Question 1
Question 1 is a proposed law that would stop Massachusetts from automatically adjusting the tax on gasoline. The tax is currently adjusted each year based off of the change in inflation over the past year, and is set without being voted on in the state government at all.
A yes vote would stop the gas tax from being automatically adjusted each year. A no vote would keep the current gas tax process the same.
Those in favor of Question 1 believe that the gas tax should not be increased without being voted on before, as it is taxation without representation. Those against Question 1 believe that a yes vote would decrease the amount of money the state would have to spend on repairing state bridges and roads.
A yes vote would stop the gas tax from being automatically adjusted each year. A no vote would keep the current gas tax process the same.
Those in favor of Question 1 believe that the gas tax should not be increased without being voted on before, as it is taxation without representation. Those against Question 1 believe that a yes vote would decrease the amount of money the state would have to spend on repairing state bridges and roads.
Question 2
Question 2 would expand the bottle deposit system to most non-alcoholic beverages. This would now require a $.05 deposit on water bottles, sports drinks, and iced tea among other added beverages. The bill would also give state legislatures the opportunity to adjust the amount of the deposit in order to reflect the economy. The bill also increases the compensation companies must give to vendors for each properly returned container from $.01 to $.035.
Supporters of Question 2 state that it will increase the amount of containers that are recycled. More recycling will cut down on litter and the cost to clean up litter. More items getting recycled also reduces the cost of landfills and trash incineration.
Those against Question 2 state that the "Bottle Bill" itself is outdated and the state should focus on new recycling techniques. By not passing Question 2 the state saves enough money to bring curbside pickup to every person in Massachusetts. As a result of Question 2 the handling costs of beverages whose bottles are recycled would increase. The state would also have the ability to increase this deposit every five years so it could be more expensive in the future.
Supporters of Question 2 state that it will increase the amount of containers that are recycled. More recycling will cut down on litter and the cost to clean up litter. More items getting recycled also reduces the cost of landfills and trash incineration.
Those against Question 2 state that the "Bottle Bill" itself is outdated and the state should focus on new recycling techniques. By not passing Question 2 the state saves enough money to bring curbside pickup to every person in Massachusetts. As a result of Question 2 the handling costs of beverages whose bottles are recycled would increase. The state would also have the ability to increase this deposit every five years so it could be more expensive in the future.
Question 3
Question three proposes expanding the current definition of "illegal gaming". This definition would now include betting on live greyhound races, table games, and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos as illegal.
A yes vote would mean that no establishments (casinos) with slot machines, table games, or greyhound race betting could exist in Massachusetts. The people who support the yes vote say that casinos cause a rise in crime, they have no positive economic effect on the communities that they are in, the casino industry is doing poorly so it wouldn't help the state economically, and even members of the casino industry admit that they would not want a casino in their home town.
A no vote would not make any change in the current laws or definition of the laws. This means that casinos with table games, slot machines, and greyhound races would be allowed in Massachusetts. People who a no vote say that casinos would generate millions of dollars of revenue for Massachusetts, and it would create thousands of jobs. In response to people saying that they don't want a casino in their hometown the no vote supports say that no community that votes to not have a casino will have one.
A yes vote would mean that no establishments (casinos) with slot machines, table games, or greyhound race betting could exist in Massachusetts. The people who support the yes vote say that casinos cause a rise in crime, they have no positive economic effect on the communities that they are in, the casino industry is doing poorly so it wouldn't help the state economically, and even members of the casino industry admit that they would not want a casino in their home town.
A no vote would not make any change in the current laws or definition of the laws. This means that casinos with table games, slot machines, and greyhound races would be allowed in Massachusetts. People who a no vote say that casinos would generate millions of dollars of revenue for Massachusetts, and it would create thousands of jobs. In response to people saying that they don't want a casino in their hometown the no vote supports say that no community that votes to not have a casino will have one.
Question 4
Voting in favor of Question Four would allow Massachusetts workers to earn up to 40 hour of paid sick-time a year. They gain one hour of time for every 30 hours worked and receive full pay when using their sick leave to care for themselves or a family member.
Those in favor of Question Four state that it would allow workers to stay a home and take care of themselves when sick without risking their pay or their jobs. This is especially critical for minimum wage employees, where a day's wages make-up all their disposable income. It would also allow the workers to take care of their children instead of sending them to school when sick, which can prevent the spread of disease.
Those against Question Four believe that it would have a negative impact on small businesses, who can't afford to fight through the red tape and mandates. They state that a more individualized system would work best, where each employer creates a system that works with their model. This is especially important in jobs where the worker out sick needs to be replaced for the day; Question Four would force the employer to pay twice for the same amount of work.
Those in favor of Question Four state that it would allow workers to stay a home and take care of themselves when sick without risking their pay or their jobs. This is especially critical for minimum wage employees, where a day's wages make-up all their disposable income. It would also allow the workers to take care of their children instead of sending them to school when sick, which can prevent the spread of disease.
Those against Question Four believe that it would have a negative impact on small businesses, who can't afford to fight through the red tape and mandates. They state that a more individualized system would work best, where each employer creates a system that works with their model. This is especially important in jobs where the worker out sick needs to be replaced for the day; Question Four would force the employer to pay twice for the same amount of work.
Attorney general
The Attorney General's race in Massachusetts is between Maura Healey, the Democratic candidate for the election, who is also the former Deputy Attorney General and John B. Miller, the Republican candidate. Healey served under incumbent Attorney General, Martha Coakley. The Attorney General is the state's chief law enforcement officer and is also the head or chief legal adviser to the state government. John Miller plans to attack corruption on Beacon Hill, fight illegal immigration in Massachusetts, and fight crime "openly and honestly". Maura Healey as Attorney General also plans on fighting the corruption in Massachusetts politics, is against allowing gambling within Massachusetts, and mostly places her policies on Democratic, "left wing" ideals. Therefore keep their policies in mind when choosing who to vote for in this election.
|
Gubernatorial Race
The Massachusetts Gubernatorial race features Charlie Baker and Martha Coakley. Coakley served as Attorney General in Massachusetts, and the district attorney for Middlesex County, before running on the democratic ticket. Martha Coakley had previously run for senator but was defeated by Scott Brown. Charlie baker was the CEO of Harvard Pilgrim insurance for ten years before running for governor, and is a member of the republican party. This will be the second consecutive time that Baker has received the republican nomination for the governor in Massachusetts. The position of governor is the leader of the executive branch for the states.