Showing posts with label Secretary of Commonwealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secretary of Commonwealth. Show all posts

Friday, September 27, 2024

MA Ballot QUESTION 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

SUMMARY
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.
This proposed law would gradually increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker, over the course of five years, on the following schedule:
• To 64% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2025;
• To 73% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2026;
• To 82% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2027;
• To 91% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2028; and
• To 100% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029.

The proposed law would require employers to continue to pay tipped workers the difference Under the proposed law, if an employer pays its workers an hourly wage that is at least the state minimum wage, the employer would be permitted to administer a “tip pool” that combines all the tips given by customers to tipped workers and distributes them among all the workers, including non-tipped workers.
STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES
As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
There are no direct fiscal consequences on the Commonwealth or municipalities because they generally do not employ tipped employees. Nevertheless, this measure will affect proposed state and municipal revenues and expenditures due to impacts on employee and business income and earnings. While those impacts are difficult to project due to the lack of reliable data, increasing the minimum hourly wage of tipped employees will likely increase state income tax collections because employees will earn more in hourly wages from which state income tax is withheld. The impacts on gratuity earnings and gratuity tax reporting are unknown
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth
A YES VOTE would increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker to the full state minimum wage implemented over five years, at which point employers could pool all tips and distribute them to all non- management workers.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law governing tip pooling or the minimum wage for tipped workers
IN FAVOR: 
Vote Yes for FAIRNESS - 

It’s fair for Workers:
Instead of being paid the current tipped worker wage of just $6.75 an hour, Massachusetts tipped workers deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top. Workers in 7 other states earn a full wage plus tips, and they enjoy
robust tips and growing restaurants where menu prices are comparable to Massachusetts. This law would create greater financial stability and predictability, acknowledging workers’ skills and professionalism.

It’s fair for Employers:
Many Massachusetts small businesses are already paying the full minimum wage plus tips. Big restaurant corporations should do the
same. This would reduce employee turnover and improve service quality.

It’s fair for Consumers:
Big restaurant corporations are not paying their fair share and are forcing consumers to cover their employees’ wages through tips. Tips should be a reward for good service, not a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations.

Estefania Galvis One Fair Wage 
11 Converse Ave
Malden, MA 02148
813-898-9136

AGAINST: 
This question is funded by a radical group from California.

Tipped employees have made it abundantly clear the way they earn money does not need to be changed. State and Federal law guarantee them the $15 hourly minimum wage with many earning over $40/hr and 90% reporting at least $20/hr. A recent survey also showed that 88% oppose ‘tip pools’ where tips are shared with non-service employees and 90% believe that if tipped wages are eliminated, they will earn less.

Other attempts to implement this have seen catastrophic results. In Washington, D.C., nearly 10% of tipped employees have lost or left their jobs. This follows increases in menu prices, the implementation of 20% ‘service fees’ and a wave of closures.

This would reduce overall wages for servers, increase costs for restaurants and skyrocket the cost of eating out. It will be disastrous with many neighborhood restaurants being forced to close.

Doug Bacon
Former Server and Bartender, Current Restaurant Owner
Committee to Protect Tips 
160 E Main St # 2
Westborough, MA 01581 

---------------------

For this information on Ballot Question 5 in one PDF -> 

Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf


Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm


Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato


MA Ballot QUESTION 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers
MA Ballot QUESTION 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, September 26, 2024

MA Ballot QUESTION 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

SUMMARY
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.
 
This proposed law would allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess, and use certain natural psychedelic substances in certain circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, and ibogaine). These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. This proposed law would otherwise prohibit any retail sale of natural psychedelic substances. This proposed law would also provide for the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances.

This proposed law would license and regulate facilities offering supervised use of these psychedelic substances and provide for the taxation of proceeds from those facilities’ sales of psychedelic substances. It would also allow persons aged 21 and older to grow these psychedelic substances in a 12-foot by 12-foot area at their home and use these psychedelic substances at their home. This proposed law would authorize persons aged 21 or older to possess up to one gram of psilocybin, one gram of psilocyn, one gram of dimethyltryptamine, 18 grams of mescaline, and 30 grams of ibogaine (“personal use amount”), in addition to whatever they might grow at their home, and to give away up to the personal use amount to a person aged 21 or over.

