State Elections - November 06, 1990 Back to List

About This Election

The State Election was held at the Peter Noyes School, Old Sudbury Road. The polls were open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. There were 7,933 votes cast. The results were announced by the Assistant Town Clerk, Kathleen D. Middleton, at 1:10 a.m.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
L. SCOTT HARSHBARGER11551214118812514808
WILLIAM C. SAWYER7166706737072766
BLANKS857578115353
SCATTERING00066
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
AUDITOR
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
A. JOSEPH DENUCCI8319028128623407
DOUGLAS J. MURRAY7386597407542891
STEVEN K. SHERMAN145178179188690
BLANKS242220208275945
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
COUNCILLOR (THIRD DISTRICT)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
ROBERT B. KENNEDY5957126496442600
THOMAS F. HEALY1097971103910824189
BLANKS2552762513531135
SCATTERING90009
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
COUNTY COMMISSIONER (MIDDLESEX COUNTY)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
FRANCIS X. FLAHERTY10521152105810104272
BLANKS90380788110683659
SCATTERING10012
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
COUNTY TREASURER (MIDDLESEX COUNTY)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
JAMES E. FAHEY, JR.5246405655732302
WALTER FISH1026902100110053934
BLANKS4054173735011696
SCATTERING10001
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
DISTRICT ATTORNEY (NORTHERN DISTRICT)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
THOMAS F. REILLY11151199107210824468
BLANKS8407608679963463
SCATTERING10012
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
GOVERNOR & LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
DOROTHY STEVENS (WRITE IN)11114
SILBER AND CLAPPROOD6076906996952691
UMINA AND DEBERRY28523637153
WELD AND CELLUCCI12941186118613044970
BLANKS25281742112
SCATTERING01001
WRITE IN11002
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
REGISTRAR OF PROBATE (MIDDLESEX COUNTY)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
DONNA M. LAMBERT10501014106810814213
THOMAS J. LARKIN4295435074881967
BLANKS4774023645101753
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS (FIFTH DISTRICT)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
CHESTER G. ATKINS10941171100111714437
JOHN F. MACGOVERN8137198528233207
BLANKS49698685289
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT (THIRTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
MARK COLLINS8339528298883502
NANCY "HASTY" EVANS1051945102511104131
BLANKS72628581300
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
SECRETARY OF STATE
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
BARBARA F. AHEARN3123162943481270
MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY6557456537052758
PAUL MCCARTHY7866957997853065
BLANKS202203190241836
SCATTERING10203
WRITE IN00101
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
SENATOR IN CONGRESS
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
JIM RAPPAPORT8347498688483299
JOHN F. KERRY10751157102111604413
BLANKS46535071220
SCATTERING10001
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT (MIDDLESEX & WORCESTER DISTRICT)
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
ROBERT A. DURAND6838537418053082
WILLIAM M. MONNIE9798529529493732
BLANKS2942542463251119
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
TREASURER
Candidate NamePrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Total
C. DAVID NASH117127126115485
JOSEPH D. MALONE12841211126813305093
WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN4455124504921899
BLANKS11010995141455
SCATTERING00011
Totals for Office19561959193920797933
BALLOT QUESTION 1
Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to the constitution summarized below, which was approved by the General Court in joint sessions of the House of Representatives and the Senate on December 17, 1987 by a vote of 180 to 6, and on June 11, 1990 by a vote of 186 tgo 6?
The proposed constitutional amendment would repeal the constitutional provision that a state census be taken and used as the basis for determining state representative, sentorial and councillor districts. The proposed constitutional amendment would provide that the federal census shall be the basis for determining such districts.
Ballot Question 1, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes16841675163517576751
No203208219220850
Blanks697685102332
Totals19561959193920797933
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 2, 1990?
The proposed law would place restrictions on the State's use of consultants. It would place various limits on the amount of profit, overhead charges and expenses that the State could pay consultants. It would limit the duration of consultant contracts to two years and any extension to one year, and it would limit the degree to which such contracts could be changed to require payments in excess of the original contract. The proposed law 22would limit to $100,000 the amount the State could pay on a consultant contract with an individual and would require all other consultant contracts in excess of $25,000 to be sought through competitive bidding. It would prohibit consultants from supervising State employees, and it would limit the use of consultants as substitutes for State employee positions.
In addition, the proposed law would place limits on the total amount of money State agencies, departments and Authorities could spend on consultants each year. Subsidiary provisions would also establish a method for these entities to gradually come into compliance with the new spending limits and would give authority to the State Secretary of Administration and Finance, on request, to permit some spending in excess of the new limits. The proposed law would also require State agencies, departments and Authorities as well as the Secretary of Administration and Finance to submit yearly reports concerning the State's consultant contracts to certain legislative committees and to the Inspector General.
Finally, the proposed law provides that any of its provisions, if found by a court to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, would be severed from the law and the remaining provisions would continue in effect.
Ballot Question 2, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes6837087637072861
No12141189110812844795
Blanks59626888277
Totals19561959193920797933
BALLOT QUESTION 3
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 2, 1990?
This proposed law would change the state income tax rate, affect language contained in certain tax provisions, and regulate the setting of fees by state agencies and authorities. The proposed law would set the state income tax rate on Part B taxable income (in general, earned income) at 4.25% for 1991 and 4.625% for 1992, except for income from unemployment compensation, alimony, Massachusetts bank interest, rental income, pension and annuity income, and IRA/Keogh deductions, which would be taxed at 5%.
