Vote Tuesday, November 2

On Tuesday, November 2 voters will head to the polls for a state election to select candidates for various statewide offices. The polls in Medford open at 7:00AM and close at 8:00PM.

Here’s a look at what will be on the ballot. There are three separate ballots in Medford and they differ depending upon the state representative district. The current state representatives are Paul Donato (D-Medford, Malden), Carl Sciortino (D-Medford, Somerville), and Sean Garballey (D-Arlington, Medford).

Not sure who your state representative is or where you vote? Visit www.wheredoivotema.com and enter your address.

Click on a candidate’s name below to go to his/her website for more information.

Governor and Lieutenant Governor

Democrat
Deval Patrick and Tim Murray
Candidates for re-election

Republican
Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei

Independent
Tim Cahill Paul Loscocco will still be listed on the ballot but he has withdrawn himself as Cahill’s running mate.

Green-Rainbow
Jill Stein and Rick Purcell

Attorney General

Democrat
Martha Coakley
Candidate for re-election

Republican
James McKenna

Secretary of State

Democrat
William Galvin
Candidate for re-election

Republican
William Campbell

Unenrolled
James Henderson

Treasurer

Democrat
Steven Grossman

Republican
Karyn Polito

Auditor

Democrat
Suzanne Bump

Republican
Mary Connaughton

Green-Rainbow
Nathanael Alexander Fortune

Representative in Congress

Democrat
Edward Markey
Candidate running for re-election

Republican
Gerry Dembrowski

Councilor, Sixth District

Republican
Paul Caruccio

Democrat
Terrence Kennedy

Independent
Scott Crabtree

Unenrolled
Andrew Mostone

Senator in General Court

Democrat
Patricia Jehlen
Candidate for re-election

Republican
David Carnevale

Representative in General Court

– This is the only position that will be different on the ballots. Below are the three different versions voters will see depending upon where they live.

Thirty-fifth Middlesex District (Wards 1 and 2, Ward 3, Precinct 1, Ward 7, Precinct 2, Ward 8 Precinct 1)

Democrat
Paul Donato
Candidate for re-election

Independent
Karla Romero

Thirty-fourth Middlesex District (Wards 4 and 5, Ward 7, Precinct 1, Ward 8, Precinct 2)

Democrat
Carl Sciortino
Candidate for re-election

Independent
Richard Cannava

Twenty-third Middlesex District (Ward 3, Precinct 2, Ward 6)

Democrat
Sean Garballey
Candidate for re-election

District Attorney, Northern District

Democrat
Gerry Leone
Candidate for re-election

Sheriff, Middlesex County

Democrat
Jim DiPaola
Candidate for re-election

Unenrolled
Michael Tranchita

Ballot Questions

QUESTION 1

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

This proposed law would remove the Massachusetts sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol, where the sale of such beverages and alcohol or their importation into the state is already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2011.

A YES VOTE would remove the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol where their sale or importation into the state is subject to an excise tax under state law.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol.

QUESTION 2

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

This proposed law would repeal an existing state law that allows a qualified organization wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), instead of separate permits from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing. The repeal would take effect on January 1, 2011, but would not stop or otherwise affect any proposed housing that had already received both a comprehensive permit and a building permit for at least one unit. Under the existing law, the ZBA holds a public hearing on the application and considers the recommendations of local agencies and officials. The ZBA may grant a comprehensive permit that may include conditions or requirements concerning the height, site plan, size, shape, or building materials of the housing. Persons aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision to grant a permit may appeal it to a court. If the ZBA denies the permit or grants it with conditions or requirements that make the housing uneconomic to build or to operate, the applicant may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC). After a hearing, if the HAC rules that the ZBA’s denial of a comprehensive permit was unreasonable and not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to issue the permit. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s decision issuing a comprehensive permit with conditions or requirements made the housing uneconomic to build or operate and was not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to modify or remove any such condition or requirement so as to make the proposal no longer uneconomic. The HAC cannot order the ZBA to issue any permit that would allow the housing to fall below minimum safety standards or site plan requirements. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s action was consistent with local needs, the HAC must uphold it even if it made the housing uneconomic. The HAC’s decision is subject to review in the courts. A condition or requirement makes housing uneconomic if it would prevent a public agency or non-profit organization from building or operating the housing except at a financial loss, or it would prevent a limited dividend organization from building or operating the housing without a reasonable return on its investment. A ZBA’s decision is consistent with local needs if it applies requirements that are reasonable in view of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing and the number of low-income persons in the city or town, as well as the need to protect health and safety, promote better site and building design, and preserve open space, if those requirements are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Requirements are considered consistent with local needs if more than 10% of the city or town’s housing units are low- or moderate-income units or if such units are on sites making up at least 1.5% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town. Requirements are also considered consistent with local needs if the application would result, in any one calendar year, in beginning construction of low- or moderate-income housing on sites making up more than 0.3% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town, or on ten acres, whichever is larger. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state law allowing issuance of such a comprehensive permit.

QUESTION 3

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?
“This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 3% as of January 1, 2011. It would make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by non-resident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts. The proposed law provides that if the 3% rates would not produce enough revenues to satisfy any lawful pledge of sales and use tax revenues in connection with any bond, note, or other contractual obligation, then the rates would instead be reduced to the lowest level allowed by law. The proposed law would not affect the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property or services occurring before January 1, 2011. 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 sales and use tax rates to 3%.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales and use tax rates.