This proposed law would create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission of five members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would administer the law governing the use and distribution of these psychedelic substances. The Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications, security, recordkeeping, education and training, health and safety requirements, testing, and age verification. This proposed law would also create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Advisory Board of 20 members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would study and make recommendations to the Commission on the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances.

This proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably restrict the time, place, and manner of the operation of licensed facilities offering psychedelic substances, but cities and towns could not ban those facilities or their provision of these substances.

The proceeds of sales of psychedelic substances at licensed facilities would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 15 percent. In addition, a city or town could impose a separate tax of up to two percent. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax, license application fees, and civil penalties for violations of this proposed law would be deposited in a Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund and would be used, subject to appropriation, for administration of this proposed law.

Using the psychedelic substances as permitted by this proposed law could not be a basis to deny a person medical care or public assistance, impose discipline by a professional licensing board, or enter adverse orders in child custody cases absent clear and convincing evidence that the activities created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child.

This proposed law would not affect existing laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence, or the ability of employers to enforce workplace policies restricting the consumption of these psychedelic substances by employees. This proposed law would allow property owners to prohibit the use, display, growing, processing, or sale of these psychedelic substances on their premises. State and local governments could continue to restrict the possession and use of these psychedelic substances in public buildings or at schools.

This proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2024.
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
A YES VOTE would allow persons over age 21 to use certain natural psychedelic substances under licensed supervision and to grow and possess limited quantities of those substances in their home, and would create a commission to regulate those substances.
 
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law regarding natural psychedelic substances.
STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES
As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
This measure would establish a 15% state excise tax for the sale of natural psychedelic substances, which would be available for spending from a dedicated fund; however, the revenue generating impact is unknown due to the lack of data for the new market being proposed. This measure would also allow for a local tax option that could generate local sales
IN FAVOR: 
Vote YES on 4 to provide safe, regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Psychedelics will be available in approved therapeutic settings under the supervision of trained and licensed facilitators, NOT sold in stores to take home.

Research from leading medical institutions including Mass General Brigham, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Johns Hopkins shows that psychedelic medicines can be effective treatments for depression and anxiety. In fact, the FDA recently granted psilocybin a “breakthrough therapy” designation.

For many people who are suffering, daily medications and other standard treatments aren’t working. Over 6,000 veterans die by suicide annually, and countless more struggle from service-related trauma. Natural psychedelic medicine can also offer patients with a terminal diagnosis relief from end-of-life anxiety and help them find peace.

That’s why question 4 is supported by doctors, mental health providers, and veteran advocates.

Vote YES to expand mental health options.

Lieutenant Sarko Gergerian, 
Mental Health Counselor (MHC)
Massachusetts for Mental Health Options 
14 Sullivan Street
Boston, MA 02129
781-205-9737


AGAINST: 
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, VETERANS, AND RECOVERY GROUPS URGE NO ON QUESTION 4

• Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, allow for growth in a 12- foot by 12-foot area in homes and distribution statewide. A black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth.
• In recent years, driver’s license revocations for drugged driving rose 65% and fatal DUI crashes increased over 50%. With 1 in 3 frequent psychedelic users reporting
driving under the influence of psychedelics
in the past year, this will increase.
• The psychedelic ibogaine has life- threatening cardiotoxicity, heart failure can occur days after one dose.
• Accidental consumption of edibles is especially
dangerous to children and pets.
• The centers aren’t required to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during adverse reactions, and aren’t prohibited from giving psychedelics to high- risk patients like those with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.

Dr. Anahita Dua
Surgeon, Massachusetts General Hospital 
Associate Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School
Coalition For Safe Communities 
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1125
Boston, MA 02108 

--------------------

For this Ballot Question 4 info in one PDF -> 

Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf


Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm


Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato


MA Ballot QUESTION 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances
MA Ballot QUESTION 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

MA Ballot QUESTION 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers

SUMMARY
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.
The proposed law would provide Transportation Network Drivers (“Drivers”) with the right to form unions (“Driver Organizations”) to collectively bargain with Transportation Network Companies (“Companies”)-which are companies that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers for pre-arranged transportation-to create negotiated recommendations concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Drivers would not be required to engage in any union activities. Companies would be allowed to form multi- Company associations to represent them when negotiating with Driver Organizations. The state would supervise the labor activities permitted by the proposed law and would have responsibility for approving or disapproving the negotiated recommendations.
The proposed law would define certain activities by a Company or a Driver Organization to be unfair work practices. The proposed law would establish a hearing process for the state Employment Relations Board (“Board”) to follow when a Company or Driver Organization is charged with an unfair work practice. The proposed law would permit the Board to take action, including awarding compensation to adversely affected Drivers, if it found that an unfair work practice had been committed. The proposed law would provide for an appeal of a Board decision to the state Appeals Court.