The proposed law also provides that the fee imposed by any state agency or authority shall be no more than the fee that was in effect on or before June 30, 1988. The state Secretary of Administration would determine the amount to be charged for any service, registration, regulation, license, fee, permit or other public function, except for the rates of tuition or fees at state colleges and universities or any fees or charges relative to the administration and operation of the state courts. Any increase or decrease in a fee, or the establishment of any new fee, would require the approval of the Legislature. Any increase in a fee would not apply to persons 65 years of age or older. No state agency or authority could collect any fee which exceeds the administrative costs directly incurred by the state agency or authority to produce and process the application for any license or permit. The Secretary of Administration must report information concerning fees to the Legislature on an annual basis.
The proposed law provides that for tax periods commencing on or after January 1, 1991, language in certain provisions of the Massachusetts general laws relating to taxes shall be the same as it was on August 2, 1989, or the effective date of the proposed law, whichever language yields less tax revenue. The tax provisions affected include sections relating to the surtax on business income, corporate excise taxes, S corporation taxes, taxes on security corporations, taxes on Part A income (in general, unearned income), bank taxes, excise taxes on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes, excise taxes on deeds, estate taxes, payments to the Commonwealth relating to horse and dog racing, payments to the Commonwealth relating to boxing and sparring matches, taxes on utility companies, gasoline taxes, taxes on insurance companies, excise taxes on motor vehicles, taxes on urban redevelopment corporations, sales tax, use tax, room occupancy excise tax, property taxes, and taxes on proceeds from raffles and bazaars.
The proposed law also contains a provision that if any sections of the law are held to be invalid, all other sections of the law are to remain in effect.
Ballot Question 3, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes8668038468573372
No10471107104111554350
Blanks43495267211
Totals19561959193920797933
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 2, 1990?
This proposed law would change the state election laws governing the establishment of political parties and the nomination of candidates.
The proposed law would allow voters to register under a political designation other than "Independent" and in addition to the two political parties previously recognized by law (Republican or Democrat), if at least fifty voters request to be permitted to do so. It would allow any group to qualify as a political party under Massachusetts law if at least one percent of the total number of registered voters register to vote using that group's political designation, or if at least three percent of the votes cast at the preceding election for any statewide office were cast for a candidate running under that group's political designation.
The proposed law would set the minimum number of signatures needed on independent or minor party nomination papers for state office at one-half of one percent (1/2%) of the entire vote cast in the previous state election for governor (as compared to 2% as of 1989), and would also establish this number of signatures as the upper limit needed for major party candidates. The proposed law would also permit voters to sign the nomination papers of any number of candidates for the same office, would require that all blank forms to be used for nomination papers and initiative and referendum petitions be no more than 8 1/2" by 14" in size, and would allow signatures to be collected on exact copies of those forms.
Ballot Question 4, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes100095299810303980
No8448868078983435
Blanks112121134151518
Totals19561959193920797933
BALLOT QUESTION 5
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senator or the House of Representatives before May 2, 1990?
This proposed law would regulate the distribution to cities and towns of the Local Aid Fund, which consists of at least 40% of the revenue generated by the state income, sales, and corporate taxes, as well as the balance of the State Lottery Fund.
Subject to appropriation by the legislature, the State Treasurer would distribute the Local Aid Fund to cities and towns on a quarterly basis, and each city or town would receive at least the same amount of local aid it received in the previous fiscal year unless the total Local Aid Fund decreases.
In fiscal year 1992, if there has been any increase over the fiscal year 1989 fund, half of the increase would be distributed in accordance with the distribution formula used for fiscal year 1989, and half of the increase would be distributed to each city and town in proportion to its population.
In each year after 1992, if the fund increases, the excess would be distributed through a formula devised by the State Secretary of Administration and Finance, with the advice and consent of the Local Government Advisory Committee. If the fund decreases after 1992, each town or city will have the amount it receives decreased by the same percentage.
This proposed law also requires that the Treasurer publish an annual report about the Local Aid Fund, that the state Auditor publish an annual audit of the Account, and that the Secretary of Administration and Finance issue to each city and town an estimate of funds it will receive from the Local Aid Fund.
Each city or town would be allowed to bring a lawsuit to force distribution of the account, and would be entitled to a late payment fee if distribution is not timely.
Ballot Question 5, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes9951017102410014037
No8368037689283335
Blanks125139147150561
Totals19561959193920797933
BALLOT QUESTION 6
Shall radio and television broadcast outlets be required to give free and equal time to all certified candidates for public office in the commonwealth?
Ballot Question 6, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes8798508538983480
No8478798489163490
Blanks230230238265963
Totals19561959193920797933
BALLOT QUESTION 7
Shall Middlesex County elect to transfer to the Commonwealth all right, title and interest held by said County in:
A. The Superior Court House building and land in Lowell, Massachusetts
B. The Superior Court House building and land in Cambridge, Massachusetts
C. The Probate Court/Registry of Deeds building and land in Cambridge, Massachusetts occupied by the judicial branch and owned by the county?
Ballot Question 7, ResultsPrecinct 1Precinct 2Precinct 3Precinct 4Totals
Yes8818068578763420
No6847326577022775
Blanks3914214255011738
Totals19561959193920797933
Contact
Subscribe Subscribe to Email Lists
Twitter
Facebook