Statewide Ballot Questions
Posted in Politics at 12:05 pm
The following is a summary of the Massachusetts statewide ballot questions. I included my take and my vote for each. Please feel free to mention any ballot questions in your own state that you feel strongly about in a comment. Generally speaking, ballot questions go to the heart of what ‘We The People’ is all about. It’s our best chance to have our voices be truly heard.
-Q
2008 Statewide Ballot Question 1
State Personal Income Tax
LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
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 receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed 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.
My Take:
No matter how much I want to vote Yes on this, I just can’t. It’s irresponsible. The fact of the matter is that we cannot trust our ‘representatives’ to enact this in a way that doesn’t hurt the people. Does anyone really think that they’ll take a pay cut or take fewer trips to help cover the lost revenue? If you do you’re a naïve dope.. sorry. Another fact, if we didn’t have the habit of electing absolute tools in this state, our income tax rate would’ve dropped years ago as mandated by another one of these ballot questions. The people we elected to take action on our voice decided that they didn’t wanna.. and then we re-elected most of them. It’s our own damn fault; deal with it.
My Vote: NO
2008 Statewide Ballot Question 2
Possession of Marijuana
LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
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 $1,000, 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 that 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.
My Take:
This is an absolute no-brainer. The amount of money and time we spend battling minor marijuana possesion and use is absurd. Our jails are filled with ‘criminals’ that harmed no one, and despicable people whose only desire is to cause pain, make deals and go free. District Attorneys around here can bitch all they want about the message being sent to kids and spout their erroneous opinions that marijuana is a ‘gateway drug’, this is the right thing to do. We pride ourselves on being ‘progressive’ in this state and this change to the law is long overdue.
My Vote: YES
2008 Statewide Ballot Question 3
Dog Racing
LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
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.
My Take:
While the downside to this question is huge (many many people will lose their jobs), I cannot in good conscience vote against it. Animal racing just doesn’t sit well with me. Many of these animals (especially dogs) are not treated well and are killed off when they’re usefulness has passed. The people losing their jobs have over a year to find something else. Even in this economy that isn’t bad, although I would have liked a provision allowing for extending the unemployment eligibility of those affected by this. You can’t claim to have an enlightened viewpoint while ignoring suffering. This is a ‘big-picture’ question. No one wants to cost people jobs but there’s more to this one than just that.
My Vote: YES
