( This article was prepared by the League of Women Voters, based on information provided by the Massachusetts secretary of state.)
The eight ballot questions:
Question 1: Earlier Redistricting for State Legislators and Governor's Councillors.
Summary: This proposed constitutional amendment would require that new district boundaries for state representatives, state senators, and governor's councillors, which are redrawn every 10 years based on the most recent federal census, take effect for the state election held two years after the federal census, rather than the election four years after the census as under the current system. A YES VOTE would amend the constitution to require that the periodic redrawing of district boundaries for state legislators and governor's councillors use the new census data two years earlier than under the current system. A NO VOTE would make no changes in the current four-year process for redrawing such district boundaries.
Question 2: Voting by Incarcerated Felons.
Summary: This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit persons who are incarcerated in a correctional facility due to a felony conviction from voting in elections for governor, lieutenant governor, state senator, or state representative. The amendment would also result in such persons being ineligible to vote for governor's councillor, secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, state attorney general, or US senator or representative in Congress. A YES VOTE would amend the constitution to limit the voting rights of incarcerated felons. A NO VOTE would make no change in the voting rights of incarcerated felons.
Question 3: Dog Racing.
Summary: This proposed law would prohibit in Massachusetts any dog racing or racing meeting 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 State Racing Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission's administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing provisions of the part of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as not applying to anything dog-related. The proposed law would take effect on June 1, 2001. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the rest of the law would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would prohibit dog races where betting or wagering occurs. A NO VOTE would make no changes in the laws governing dog racing.
Question 4: Income Tax Rate Reduction.
Summary: This proposed law would repeal the law setting the state personal income tax rate on Part B taxable income (such as wages and salaries), which was 5.95 percent as of Sept. 1, 1999, and would set the rate at 5.6 percent for tax year 2001, 5.3 percent for tax year 2002, and 5 percent for tax year 2003 and after. If the Legislature set a lower rate for any of those years, that lower rate would apply. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would remain in effect. A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate in steps over three years to 5 percent. A NO VOTE would make no change in the state income tax laws.
Question 5: Health Insurance and Health Care.
Summary: This proposed law would set up a state Health Care Council to review and recommend legislation for a health care system that ensures comprehensive, high quality health care coverage for all Massachusetts residents. Until the Council decided that such a system has been set up, the proposed law would prohibit the conversion of nonprofit hospitals, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and health insurance firms to for-profit status. The proposed law would also require health insurance carriers to provide certain rights to patients and health care professionals, starting Jan. 1, 2001. A YES VOTE would require health insurance carriers to guarantee certain rights to their patients and providers, and it would prohibit the conversion of nonprofit hospitals, HMOs, and health insurers into for-profit entities until a system is created to provide comprehensive health care coverage for all Massachusetts residents. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing health insurance and health care.
Question 6: Tax Credit for Tolls and Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes.
Summary: This proposed law would allow a state personal income taxpayer a tax credit equal to the amount of tolls the taxpayer paid during the taxable year on all Massachusetts roads, highways, tunnels, and bridges, including the Massachusetts Turnpike and its Boston Extension, the Tobin Bridge, and the Sumner, Callahan, and Ted Williams tunnels. Also a corporation would be allowed a credit against its corporate excise taxes in an amount equal to all such tolls paid during the taxable year by the corporation or by its employees in furtherance of the corporation's business. The proposed law would also allow a state personal income taxpayer a tax credit equal to the amount of excise tax on registered motor vehicles the taxpayer paid during the taxable year. A corporation would be allowed a credit against its corporate excise taxes in an amount equal to all registered motor vehicle excise taxes the corporation paid during the taxable year. A YES VOTE would allow a state personal income tax or corporate excise tax credit for Massachusetts tolls and motor vehicle excise taxes. A NO VOTE would make no change in the state tax laws.
Question 7: Tax Deductions for Charitable Contributions.
Summary: This proposed law would allow taxpayers who give to charity a state personal income tax deduction for those charitable contributions. A taxpayer could take a deduction from any Part B income, including wages and salaries, of an amount equal to his or her charitable contributions for the year. The taxpayer could take the deduction whether or not the taxpayer itemized deductions on his or her federal income tax return. The proposed law would apply to any contribution that met the definition of charitable contribution used under the federal income tax law. The proposed law would apply to taxable years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2001. A YES VOTE would create a state income tax deduction for charitable contributions. A NO VOTE would make no change in the state income tax laws.
Question 8: Drug-Dependency Treatment and Drug-Crime Fines and Forfeitures.
Summary: This proposed law would create a state Drug Treatment Trust Fund, to be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, solely for the treatment of drug-dependent persons. The Fund would include fines paid under the state's criminal drug laws; money forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes; and the proceeds from selling property forfeited because of its use in connection with drug crimes. The Fund would be administered by the state's Director of Drug Rehabilitation. Money in the fund would be spent to increase rather than replace the existing governmental funding for drug-treatment programs. Those programs would be expanded to apply to persons who are at risk of becoming drug-dependent and to include drug abuse prevention through education. A YES VOTE would change state laws governing drug-dependency treatment and fines paid and money and property forfeited in connection with drug crimes. A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing drug-dependency treatment and fines and forfeitures based on drug crimes.
