November 4, 2008 State General Election

Date/Time: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 from 7 AM to 8 PM
Location:

Charles Forbes Kaye Gymnasium, Littleton Middle School, 55 Russell Street, Littleton, MA 01460 

Resources from Mass. Secretary of State

Massachusetts Secretary of State Elections Division

Statewide Ballot Questions

Information for Voters - PDF file


Election Results in the Town of Littleton  (Total votes cast: 5,196)


ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

BALDWIN AND CASTLE - CONSTITUTION

BARR AND ROOT - LIBERTARIAN  30 

McCAIN AND PALIN - REPUBLICAN 2,106 

McKINNEY AND CLEMENTE - GREEN-RAINBOW 14

NADER AND GONZALEZ - INDEPENDENT  30

OBAMA AND BIDEN - DEMOCRATIC 2,963

  

BLANKS

48


SENATOR IN CONGRESS

JOHN F. KERRY, 19 Louisburg Sq., Boston - DEMOCRATIC - Candidate for Re-election  3,019 
JEFFREY K. BEATTY, 23 John Joseph Rd., Harwich - REPUBLICAN 1,902
ROBERT J. UNDERWOOD, 83 Cherrelyn St., Springfield - LIBERTARIAN  146
BLANKS

129

 


REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FIFTH DISTRICT
NICOLA S. TSONGAS, 52 Lawrence Dr., Lowell - DEMOCRATIC - Candidate for Re-election 3,882
BLANKS

1,314

 


COUNCILLOR
THIRD DISTRICT
MARILYN M. PETITTO DEVANEY, 98 Westminster Ave., Watertown - DEMOCRATIC- Candidate for Re-election 3,375
BLANKS

1,821

 


SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
MIDDLESEX & WORCESTER DISTRICT
JAMES B. ELDRIDGE, 10 Wampus Ave., Acton - DEMOCRATIC  3,090
STEVEN L. LEVY, 61 Ogrady Rd., Marlborough - REPUBLICAN 1,675
BLANKS

431

 


REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
SECOND MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
JAMES ARCIERO, 18 Banbury Dr., Westford - DEMOCRATIC 1,869
PAUL J. AVELLA, 94 Grist Mill Rd., Littleton - REPUBLICAN 3,012
BLANKS

315

 


REGISTER OF PROBATE
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
TARA E. DeCRISTOFARO, 11 Summit Rd., Medford - DEMOCRATIC 3,381
BLANKS

1,815

 


QUESTION 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 6, 2008?

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.
YES 1,655; NO 3,474; BLANKS 67

QUESTION 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 6, 2008?

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.
YES  3,376;  NO 1,753; BLANKS 67         

QUESTION 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 6, 2008?

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.
YES  3,048;  NO  2,035; BLANKS 113

QUESTION 4 -  

Shall the Town of Littleton be authorized to exempt from the provisions of propostion two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to construct a new police station to be located on town-owned property at 500 Great Road, including original equipment and landscaping, paving and other site improvements incidental or directly related thereto?
YES  2,889; NO 2,021; BLANKS 286