Question 3

Why the ban on dog racing passed this year

adamg — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:57:24 -0500

CW Unbound looks at the numbers, discovers a huge shift in votes in western Massachusetts from the last time voters considered a ban. But why?

About that puppy Obama promised his kids

adamg — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:17:06 -0500

Richard Howe wonders if the president-elect would consider a Massachusetts greyhound, since there will soon be plenty of those available.

Ballot questions

adamg — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:26:02 -0500

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.

Dissatisfied with MA Voter Guide?

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:29:21 -0500

Here's a guide to the 3 referendum questions on the ballot Tuesday, with pro's con's articulated by the experts who are supporting and opposing the measures. It's surprisingly concise.

Q1 Would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.

Q2 Would replace the criminal penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil penalties, and would exclude information from the state's criminal record system.

Q3 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 rest is here.

Globe: Vote no on everything

garrett3000 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:24:40 -0400

Hear Ye! Hear ye! Morrissey Boulevard has issued a proclamation that the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Vote No on Questions 1, 2, and 3.

To clarify: the Globe wants to continue the state income tax because they have a huge sexytime crush on Mike Widmer, send pot smokers to Guantanamo Bay forever, and run Greyhounds directly into the ground.

Got that?

Ballot questions

adamg — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:40:21 -0500

Question 3 going down to defeat.

Packies beat supermarkets on Question 1.

Fusion voting ~~wins~~ goes fishin'.

Question 3: Not as sexy as wine sales at the supermarket, but on the ballot nonetheless

adamg — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:42:24 -0400

Question 3 would let private child-care providers unionize so that they could bargain collectively with the state in negotiating reimbursement rates (who knew this was a constitutional issue?).

The Secretary of State's office provides a summary and pro/con arguments (scroll down past the similar info for Questions 1 and 2).