This proposed law also would establish a procedure for determining which Drivers are Active Drivers, meaning that they completed more than the median number of rides in the previous six months. The proposed law would establish procedures for the Board to determine that a Driver Organization has signed authorizations from at least five percent of Active Drivers, entitling the Driver organization to a list of Active Drivers; to designate a Driver Organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers based on signed authorizations from at least twenty-five percent of Active Drivers; to resolve disputes over exclusive bargaining status, including through elections; and to decertify a Driver Organization from exclusive bargaining status. A Driver Organization that has been designated the exclusive bargaining representative would have the exclusive right to represent the Drivers and to receive voluntary membership dues deductions.

Once the Board determined that a Driver Organization was the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers, the Companies would be required to bargain with that Driver Organization concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Once the Driver Organization and Companies reached agreement on wages, benefits, and the terms and conditions of work, that agreement would be voted upon by all Drivers who has completed at least 100 trips the previous quarter. If approved by a majority of votes cast, the recommendations would be submitted to the state Secretary of Labor for approval and if approved, would be effective for three years. The proposed law would establish procedures for the mediation and arbitration if the Driver Organization and Companies failed to reach agreement within a certain period of time. An arbitrator would consider factors set forth in the proposed law, including whether the wages of Drivers would be enough so that Drivers would not need to rely upon any public benefits. The proposed law also sets out procedures for the Secretary of Labor’s review and approval of recommendations negotiated by a Driver Organization and the Companies and for judicial review of the Secretary’s decision.

The proposed law states that neither its provisions, an agreement nor a determination by the Secretary would be able to lessen labor standards established by other laws. If there were any conflict between the proposed law and existing Massachusetts labor relations law, the proposed law would prevail. 
The Board would make rules and regulations as appropriate to effectuate the proposed law.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
A YES VOTE would provide transportation network drivers the option to form unions to collectively bargain with transportation network companies regarding wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work.
 
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the ability of transportation network drivers to form unions.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES
As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

IN FAVOR: 
A YES vote will give Massachusetts rideshare drivers, who work for companies
like Uber and Lyft, the option to join a union while also maintaining driver flexibility and independence. The option to join a union is guaranteed for most workers, but rideshare drivers currently don’t have that choice. Vote YES to allow rideshare drivers the option to choose a union.

Roxana Rivera United for Justice
26 West Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02111
401-965-3555


AGAINST: 
DRIVERS AND RIDERS URGE NO ON QUESTION 3
Question 3 would RAISE THE PRICES FOR ALL RIDERS, funding union pockets, not drivers’ pockets.

This law gives Politicians the right to set rules with NO accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law.
Drivers in Massachusetts ALREADY receive:
• Base of $32.50 per hour with yearly increases
• Paid Sick Leave
• Paid Family Medical Leave
• Healthcare Stipend
• On-the-Job Injury Insurance
• Anti-Discrimination Protections
• Domestic Violence Leave
• Anti-Retaliation Protections
• Appeals Process
Question 3 does not really create bargaining for workers. Drivers will have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation.

This proposal is not fair to Drivers and allows just 2 ½ percent of drivers to force unionization and leaves many Drivers without a voice.
Vote No on Question 3.

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Boston, MA
617-553-4115

----------------------------


Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf


Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm


Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato


MA Ballot QUESTION 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers
MA Ballot QUESTION 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

MA Ballot QUESTION 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement

SUMMARY
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.
This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that a student pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests (or other statewide or district-wide assessments) in mathematics, science and technology, and English in order to receive a high school diploma. Instead, in order for a student to receive a high school the proposed law would require the student to complete coursework certified by the student’s district as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards in mathematics, science and technology, and English, as well as any additional areas determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES
As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that students pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in order to graduate high school but still require students to complete coursework that meets state standards. 

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the requirement that a student pass the MCAS in order to graduate high school diploma. 

