Race/Candidate	Marion	Mattapoisett	Rochester
Senator in Congress
EDWARD J. MARKEY	1184	1589	999
BRIAN J. HERR	1077	1269	1151
. . .
Governor/Lieutenant Governor
BAKER and POLITO, REPUBLICAN	1293	1620	1338
COAKLEY and KERRIGAN, DEMOCRATIC	925	1174	738
FALCHUK and JENNINGS, UNITED INDEPENDENT	65	83	75
LIVELY and SAUNDERS, INDEPENDENT	19	33	34
McCORMICK and POST, INDEPENDENT	12	31	24
. . .
Attorney General
MAURA HEALEY	1214	1513	959
JOHN B. MILLER	1044	1343	1179
. . .
Secretary of State
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN	1314	1731	1117
DAVID D'ARCANGELO	848	1025	916
DANIEL L. FACTOR	63	74	86
. . .
Treasurer
DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG	994	1316	839
MICHAEL JAMES HEFFERNAN	1112	1380	1179
IAN T. JACKSON	72	90	71
. . .
Auditor
SUZANNE M. BUMP	1008	1340	834
PATRICIA S. SAINT AUBIN	1072	1338	1139
MK MERELICE	72	71	73
. . .
Representative in Congress
WILLIAM RICHARD KEATING	1168	1594	979
JOHN C. CHAPMAN	1094	1286	1175
. . .
Councillor
JOSEPH C. FERREIRA	1437	1848	1342
. . .
Senator in General Court
MARC R. PACHECO (Marion only)	1259	NA	NA
DAVID A. ROSA (Marion only)	956	NA	NA
MARK C. MONTIGNY (Mattapoisett only)	NA	2026	NA
MICHAEL J. RODRIGUES (Rochester only)	NA	NA	883
DEREK A. MAKSY (Rochester only)	NA	NA	1184
. . .
Representatve in General Court
WILLIAM M. STRAUS	1351	1943	1200
ABILIO BILL SOARES	873	928	909
. . .
District Attorney
TIMOTHY J. CRUZ	1664	2131	1713
. . .
Register of Probate
MATTHEW J. McDONOUGH	1014	1346	838
ANTHONY THOMAS O'BRIEN	1085	1321	1171
. . .
County Treasurer
THOMAS J. O'BRIEN	1466	1887	1365
. . .
County Commissioner
SANDRA M. WRIGHT	1216	1545	1312
SCOTT M. VECCHI	838	1069	666
. . .
Regional Technical School Committee (Bourne)
JULIE A. WING (Marion only)	1557	NA	NA
. . .
Regional Technical School Committee (Falmouth)
THOAS OPAUL CORRIVEAU (Marion only)	1503	NA	NA
. . .
Regional Technical School Committee (Sandwich)
MICHAEL D. DEGGAN (Marion only)	1484	NA	NA
. . .
Regional Technical School Committee (Wareham)
DOMINIC A. COMMARANO, JR. (Marion only)	1474	NA	NA
. . .
Question 1 - Eliminating Gas Tax Indexing
This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that the states gasoline tax, which was 24 cents per gallon as of September 2013, (1) be adjusted every year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the preceding year, but (2) not be adjusted below 21.5 cents per gallon.
YES	1232	1483	1377
NO	1011	1305	745
. . .
