HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014-11-04-State Election WarrantCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Barnstable SS.
To the Constable of the Town of Brewster:
GREETINGS:
In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the
inhabitants of said town who are qualified to vote in the State Election to vote at
Brewster Baptist ChurchBrewster Baptist ChurchBrewster Baptist ChurchBrewster Baptist Church
1848 Main Street1848 Main Street1848 Main Street1848 Main Street
Precinct’s One, Two, and ThreePrecinct’s One, Two, and ThreePrecinct’s One, Two, and ThreePrecinct’s One, Two, and Three
on TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014, 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:
SENATOR IN CONGRESSSENATOR IN CONGRESSSENATOR IN CONGRESSSENATOR IN CONGRESS …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
GOVERNORGOVERNORGOVERNORGOVERNOR AND AND AND AND
LIEUTENANT GOVERNORLIEUTENANT GOVERNORLIEUTENANT GOVERNORLIEUTENANT GOVERNOR …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEY GENERALATTORNEY GENERALATTORNEY GENERALATTORNEY GENERAL …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
SECRETARY OF STATESECRETARY OF STATESECRETARY OF STATESECRETARY OF STATE …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
TREASURER TREASURER TREASURER TREASURER …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
AUDITORAUDITORAUDITORAUDITOR …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTHFOR THIS COMMONWEALTH
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESSREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESSREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESSREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. NINTH DISTRICTNINTH DISTRICTNINTH DISTRICTNINTH DISTRICT
COUNCILLORCOUNCILLORCOUNCILLORCOUNCILLOR …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FIRST DISTRICTFIRST DISTRICTFIRST DISTRICTFIRST DISTRICT
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURTSENATOR IN GENERAL COURTSENATOR IN GENERAL COURTSENATOR IN GENERAL COURT …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICTCAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICTCAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICTCAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL
COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. FIRST & FOURTH FIRST & FOURTH FIRST & FOURTH FIRST & FOURTH
BARNSTABLE DISTRICTBARNSTABLE DISTRICTBARNSTABLE DISTRICTBARNSTABLE DISTRICT
DISTRICT ATTORNEYDISTRICT ATTORNEYDISTRICT ATTORNEYDISTRICT ATTORNEY …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICTCAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICTCAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICTCAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
REGISTER OF PROBATEREGISTER OF PROBATEREGISTER OF PROBATEREGISTER OF PROBATE …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. BARNSTABLE COUNTYBARNSTABLE COUNTYBARNSTABLE COUNTYBARNSTABLE COUNTY
COUNTY COMMISSIONERSCOUNTY COMMISSIONERSCOUNTY COMMISSIONERSCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. BARNSTABLE COUNTYBARNSTABLE COUNTYBARNSTABLE COUNTYBARNSTABLE COUNTY
BARNBARNBARNBARNSSSSTABLE ASSEMBLY DELEGATETABLE ASSEMBLY DELEGATETABLE ASSEMBLY DELEGATETABLE ASSEMBLY DELEGATE …………………..…………………..…………………..………………….. BREWSTERBREWSTERBREWSTERBREWSTER
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 6, 2014?
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.
State Election 11-4-2014 Page 2
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 6, 2014?
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.
State Election 11-4-2014 Page 3
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 6, 2014?
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: 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 6, 2014?
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.
State Election 11-4-2014 Page 4
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.
QUESTION 5
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation
to expand the radiological Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone
around the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, an approximately 10-mile-
radius area, to include all of Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket Counties?
YES
NO
QUESTION 6 (4th Barnstable District Only)
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of
legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same
manner as alcohol?
YES
NO
Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at
the time and place of said voting.
Given under our hands this _______ day of October, 2014.
James W. Foley, Chairman Benjamin W. deRuyter, Vice-Chairman
Patricia E. Hughes, Clerk Peter G. Norton
John Theodore Dixon
SELECTMEN OF BREWSTER
State Election 11-4-2014 Page 5
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 4,
2014, by posting attested copies thereof, in the following locations in the
Town on the _______ day of October, 2014.
Brewster Town Offices Brewster Farms
Brewster Ladies Library Brewster Pizza House
The Brewster Store U.S. Post Office
Café Alfresco Millstone Liquors
_________________________________________
Roland W. Bassett, Jr., Constable