State Elections - November 03, 1992 Back to List

About This Election

The State Election was held in the Nixon School. The polls were open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. There were 8,990 votes cast, representing 89% of the town's 10,057 registered voters.
PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
BUSH & QUAYLE7667137347292942
CLINTON & GORE1005109495811124169
FULANI & MUNOZ11103
HAGELIN & TOMKINS21216
LAROUCHE, JR & BEVEL01102
MARROU & LORD81041537
PEROT & STOCKDALE4374344494791799
PHILIPS & KNIGHT, JR.00000
BRISBEN & GARASON (WRITE-IN)00000
DODGE & ORMSBY (WRITE-IN)00000
WRITE-INS21429
BLANKS4311523
Totals for Office22252258215423538990
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
PAUL W. CRONIN10098769099573751
MARTIN T. MEEHAN883100687210223783
DAVID E. COLEMAN24283238122
MARY J. FARINELLI102125152123502
WRITE-INS01001
SCATTERING31116
BLANKS204221188212825
Totals for Office22252258215423538990
COUNCILLOR
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
ROBERT B. KENNEDY921104293210023897
VINCENT P. MCLAUGHLIN9418408679373585
WRITE-INS00000
SCATTERING00000
BLANKS3633763554061500
Totals for Office22252258215423458982
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
ROBERT A. DURAND877102690910863898
WILLIAM M. MONNIE1117981100710164121
WRITE-INS00000
SCATTERING00000
BLANKS231251238243963
Totals for Office22252258215423458982
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
HASTY EVANS14611320124014015422
VICKI HAMMEL6548168028453117
WRITE-INS00000
SCATTERING00000
BLANKS11012211299443
Totals for Office22252258215423458982
SHERIFF
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
JOHN P. MCGONIGLE 88210489279953852
MICHAEL J. DEVER9157798288703392
WRITE-INS00000
SCATTERING00000
BLANKS4284313994801738
Totals for Office22252258215423458982
COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
EDWARD J. KENNEDY7468447408163146
THOMAS J. LARKIN6517116596952716
JAMES P. REGAN8467217668213154
EDWARD L. WEINBERG7696887157242896
RICHARD S. MAHONEY133170166195664
WRITE-INS00000
SCATTERING00000
BLANKS13051382126214395388
Totals for Office445045164308469017964
BALLOT 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 6, 1992?\

This proposed law would establish a Health Protection Fund to pay for health programs relating to tobacco use, including distribution of information about tobacco use, to be financed by a new excise tax on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The Health Protection Fund would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, to supplement existing funding for the following purposes: school health education programs including information about the hazards of tobacco use; smoking prevention and smoking cessation programs in the workplace and community; tobacco-related public service advertising; drug education programs; support of prenatal and maternal care at community centers which provide programs on smoking cessation and information on the harmful effects of smoking; and monitoring by the state Department of Public Health of illness and death associated with tobacco.
The proposed law would establish a new excise tax of one and one-quarter cents per cigarette (twenty-five cents per pack of 20) and twenty-five percent of the wholesale price of smokeless tobacco. This excise would be in addition to the excise already imposed on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The new excise would be collected by the state Department of Revenue under the same procedures that apply to the existing tobacco excise.
The proposed law would direct the State Comptroller to report annually on the revenues and expenditures of the Health Protection Fund. The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were found invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect. The proposed law would go into effect on January 1, 1993.
Ballot Question 1, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes15981507146316276195
No5796766206262501
Blanks48757192286
Totals22252258215423458982
BALLOT 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 6, 1992?

This proposed law would require certain banks, insurance companies, and publicly traded corporations to file public reports with the Massachusetts Secretary of State listing certain information from their state tax returns, including profit, income, corporate income tax due, deductions, exemptions and credits. These reports would be made public. This provision would apply only to those banks, insurance companies and publicly-traded corporations required by federal and other Massachusetts laws to disclose information concerning their federal tax payments.
The proposed law would also require the annual release by state officials of a detailed analysis of certain tax expenditures enacted or changed after January 1, 1988. State law defines a tax expenditure as an exemption, exclusion, deduction, or credit that results in less corporate, sales, or income tax revenue for the state. This analysis would be required only for tax expenditures with an annual revenue impact of $1 million or more. The analysis would include information on the actual revenue loss, as well as the number and proportion of taxpayers or taxpaying entities benefiting from the tax expenditure, according to income, profit, receipts or sales
Ballot Question 2, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes10831113105411674417
No9209108619123603
Blanks222235239266962
Totals22252258215423458982
BALLOT 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 6, 1992?

