Councilor (2nd district)
| Kelly A. Timilty (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Councilor (3rd district)
| Marilyn M. Petitto Devaney (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Councilor (4th district)
| Christopher A. Iannella (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Councilor (5th district)
| Mary-Ellen Manning (D)
| Timothy P. Houten (Ind)
|
| Councilor (6th district)
| Michael J. Callahan (D)
| Next election: ?
|
| Councilor (7th district)
| Thomas J. Foley (D)
|
| Councilor (8th district)
| Thomas T. Merrigan (D)
| Michael Franco (R)
| Michael T. Kogut (Ind)
|
[edit] District Attorneys
| Berkshire District
| David F. Capeless (D)
|
| Bristol District
| C. Samuel Sutter (D)
|
| Cape and Islands District
| Michael D. O'Keefe (R)
|
... to be honest I'm having a tough time getting the motivation to fill in the rest of these as they are all uncontested...
[edit] State-wide ballot questions
Information available at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/elepip/pipidx.htm
Question One
- 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 proposed 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.[1]
- The major controversies are about the potential sales of alcohol at convenience stores, potential for increased sales to minors, and potential for increased drunken driving.
- Booze and cheers: Debate rages over bill that would allow wine sales in chain stores; By Andrew J. Manuse/ Daily News Staff; Sunday, October 1, 2006
Question Two
- A vote for question two will allow Fusion Voting or Cross-endorsement Voting, a system in which a minor political party could endorse a candidate from another party on its ballot line, rather than fielding its own candidate. Voters would then have the option of supporting a minor party that they felt most closely matched them on the issues without also supporting candidates with no realistic chance of winning. Although the initiative would equally empower any minor party the question is sponsored by Working Families.
Question Three
- 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 relations law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services.
- An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a 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 not 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.
- 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.[2]
[edit] See also
