Question 1

Woof! Paul Keleher photographed this Question 3 supporter.

Channel 5 is projecting:

• No income tax repeal.
• Yes pot-possession changes.
• Yes on banning dog racing.

Poll results from Rasmussen Reports; show 59% against repeal, 33% in favor and 8% unsure.

Via PolitickerMA.

The Globe covers yesterday's anti-income-tax rally in Boston (only 250 people?), while Yvonne Abraham heaps scorn on Carla Howell and her made-up figures about waste in state government.

A Proper Bostonian comes up with Swiftian reasons to vote for the measure (as in Jonathan, not Jane).

The Herald takes a look at the people paying Carla Howell's salary as she tries to convince people to repeal the state income tax:

The push to scrap the state income tax - billed as a grassroots movement - is heavily bankrolled by an odd-ball collection of libertarians who don't even pay taxes in Massachusetts, including a crackpot who’s likened Homeland Security to the "Gestapo" and a "Biblical capitalist" who thinks paper money should be eliminated. ...

Rick Holmes, opinion editor at the Metrowest Daily News, explains why he isn't buying Carla Howell's effort to repeal the Massachusetts income tax in November:

Carla Howell, the leader of the income-tax-repeal effort, came in to see me last week. I have an editorial here about the question I keep asking: Is the point of the referendum to "send a message" or enact a law?

Howell says it's about enacting a law, one that would remove some $12 billion from the state budget. Fine, but if you are going to ask the voters to make decisions on the budget, you ought to be able to provide some details, and Carla appears to have decided not to. ...

On the heels of the MBTA pay-raise story comes the news that people are paying more in property taxes on houses that are worth less. The Outraged Liberal, who predicts disaster if Question 1 passes, hopes:

... Hopefully those folks who plan to speak out against Question 1 are hard at work for a campaign that will launch right after Labor Day -- you know about the same time the Democratic convention ends, the Republican convention begins and the political media's focus on the presidential race obliterates all other discussion?

First state pensioners, now detail-lovin' police, but there's an endgame in mind here and it's not necessarily Washington:

... Make no mistake, Patrick has an election in mind all right. It's the November referendum on Question 1, the income tax repeal. Polls suggest voters are unhappy enough that they could vote their wallet and not their best interests. Sacred cows need to fall.

If that means dealing with upset pensioners and police officers angry because they've been asked to do some dieting along with the rest of the state budget (and there will be a lot of that in the months ahead, particularly if the federal Medicaid waiver is slashed) that drama may only help convince fence sitters that Question 1 is a recipe for disaster. ...

Mass Marrier analyzes the defeat of the three statewide ballot questions; he says 2 and 3 were just too confusing for most people. As for 1:

... Voters bought into Chicken Little-style claims of bodies on the highways and drunken teens in an updated version of Reefer Madness. ...

Talonvaki was glad to see Question 1 defeated, but for a different reason:

... The small liquor stores have something the supermarkets don't have: character. I have grown to love the local packies. The one near my house, where I've been going for 6½ years, and they know me (the woman remembers when I moved in!), the shop on Mass Ave., where until recently Dixie the cat lived, the shop in Southie with the autographed photo of Bobby Orr in midair (and a story to go with it), the store across from the Star Market on Beacon in Somerville that's a shrine to firefighters ... every time I go into one, it's not just to get booze, it's to connect with the neighbourhood and have a conversation.

You can't do that in the supermarket. And now that you can buy liquor on Sundays, there's really no need to. ...

Same for Onward Charles:

... I live in Mission Hill, so the booze runs plentiful, and already having a plethora of liquor stores and bars doesn't really elicit a reaction of "omfg we need Stop & Shop to have crap wine too!" The scare was that bringing wine and beer to convenience stores would have been big trouble for little mom n' pop shops.

Ed. note: You can buy wine in a few supermarkets; if you really want to pick up some wine with your Stouffer's, try Omni Foods on Rte. 9 in Chestnut Hill. Also, does anybody know if Melvin Drugs on Comm. Ave. in Brighton still sells hip-flask bottles of hard liquor?

Question 3 going down to defeat.

Packies beat supermarkets on Question 1.

Fusion voting wins goes fishin'.

John Daley pokes holes in various arguments against letting supermarkets sell wine:

... This is about business, trade and reasonable regulation, not a referendum on the dangers of drinking. It it were, the liquor stores would be arguing against their own existence.

Beacon Hill Wines and Spirits has a blog and uses it to explain why Question 1 backers are lying about who would be able to sell wine should the measure pass and why it matters.

However, the author also says he has yet to see a single Vote No on 1 ad on TV, which means he is either the only person in the entire state who hasn't seen the ads about blood running in the streets or he only watches Channel 2.

You may recall David Drucker as the Cambridge resident so disgusted with the state of American democracy that he moved to Canada last year. Despite the fact he doesn't intend to come back, he's still registered to vote in Cambridge; he reports he recently sent in his absentee ballot:

... It's not as my vote is going to make a big difference, but I am intrigued with the prospect of Deval Patrick becoming the next Governor of Massachusetts. What's more there was even a State Ballot Question that would pave the way for the sale of wine in Grocery stores in my former state. ...

John Daley doesn't think Question 1 will mean hordes of drunken teens marauding through our streets; he explains why he'll be voting "yes" on Question 1:

... Mostly it's a question of convenience for consumers. In my case, that will mean being able to get two-buck Chuck at my local Trader Joe's rather than having to trek to Memorial Drive. And that's enough for me.

Steve Garfield agrees but says the measure doesn't go far enough:

We want beer in our supermarkets!

At more stores than the Omni Foods in Chestnut Hill, that is (turns out chains can currently get a total of three liquor licenses).

Ron Newman provides links to both sides of Question 1, a referendum in November on whether supermarkets and convenience stores should be allowed to sell wine:

If you can't buy wine with your TV dinners, the terrorists have won!

Sure, vote for it if you're in favor of more drunk drivers.

Discussion: It's really supermarkets vs. liquor stores for world domination.

Ed Prisby explains why he'll be voting yes - it's not that he likes mega-food chains, necessarily, but that competition is a good thing.

Lewis Forman says the measure doesn't go far enough:

... Why not beer sales? Being male and loving everything beer, I still can't buy a six pack with my steak. Wine may be more "sophisticated" but it may not appeal to my nightly palet. It would provide more places for local microbrews to offer their gourmet beers and provide the national brewers more shelf space to show off their Super Bowl XLI inflatable chair and cooler sets. ...