This proposed law would require all packaging used in Massachusetts on or after July 1, 1996 to be reduced in size, reusable, or made of materials that have been or could be recycled. The proposed law would provide for exemptions for health, safety and other reasons and would establish penalties for violations.
Packaging would have to be either reduced in size by at least 25% every five years, or designed to be reusable at least five times, with at least 50% of such packaging actually being reused; or recycled at a 50% rate; or composed of 25% or more of recycled materials (increasing to 35% on July 1, 1999 and 50% on July 1, 2002); or composed of materials being recycled at an annual rate of 25% (increasing to 35% in 1999 and 50% in 2002). The requirements would apply to any packaging or containers used to protect, store, handle, transport, display or sell products.
These requirements would not be applicable to tamper-resistant or tamper-evident seals; packaging for medication or medical devices; packaging merely being shipped through the state; packaging required by federal or state health or safety laws or regulations; or flexible film packaging necessary to prevent food from spoiling.
The state Department of Environmental Protection should also grant exemptions for packaging that represents an innovative approach for which additional time is needed to meet the requirements of the law; or packaging made of material that cannot be reused or recycled, and cannot be made of recycled material, but is being composted at a significant rate; or products for which there is no complying packaging and for which compliance with the law would impose undue hardship (other than increased cost) on Massachusetts residents. A person applying for an exemption would pay a fee to be used, subject to legislative appropriation, to pay the cost of administering the proposed law.
The Department would be required to issue regulations to carry out the proposed law and would be required to investigate suspected violations. After issuing a warning, the Department could assess administrative penalties of up to $100 for each offense and up to $10,000 for any single shipment or single continuing act of non-compliance. The Attorney General could also file court actions for civil penalties of up to $500 for each offense and up to $25,000 for any single shipment or continuing act of non-compliance, and could seek a court order requiring compliance. Each non-complying piece of packaging would be considered a separate offense or act of non-compliance.
The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were declared invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect.
Ballot Question 3, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes10891122103912054455
No10741063102310344194
Blanks627392106333
Totals22252258215423458982
BALLOT QUESTION 4
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives before May 6, 1992?

The proposed law would impose an excise tax on oil, toxic chemicals, and other hazardous substances, and would direct that the money raised, along with the fees paid by hazardous waste transporters and specific revenues under other state laws, be deposited in the state Environmental Challenge Fund. Money in the Fund would be used, subject to legislative appropriation, to assess and clean up sites that have been or may be contaminated by oil or hazardous materials, and to carry out and enforce the excise.
As of July 1, 1993, the excise would apply to persons, businesses, and other entities possessing 50,000 pounds or more of oil and toxic chemicals covered by the proposed law. Toxic chemicals would be covered if classified as toxic by the federal Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) under federal law. As of July 1, 1994, substances listed as hazardous by the EPA under federal law would also become subject to the excise.
Until June 30, 1995, the excise would be two-tenths of one cent ($0.002) per pound. In later years, the state Commissioner of Revenue would set the excise rate at a level, not to exceed two-tenths of one cent per pound, sufficient to yield $35 million annually in 1995 dollars.
The excise would not apply to gasoline or other special engine fuels, jet fuel taxed under other state law, numbers 1 or 2 fuel oil, kerosene, animal or vegetable oil, or waste oil classified as hazardous waste under other state law. Nor would the excise apply to oils, toxic chemicals, or hazardous substances merely being shipped through Massachusetts; or contained in a consumer product intended for retail sale; or present in a mixture at a concentration of less than one percent; or present in hazardous waste being transported by a licensed hazardous waste transporter who had paid or will pay a transporter fee under state law; or for which the excise tax has already been paid under the proposed law and which have not been reprocessed or recycled since payment of the excise.
The excise also would not apply to oils, toxic chemicals, or hazardous substances that are possessed by individuals for persona, non-business purposes; or are contained in vehicles or vessels intended to be used for normal purposes; or are produced in Massachusetts as a by-product of pollution control equipment or the clean-up of hazardous materials and are handled in compliance with federal and state environmental laws. Finally, the excise would not apply to toxic chemicals or hazardous substances in a manufactured product the use of which requires a specific shape or design and which does not release toxic substances under normal use.
Under the proposed law, the excise would ordinarily be collected from the first person or business within Massachusetts to come into possession of materials subject to the tax. If that person or business had not paid the excise a later possessor could be required to pay the excise and could then recover a corresponding amount from the first possessor. The proposed law would provide credits for excises paid on materials that become ingredients in the manufacture of other materials subject to the tax, and it would provide credits for similar excises or taxes paid to other states.
Persons possessing more than 25,000 pounds of materials subject to the excise in any six-month period would be required to obtain a license from the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner could issue regulations establishing record-keeping and report requirements for persons possessing such materials. The Commissioner would collect the excise through procedures similar to those for other state taxes and could issue regulations to implement the proposed law.
The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were declared invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect.
Ballot Question 4, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes971100392810013903
No11421128108611984554
Blanks112127140146525
Totals22252258215423458982
BALLOT QUESTION 5
Shall the Town of Sudbury be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so called the amounts required to pay for the Town's apportinoed share of the bonds issued by the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District in order to finance costs of reconstructing, equipping, remodeling and making extraordinary repairs to the regional high school.
Ballot Question 5, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes11871124103512344580
No8989669319283723
Blanks140168188183679
Totals22252258215423458982
Contact
Subscribe Subscribe to Email Lists
Twitter
Facebook