The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2006-11-07-State Election WarrantCommonwealth of MassachusettsCommonwealth of MassachusettsCommonwealth of MassachusettsCommonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis GalvinWilliam Francis GalvinWilliam Francis GalvinWilliam Francis Galvin Secretary of the CommonwealthSecretary of the CommonwealthSecretary of the CommonwealthSecretary of the Commonwealth SS. Constable of the Town of Brewster Roland Bassett 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 State Elections, to vote at: Precinct 1, Precinct 2, and Precinct 3Precinct 1, Precinct 2, and Precinct 3Precinct 1, Precinct 2, and Precinct 3Precinct 1, Precinct 2, and Precinct 3 Brewster Baptist ChurchBrewster Baptist ChurchBrewster Baptist ChurchBrewster Baptist Church 1848 Main Street1848 Main Street1848 Main Street1848 Main Street on TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006, 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 and questions: SENATOR IN CONGRESS………………..……..…..FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHSENATOR IN CONGRESS………………..……..…..FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHSENATOR IN CONGRESS………………..……..…..FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHSENATOR IN CONGRESS………………..……..…..FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH GOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR………..……..……FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHGOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR………..……..……FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHGOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR………..……..……FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHGOVERNOR/LT. GOVERNOR………..……..……FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………..……..…FOR THISATTORNEY GENERAL……………………..……..…FOR THISATTORNEY GENERAL……………………..……..…FOR THISATTORNEY GENERAL……………………..……..…FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHCOMMONWEALTHCOMMONWEALTHCOMMONWEALTH SECRETARY OF STATE…………………..………….FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHSECRETARY OF STATE…………………..………….FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHSECRETARY OF STATE…………………..………….FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHSECRETARY OF STATE…………………..………….FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH TREASURER……………………………………..……...…FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHTREASURER……………………………………..……...…FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHTREASURER……………………………………..……...…FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHTREASURER……………………………………..……...…FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH AUDITOR………………………………………..…………...FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHAUDITOR………………………………………..…………...FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHAUDITOR………………………………………..…………...FOR THIS COMMONWEALTHAUDITOR………………………………………..…………...FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS………..…..…..…….…………TENTH DISTRICTREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS………..…..…..…….…………TENTH DISTRICTREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS………..…..…..…….…………TENTH DISTRICTREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS………..…..…..…….…………TENTH DISTRICT COUNCILLOR……………………COUNCILLOR……………………COUNCILLOR……………………COUNCILLOR………………………………….………...FIRST COUNCILLOR DISTRICT…………….………...FIRST COUNCILLOR DISTRICT…………….………...FIRST COUNCILLOR DISTRICT…………….………...FIRST COUNCILLOR DISTRICT SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT……………….CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICTSENATOR IN GENERAL COURT……………….CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICTSENATOR IN GENERAL COURT……………….CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICTSENATOR IN GENERAL COURT……………….CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT...FIRST BARNSTABLE DISTRICTREPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT...FIRST BARNSTABLE DISTRICTREPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT...FIRST BARNSTABLE DISTRICTREPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT...FIRST BARNSTABLE DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEY……………………..………..CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICTDISTRICT ATTORNEY……………………..………..CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICTDISTRICT ATTORNEY……………………..………..CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICTDISTRICT ATTORNEY……………………..………..CAPE AND ISLANDS DISTRICT CLERK OF COURTS……………………………………………….BARNSCLERK OF COURTS……………………………………………….BARNSCLERK OF COURTS……………………………………………….BARNSCLERK OF COURTS……………………………………………….BARNSTABLE COUNTYTABLE COUNTYTABLE COUNTYTABLE COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS…………………………………………..BARNSTABLE DISTRICTREGISTER OF DEEDS…………………………………………..BARNSTABLE DISTRICTREGISTER OF DEEDS…………………………………………..BARNSTABLE DISTRICTREGISTER OF DEEDS…………………………………………..BARNSTABLE DISTRICT COUNTY COMMISSIONER……………………….………..…BARNSTABLE COUNTYCOUNTY COMMISSIONER……………………….………..…BARNSTABLE COUNTYCOUNTY COMMISSIONER……………………….………..…BARNSTABLE COUNTYCOUNTY COMMISSIONER……………………….………..…BARNSTABLE COUNTY ASSEMBLY DELEGATE………………………………………….BARNSTABLE COUNTYASSEMBLY DELEGATE………………………………………….BARNSTABLE COUNTYASSEMBLY DELEGATE………………………………………….BARNSTABLE COUNTYASSEMBLY DELEGATE………………………………………….BARNSTABLE COUNTY QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 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 before May 3, 2006? Summary This proposed law would allow local licensing authorities to issue licenses for food stores to sell wine. The proposed law defines a “food store” as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse-type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit, and produce, and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores. Holders of licenses to sell wine at food stores could sell wine either on its own or together with any other items they sell. The licensing authorities in any city or town of up to 5000 residents could issue up to 5 licenses for food stores to sell wine. In cities or towns of over 5000 residents, one additional license could be issued for each additional 5000 residents (or fraction of 5000). No person or business could hold more than 10% of the total number of licenses that could be issued under the proposed law. Such licenses would not be counted when applying the laws that limit the number of other kinds of alcoholic beverage licenses that may be issued or held. Any applicant for a license would have to be approved by the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, and any individual applicant would have to be at least 21 years old and not have been convicted of a felony. In issuing any licenses for food stores to sell wine, local licensing authorities would have to use the same procedures that apply to other licenses