Question 2 - Expanding the Beverage Container Deposit Law
This proposed law would expand the states beverage container deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption, except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-material packages such as juice boxes or pouches. The proposed law would require the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to adjust the container deposit amount every five years to reflect (to the nearest whole cent) changes in the consumer price index, but the value could not be set below five cents. The proposed law would increase the minimum handling fee that beverage distributors must pay dealers for each properly returned empty beverage container, which was 2 cents as of September 2013, to 3 cents. It would also increase the minimum handling fee that bottlers must pay distributors and dealers for each properly returned empty reusable beverage container, which was 1 cent as of September 2013, to 3 cents. The Secretary of EEA would review the fee amounts every five years and make appropriate adjustments to reflect changes in the consumer price index as well as changes in the costs incurred by redemption centers. The proposed law defines a redemption center as any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of beverage containers and that is not ancillary to any other business. The proposed law would direct the Secretary of EEA to issue regulations allowing small dealers to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit containers. The proposed law would define small dealer as any person or business, including the operator of a vending machine, who sells beverages in beverage containers to consumers, with a contiguous retail space of 3,000 square feet or less, excluding office and stock room space; and fewer than four locations under the same ownership in the Commonwealth. The proposed law would require that the regulations consider at least the health, safety, and convenience of the public, including the distribution of dealers and redemption centers by population or by distance or both. The proposed law would set up a state Clean Environment Fund to receive certain unclaimed container deposits. The Fund would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, to support programs such as the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection. The proposed law would allow a dealer, distributor, redemption center or bottler to refuse to accept any beverage container that is not marked as being refundable in Massachusetts. The proposed law would take effect on April 22, 2015.
YES	598	636	423
NO	1676	2272	1785
. . .
Question 3 - Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming
This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races. The proposed law would change the definition of illegal gaming under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
YES	1102	1299	871
NO	1155	1591	1326
. . .
Question 4 - Earned Sick Time for Employees
This proposed law would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions. Employees who work for employers having eleven or more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per calendar year, while employees working for smaller employers could earn and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per calendar year. An employee could use earned sick time if required to miss work in order (1) to care for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition affecting the employee or the employees child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; (2) to attend routine medical appointments of the employee or the employees child, spouse, parent, or parent of a spouse; or (3) to address the effects of domestic violence on the employee or the employees dependent child. Employees would earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, and would begin accruing those hours on the date of hire or on July 1, 2015, whichever is later. Employees could begin to use earned sick time on the 90th day after hire. The proposed law would cover both private and public employers, except that employees of a particular city or town would be covered only if, as required by the state constitution, the proposed law were made applicable by local or state legislative vote or by appropriation of sufficient funds to pay for the benefit. Earned paid sick time would be compensated at the same hourly rate paid to the employee when the sick time is used. Employees could carry over up to 40 hours of unused sick time to the next calendar year, but could not use more than 40 hours in a calendar year. Employers would not have to pay employees for unused sick time at the end of their employment. If an employee missed work for a reason eligible for earned sick time, but agreed with the employer to work the same number of hours or shifts in the same or next pay period, the employee would not have to use earned sick time for the missed time, and the employer would not have to pay for that missed time. Employers would be prohibited from requiring such an employee to work additional hours to make up for missed time, or to find a replacement employee. Employers could require certification of the need for sick time if an employee used sick time for more than 24 consecutively scheduled work hours. Employers could not delay the taking of or payment for earned sick time because they have not received the certification. Employees would have to make a good faith effort to notify the employer in advance if the need for earned sick time is foreseeable. Employers would be prohibited from interfering with or retaliating based on an employees exercise of earned sick time rights, and from retaliating based on an employees support of another employees exercise of such rights. The proposed law would not override employers obligations under any contract or benefit plan with more generous provisions than those in the proposed law. Employers that have their own policies providing as much paid time off, usable for the same purposes and under the same conditions, as the proposed law would not be required to provide additional paid sick time. The Attorney General would enforce the proposed law, using the same enforcement procedures applicable to other state wage laws, and employees could file suits in court to enforce their earned sick time rights. The Attorney General would have to prepare a multilingual notice regarding the right to earned sick time, and employers would be required to post the notice in a conspicuous location and to provide a copy to employees. The state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, would develop a multilingual outreach program to inform the public of the availability of earned sick time. The proposed law would take effect on July 1, 2015, and states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
YES	1128	1396	1065
NO	1116	1472	1129
. . .
Question 5
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that 1- rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2- both Congress and the states may place limits on the political contributions and political spending?
YES	1345	1740	1308
NO	511	640	473