Massachusetts voters have rejected a call to eliminate the state’s income tax, according to the Associated Press.
The measure would have cut the 5.3 percent tax rate in half in January, and then killed it completely in January 2010.
Supporters argued the best way to cut government waste and overspending was to cut tax revenues by 40 percent or about $12.5 billion. They said it would have saved the average taxpayer about $3,700.
But critics, including virtually every elected official in the state, said the cuts would cripple state services, drive up property taxes, harm the state’s credit rating and scare away business.
Gov. Deval Patrick and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate never said how they would have dealt with the loss of revenue.
Bid to ban income tax seen as a threat or wake-up call to state government - Polls predict it will fail. Millions have been spent to make sure it does. From Gov. Patrick on down, officials urge in harmony: vote no on Question One. But in this economy, the fate of the state income tax seems anything but certain.
Tax expert Cities and towns would feel the pain if voters end state income tax - If voters end the state income tax, funding for most state-funded programs would be slashed by more than 70 percent, including an estimated $19 million loss for Brockton, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation warned Monday. But supporters of the idea say the state budget can absorb the drop in tax revenue and Massachusetts doesn’t have to look far to see that a state can operate quite nicely without an income tax.
A state ballot measure decriminalizing marijuana passed handily, with almost two-thirds of voters backing it despite strong opposition by law enforcement officials.
“It’s going to end thousands of new criminal records every year and refocus law enforcement dollars on more violent and serious crimes,” said Whitney A. Taylor, campaign manager for the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy.
Question 2, which received roughly 65 percent of the vote, will create a civil fine of $100 for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, which means a citation instead of an arrest. Juveniles caught with even that amount will be required to complete a drug awareness program and perform 10 hours of community service.
“Obviously, we’re disappointed because we do have a real concern of the affects on young people,” said A. Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association.
Gov. Deval Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley and all 11 of the state’s district attorneys opposed the measure.
“We don’t know what problem it’s going solve,” Norfolk County District Attorney William Keating told the Patriot Ledger last month.
Opponents argued that without criminal penalties, people may feel it is acceptable to use the drug. They also said more young people may get hooked, using marijuana as a “gateway drug.”
“Our experience over many, many years has certainly been that the overwhelming majority of people start with alcohol and marijuana and work their way up,” Sampson said.
Matt Hobin, a 47-year-old plumber from Braintree, voted against the measure.
“An ounce is a lot” of marijuana, Hobin said. “It’s basically letting the dealers get away.”
But supporters of the measure said it will prevent young people from facing an upward battle with a criminal record for marijuana possession.
The Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, a group of 51 clergymen from 46 towns in Massachusetts, supported decriminalization.
“Those we incarcerate are not faceless strangers but our children,” Pastor Jeffrey Long-Middleton, from the West Acton Baptist Church, said in a statement. “It is unjust to lock them up for behaviors that don’t directly harm others.”
VIDEO Oct. 16, 2008 - Plymouth County D.A. Timothy Cruz and Norfolk County D.A. William Keating discussed their opposition to Question 2, dealing the the legalization of marijuana.
VIDEOOct. 22, 2008 - Proponents of Question 2 discuss the ballot initiative that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Massachusetts voters have approved a ban on greyhound racing.
The measure will force the state’s two greyhound race tracks to close their doors by Jan. 1, 2010.
Supporters argued greyhound racing is inhumane and that greyhounds are routinely injured during races, including broken legs, paralysis and even death from cardiac arrest.
The state’s dog tracks say the greyhounds are well cared for and looked after by veterinarians. They also pointed to their efforts to ensure greyhounds are adopted once their racing days are over.
The track owners say eliminating the tracks will take a financial toll on the state. They said up to 1,000 workers will lose their jobs.
A similar question narrowly lost eight years ago.
Video Proponents of Question 3, met with the editorial board of The Patriot Ledger on Oct. 16, 2008. If passed, the proposed law would phase-out dog racing in Massachusetts by 2010.
Video George Carney, the owner of Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park, was one of the opponents of Question 3 who met with The Patriot Ledger's editorial board on Oct. 23, 2008. Question 3 would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts.
Dog racing: Is it cruel?- Among the central arguments made by the group opposing dog racing has been that greyhound racing is “cruel and inhumane,” even though, according to state animal-cruelty laws, it isn’t. The campaign group, the Committee to Protect Dogs, has cited 800-plus injuries from 2002 to mid-2008 as evidence, but racetrack owners say that number represents a tiny percentage of the thousands of dogs racing at the state’s two tracks. We posed that question to six people connected to dogs and dog racing. See what they told us.
Researcher slams use of stats in dog debate - An Ohio-based researcher is accusing greyhound racing supporters in Massachusetts of misrepresenting her sports-injuries study to counter the argument that dog racing is dangerous to the animals.
Greyhound racing advocates call job training idea ‘a bunch of hooey’ - Although proponents of Question 3 have sought to tug at the hearts of animal rights enthusiasts as the campaigns wind down, racing advocates have tried to appeal to the emotions of working class families.
Anti-racing group gathers more than 33,000 signatures - Critics of dog tracks are one step closer to the finish line in their quest to ban greyhound races in the state.
A coalition that supports a ballot question to end greyhound racing gathered more 33,000 signatures in support of the initiative. That’s roughly three times the 11,099 names that the group needed by the deadline to get the question on the ballot in November.
Challenge to greyhound racing ballot question fails - The bid to block November's ballot vote to ban greyhound racing has failed. George L. Carney, Jr., owner of the Raynham-Taunton Dog Track challenged the ballot initiative, filing suit against Attorney General Martha Coakley in May.
Carney's suit alleged the ballot question is invalid on several points, but this morning the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the AG's decision.
Greyhoud racing opponents protest pro-racing tactics - Advocates trying to ban greyhound racing in the state last week filed a complaint with state officials, accusing dog racing supporters of running a “phantom campaign” without oversight from state election officials.