for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Except where the proposed law has different terms, the same laws that apply to issuance, renewal, suspension and termination of licenses for retail sales of alcoholic beverages which are not to be consumed on the seller’s premises, and that apply to the operations of holders of such license, would govern licenses to sell wine at food stores, and the operation of holders of such license. Local authorities could set fees for issuing and renewing such licenses. A YES VOTEA YES VOTEA YES VOTEA YES VOTE would create a new category of licenses for food stores to sell wine, and it would allow local licensing authorities to issue such licenses. A NO VOTA NO VOTA NO VOTA NO VOTEEEE would make no change in the laws concerning the sale of wine. QUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 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 before May 3, 2006? SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY This proposed law would allow candidates for public office to be nominated by more than one political party or political designation, to have their names appear on the ballot once for each nomination, and to have their votes counted separately for each nomination but then added together to determine the sinner of the election. The proposed law would repeal an existing requirement that in order to appear on the state primary ballot as a candidate for a political party’s nomination for certain offices, a person cannot have been enrolled in any other party during the preceding year. The requirement applies to candidates for nomination for statewide office, representative in Congress, governor’s councillor, member of the state Legislature, district attorney, clerk of court, register of probate, register of deeds, county commissioner, sheriff, and county treasurer. The proposed law would also allow any person to appear on the primary ballot as a candidate for a party]s nomination for those offices if the party’s state committee gave its written consent. The proposed law would also repeal the existing requirement that in order to be nominated to appear as an unenrolled candidate on the state election ballot, or on any city or town ballot following a primary, a person cannot have been enrolled in any political party during the 90 days before the deadline for filing nomination papers. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate were nominated by more than one party or political designation, instead of the candidate’s name being printed on the ballot once, with the candidate allowed to choose the order in which the party or political designation names appear after the candidate’s name, the candidate’s name would appear multiple times, once for each nomination received. The candidate would decide the order in which the party or political designation nominations would appear, except that all parties would be listed before all political designations. The ballot would allow voters who vote for a candidate nominated by multiple parties or political designations to vote for that candidate under the party or political designation line of their choice. If a voter voted for the same candidate for the same office on multiple party or political designation lines, the ballot would remain valid but would be counted as a single vote for the candidate on a line without a party or political designation. If voting technology allowed, voting machines would be required to prevent a voter from voting more than the number of times permitted for any one office. The proposed law would provide that if a candidate received votes under more than one party or political designation, the votes would be combined for purposed of determining whether the candidate had won the election.. The total number of votes each candidate received under each party or political designation would be recorded. Election officials would announce and record both the aggregate totals and the total by party or political designation. The proposed law would allow a political party to obtain official recognition if its candidate had obtained at least 3% of the vote for any statewide office at either of the two most recent state elections, instead of at only the most recent state election as under current law. The proposed law would allow a person nominated as a candidate for any state, city or town office to withdraw his name from nomination within six days after any party’s primary election for that office, whether or not the person sought nomination or was nominated in that primary. Any candidate who withdrew from an election could not be listed on the ballot for the election, regardless of whether the candidate received multiple nominations. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTEA YES VOTEA YES VOTEA YES VOTE would allow a candidate for the public office to be nominated for the same office by more that one political party or political designation at the same election. A NO VOTEA NO VOTEA NO VOTEA NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning nomination of candidates for public office. QUESTION 3: Law proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 3: Law proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 3: Law proposed by Initiative PetitionQUESTION 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 3, 2006? SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state’s subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state’s child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state’s public employee labor relations law and regulations would apply to the elections and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed-upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could not finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de-certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTEA YES VOTEA YES VOTEA YES VOTE would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state’s subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the state. A NO VOTEA NO VOTEA NO VOTEA NO VOTE would make no change in the laws concerning licensed and other authorized family child care providers. 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 and seal of the Town of Brewster hereto affixed this _____ day of October, 2006. ___________________________________ Dyanne F. Cooney, Chairman ___________________________________ Edward S. Lewis ___________________________________ James W. Foley ___________________________________ James R. Ehrhart ___________________________________ Peter G. Norton 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 7, 2006, by posting attested copies thereof, in the following locations in the Town of Brewster on the ______ day of October, 2006, 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 ____________ ______________________________ Date Roland W. Bassett, Constable A TRUE COPY ATTEST: ___________________________________ Town Clerk