IN FAVOR: 
A Yes on Question 2 gives all students the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential. We all agree that high standards help keep our public schools great, and assessments are needed to ensure that students master the knowledge and skills to succeed in life after high school. However, the MCAS is a one-size-fits-all exam that fails to measure other student achievement measures such as GPA, coursework, and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate. Replacing the MCAS graduation requirement with more comprehensive measures will allow teachers to stop teaching to a test and unburden students from a make-or-break standardized test. Voting Yes will allow schools and teachers, together with parents and students, to focus on the most important skills and knowledge to help students succeed in life, rather than having to focus on only those skills that can be measured on a standardized test.

Shelley Scruggs Parent Volunteer
Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) 
2 Heritage Drive, 8th Floor
Quincy, MA 02171-2119
617-878-8000

AGAINST: 
Vote NO on Question 2.

Question 2 is unfair to kids and will increase inequality. Some school districts will just adopt lower standards so students “graduate” even if they haven’t learned the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.

It’s not fair to grant diplomas to kids who aren’t yet ready to graduate. If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English, or science, we adults should do the hard work to get them up to speed. Instead of supporting kids, Question 2 would abandon them.

Question 2 would remove our only statewide graduation standard. Massachusetts would have less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi and Alabama.

Question 2 is a radical and untested proposal and should be rejected. Significant changes to our education system should be carefully studied, designed, and implemented by experts to ensure these policies are actually better for our kids.

Vote No on Question 2.
Protect Our Kids’ Future: Vote No on 2
P.O. Box 130041
Boston, MA 02113 

---------------------------


Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf


Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm


Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerkelection-administrato


MA Ballot QUESTION 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement
MA Ballot QUESTION 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, September 23, 2024

MA Ballot QUESTION 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition 
State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

SUMMARY
As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General.
This proposed law would specify that the State Auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature.

STATEMENT OF FISCAL CONSEQUENCES
As required by law, statements of fiscal consequences are written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
A YES VOTE would specify that the State Auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the State Auditor’s authority.

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: 
A YES vote on Question 1 expressly authorizes the State Auditor to audit the Massachusetts Legislature.

The State Auditor is independently elected by the people of Massachusetts to audit every state entity to help make government work better.
The State Legislature is the only state entity refusing to be audited by the State Auditor’s office. Legislative leaders claim it is sufficient for the Legislature to conduct audits of itself through a procured private vendor. However, the Massachusetts Legislature is continuously ranked as one of the least effective, least transparent legislatures in America and is one of only four legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws.

Support for this initiative will help the State Auditor’s office shine a bright light on how taxpayer dollars are spent to help increase transparency, accountability and accessibility for the people of Massachusetts.

Vote YES to expressly authorize the State Auditor to audit the Legislature.

Neil Morrison
Committee for Transparent Democracy
P.O. Box 364
Raynham, MA 02767
617-297-8476

AGAINST: 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS AND CIVICS EDUCATORS STRONGLY URGE A NO VOTE ON QUESTION 1.

A legislative audit conducted by the State Auditor, who is an executive branch official, without the Legislature’s consent would violate the separation of powers and legislative supremacy described in and required by the Massachusetts Constitution.

The performance audits conducted by the State Auditor measure administrators’ performance in achieving the legislatively determined goals of the public policies they administer. The State Auditor cannot substitute her interpretation
of those goals for the Legislature’s without compromising the constitutional independence and preeminence of the Legislature.

If enacted Question 1 would make the State Auditor into a political actor and a potentially influential participant in the legislative process, two roles that would clearly compromise the State Auditor’s ability to carry out her fundamental constitutional duty to conduct credible, independent, objective, and non- partisan audits of state government departments and programs.

Jerold Duquette
Professor of Political Science, Central Connecticut State University
Co-Founder & Senior Contributor, MassPoliticsProfs.org
1516 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 05060 860-832-2964

-----------------

PDF of the Question 1 section can be found here ->

Full PDF of the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Information for Voters "red book" -> https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf

Additional voting info for the State can be found -> 

Specific info for Franklin, MA voters can be found on the Town Clerk page ->

Note: Alignment of For vs. Against is due to publication limitations here and not indicating a preference for either side. All ballot question info will be shared with this format.

MA Ballot QUESTION 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature
MA Ballot QUESTION 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 30, 2024

Did you get a text about being NOT registered to vote? Per Mass Secretary of State don't click on that!

