HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-11-08-State Election Warrant COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
STATE ELECTION
Barnstable SS.
To Roland W. Bassett, Jr.
Brewster Town Constable
GREETINGS:
In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants
of the TOWN OF BREWSTER who are qualified to vote in the State Election to vote at
Precinct's One, Two, and Three
Brewster Baptist Church
1848 Main Street
on TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016, from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for
the following purpose:
To cast their votes in the State Election for the candidates for the following offices and
questions:
ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS NINTH DISTRICT
COUNCILLOR FIRST DISTRICT
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT FIRST & FOURTH BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
LSHERIFF BARNSTABLE COUNTY
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BARNSTABLE COUNTY
BARNSTABLE ASSEMBLY DELEGATE BREWSTER
QUESTION 1: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the
House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category
2 license, which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and
not more than 1,250 slot machines.
The proposed law would authorize the Commission to request applications for the additional
license to be granted to a gaming establishment located on property that is (i) at least four
acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track, including the track's
additional facilities, such as the track, grounds, paddocks, barns, auditorium, amphitheatre,
and bleachers; (iii) where a horse racing meeting may physically be held; (iv) where a horse
racing meeting shall have been hosted; and (v) not separated from the race track by a highway
or railway.
A YES VOTE would permit the state Gaming Commission to license one additional slot-
machine gaming establishment at a location that meets certain conditions specified in the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws regarding gaming.
QUESTION 2: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the
House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to
approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in existing charter schools
each year. Approvals under this law could expand statewide charter school enrollment by up
Page 1 of 4
to 1% of the total statewide public school enrollment each year. New charters and enrollment
expansions approved under this law would be exempt from existing limits on the number of
charter schools, the number of students enrolled in them, and the amount of local school
districts' spending allocated to them.
If the Board received more than 12 applications in a single year from qualified applicants, then
the proposed law would require it to give priority to proposed charter schools or enrollment
expansions in districts where student performance on statewide assessments is in the bottom
25% of all districts in the previous two years and where demonstrated parent demand for
additional public school options is greatest.
New charter schools and enrollment expansions approved under this proposed law would be
subject to the same approval standards as other charter schools, and to recruitment,
Lretention, and multilingual outreach requirements that currently apply to some charter
schools. Schools authorized under this law would be subject to annual performance reviews
according to standards established by the Board.
The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2017.
A YES VOTE would allow for up to 12 approvals each year of either new charter schools or
expanded enrollments in existing charter schools, but not to exceed 1% of the statewide public
school enrollment.
A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to charter schools.
QUESTION 3: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the
House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any
breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from
lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law
would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs
intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or
operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these
Lproducts was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would
exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups,
sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items.
The proposed law's confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and
county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed
under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig's
expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for
animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period.
The proposed law would create a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and would give
the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce the law, and to issue regulations to
implement it. As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a
business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of
compliance by a supplier.
The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not
prohibit stricter local laws.
The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. 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 any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them
from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.
A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals.
QUESTION 4: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the
House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?
SUMMARY
The proposed law would permit the possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana
in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and would remove criminal penalties for such
activities. It would provide for the regulation of commerce in marijuana, marijuana
accessories, and marijuana products and for the taxation of proceeds from sales of these
items.
Page 2 of 4
The proposed law would authorize persons at least 21 years old to possess up to one ounce of
marijuana outside of their residences; possess up to ten ounces of marijuana inside their
residences; grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences; give one ounce or less of
marijuana to a person at least 21 years old without payment; possess, produce or transfer
hemp; or make or transfer items related to marijuana use, storage, cultivation, or processing.
The measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission of three members appointed by the
state Treasurer which would generally administer the law governing marijuana use and
distribution, promulgate regulations, and be responsible for the licensing of marijuana
commercial establishments. The proposed law would also create a Cannabis Advisory Board of
fifteen members appointed by the Governor. The Cannabis Control Commission would adopt
regulations governing licensing qualifications; security; record keeping; health and safety
'L standards; packaging and labeling; testing; advertising and displays; required inspections; and
such other matters as the Commission considers appropriate. The records of the Commission
would be public records.
The proposed law would authorize cities and towns to adopt reasonable restrictions on the
time, place, and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of
marijuana establishments in their communities. A city or town could hold a local vote to
determine whether to permit the selling of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption
on the premises at commercial establishments.
The proceeds of retail sales of marijuana and marijuana products would be subject to the state
sales tax and an additional excise tax of 3.75%. A city or town could impose a separate tax of
up to 2%. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax or from license application fees
and civil penalties for violations of this law would be deposited in a Marijuana Regulation
Fund and would be used subject to appropriation for administration of the proposed law.
Marijuana-related activities authorized under this proposed law could not be a basis for
adverse orders in child welfare cases absent clear and convincing evidence that such activities
had created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child.
The proposed law would not affect existing law regarding medical marijuana treatment centers
or the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence. It would permit property owners
to prohibit the use, sale, or production of marijuana on their premises (with an exception that
landlords cannot prohibit consumption by tenants of marijuana by means other than by
smoking); and would permit employers to prohibit the consumption of marijuana by
employees in the workplace. State and local governments could continue to restrict uses in
public buildings or at or near schools. Supplying marijuana to persons under age 21 would be
unlawful.
The proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2016.
A YES VOTE would allow persons 21 and older to possess, use, and transfer marijuana and
products containing marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to cultivate
marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would provide for the regulation and taxation of
commercial sale of marijuana and marijuana products.
A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to marijuana.
Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time
and place of said voting.
Given unde ur hands this 17th day of OCTOBER, 2016.
Joh heodore Dickson, Chairman Peter G. Norton, Vice-Chairman
L -'sW. Foley • erk David C. Whitney
,,,,, _. , -..... -2.....c -
Cynt is . Bingham
Selectmen of the Town of BREWSTER
Page 3 of 4
I, Roland W. Bassett, Jr., duly qualified Constable of the Town of Brewster, do hereby
certify that I served the Warrant for the State Election of November 8th, 2016, by
posting attested copies thereof, in the following locations in the Town on the 11:1 4-11
day of October, 2016, in accordance with the Town Bylaws.
Brewster Town Offices Cafe Alfresco
Brewster Ladies Library Brewster Pizza House
The Brewster General Store Millstone Liquors
U. S. Post Office
oland W. Bassett, Jr. onstable
Page 4 of 4