The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2008-11-04-State Election WarrantCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SS. Barnstable To: Roland W. Bassett; 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 Brewster who are qualified to vote in the State Election to vote at PRECINCTS ONE, TWO, AND THREE BREWSTER BAPTIST CHURCH 1848 MAIN STREET on TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008, from 7:00A.M. to 8:00P.M. for the following purpose: To cast their votes in the State Election for the candidates for the following offices: ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT……………….STATEWIDE SENATOR IN CONGRESS…………………………...FOR THE COMMONWEALTH REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS………………………………TENTH DISTRICT COUNCILLOR……………………………………………………..……FIRST DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT………………..…..CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT……..FIRST BARNSTABLE DISTRICT REGISTER OF PROBATE…………………………………...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 of the House of Representatives before may 6, 2008? SUMMARY This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and received income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The porposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws. QUESTION 2: LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which on vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2008? SUMMARY This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100. penalty. Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse. The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender’s parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol (“THC”), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one’s body. Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws tht prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana. The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred. A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana. 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 before May 6, 2008? SUMMARY This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000. to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. 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 dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective January 1, 2010. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing. QUESTION 4: THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING Shall the state representative from this district be instructed (1) to support legislation establishing health care as a human right regardless of age, state of health or employment status, by creating a single payer health insurance system that is comprehensive, cost effective, and publicly provided to all residents of Massachusetts; and (2) to oppose any laws penalizing the uninsured for failing to obtain health insurance? 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, 2008. A TRUE COPY ATTEST: ____________________________________ Peter G. Norton, Chairman ____________________________________ James W. Foley ____________________________________ Dyanne F. Cooney ____________________________________ Edward S. Lewis ____________________________________ Gregory A. Levasseur I, Roland W. Bassett, duly qualified Constable for the Town of Brewster, hereby certify that I served the Warrant for the State Election of November 4, 2008, by posting attested copies thereof, in the following locations in the Town of Brewster on the _____ day of October, 2008, in accordance with the Town Bylaws: Brewster Town Hall The Brewster Store U.S. Post Office Brewster Farm Market Brewster Pizza House Millstone Liquors The Brewster Ladies Library _______________________________ Roland W. Bassett, Constable