Mass Secretary of State (@SecretaryOfMass) posted  Thu, Aug 29, 2024:
We have received reports of Mass. voters getting text messages telling them they aren't registered to vote. 
Please don't click links sent by unknown numbers.

If in doubt, check your registration on our website or call your local election office: https://t.co/s1kcUqDE78  or ->   https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elesplash.htm

Shared from ->  https://x.com/SecretaryOfMass/status/1829207399494009333

Did you get a text about being NOT registered to vote? Per Mass Secretary of State don't click on that!
Did you get a text about being NOT registered to vote? Per Mass Secretary of State don't click on that!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 1, 2024

Franklin Election Collection - 2024

The 2024 Election Collection of posts with information on the candidates for State Representative, Senator, Governor's Council District 2, etc. We do exclude coverage of the Presidential election campaigns to focus on the local information for Franklin voters. Most recent posts on top, scroll down for earlier posts.



Voices of Franklin - candidate's claim is "empty words"

Roy  Bailey debate in print (part 2 - questions 5 to 7)

Roy - Bailey debate in print (part 1 - questions 1 to 4)

Rep Roy announces endorsements

Advanced processing announced by Town Clerk

First week of early voting activity revealed

Steve interviews State Rep Jeff Roy (audio)

Steve interview Senator Becca Rausch (audio)

Tabulator testing announced

Frank Falvey sits again with State Rep Jeff Roy (video)

Frank Falvey interviews Graham Moore- ballot question 4 (video)

Frank Falvey interviews Donna Grady, MCAS ballot question (video)

Frank Falvey interviews State Rep Jeff Roy (video)

Medway Democratic Town Comte resources for Nov election

10th Norfolk District Debate (audio)

10th Norfolk District Debate (video)

Frank Falvey Interviews Dashe Videra (video)

10th Norfolk District Debate scheduled for Oct 8 in Medway

Early voting schedule for Franklin, MA

Mass Ballot Question 5

Mass Ballot Question 4

Mass Ballot Question 3

Mass Ballot Question 2

Mass Ballot Question 1

Frank Falvey Interviews John Deaton

Boston Globe coverage of Governor's Council races

Frank Falvey Interviews US Senate Republic candidate John Deaton (video)

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/frank-presents-john-deaton-video.html


Governor's Council candidates Civil & Kramer with Frank Falvey (video)

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/need-info-for-district-democratic.html 


District 2 Governor's Council Debate held at Norfolk Library, August 2024 (video)

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/norfolk-cable-presents-district-2.html 


State Rep Jeff Roy & Senator Becca Rausch provide update to Town Council and answer questions at Aug 14, 2024 session    https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/august-14-town-council-meeting-audio-in.html
 

12 geniuses series #1  https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/12-geniuses-want-to-talk-with-you-to.html


Frank Falvey Interviews Registrar Bill O'Donnell (video)

O'Donnell endorsed by Dellorco, Grossman, Vallee

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/bill-odonnell-announces-endorsements.html


O'Donnell endorsed by State Rep Roy

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/representative-roy-endorses-register-of.html


Town Clerk Nancy Danello provides updates on Sep 2024 primary (audio)

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/franklin-ma-town-clerk-nancy-danello.html


Early voting schedule for Sep 2024 primary

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/state-primary-early-voting-schedule-for.html 


State Representative Jeff Roy summarizes his record of delivering for the communities he represents (video) https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/08/representative-jeff-roy-releases-video.html

Bill O’Donnell announces candidacy for re-election as Registrar of Deeds

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2024/07/register-of-deeds-odonnell-candidate.html


Neal DiBona announces candidacy for Registrar of Deeds

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2020/02/quincy-city-councilor-at-large-noel.html



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 26, 2024

Here is the order of the five statewide voter questions that will appear on the ballot in November - The Boston Globe

"Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin on Thursday released the order that five statewide measures will appear on the ballot in November.

voter questions
ballot questions
The five ballot questions are the most since 2000, when voters had eight to consider. The numbers are assigned at the discretion of the secretary of state’s office.

“Numbers are typically assigned in a manner that will ensure the best possible ballot layout, given the length of the question summaries,” Galvin’s office said in a statement."

Question 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

Question 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement

Question 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers

Question 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers




The State will send out the "red book" the voters guide before the November election early voting starts. The early voting timeline for both the Sep primary and November election as contained in this PDF (and image below)

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)