Voters to ballot questions: no, no and no
by Statehouse News ServiceNovember 8, 2006 -- Massachusetts voters chose Tuesday to reject soundly all three statewide ballot initiatives that would have expanded access to wine in food stores, allowed voters to endorse candidates across parties, and enabled subsidized family child care providers to form unions.
With 92 percent of the precincts reporting, Question 1 was defeated 56 to 44 percent and Question 2 went down 65 percent opposed to 35 percent. Voters came closest to passing Question 3, with 52 percent opposed and 48 percent supporting the measure pushed by unions.
According to election results available on Boston.com, 1,073,188 voters chose to reject Question 1 to the 835,615 voters who voted ‘Yes.’ Opponents of the proposal said it would make it more likely that minors could access alcohol by potentially doubling the number of liquor licenses in the state.
While current laws limit companies to three liquor licenses, Question 1 would have allowed for the sale of wine in grocery stores with the approval of the local licensing authority.
“It doesn’t look good for us,” said Chris Flynn, head of the pro-Question 1 trade group, the Massachusetts Food Association, when reached slightly after 11 pm. “It’s not a good night for the consumers of the Commonwealth, that’s for sure.”
When asked whether the association would head back to the state Legislature for another go, Flynn said, “Obviously, we have to regroup.”
Voters were scared off by “outlandish claims” from the liquor lobby attempting to maintain a monopoly on the business, Flynn said.
In a statement, Flynn said: “Clearly, the No on 1 Campaign did not object to the sale of wine by supermarkets. Rather, the concerns expressed by the liquor lobby dealt with wine sales in convenience stores, gas stations and mini marts. I would be happy to join with the liquor lobby in sponsoring legislation that further clarifies the intent of this initiative allowing Massachusetts consumers the choice of where they purchase their wine in order to promote consumer choice and fair competition.”
Vote No on Question 1 spokeswoman Justine Griffin denied there were any “outlandish claims,” and instead said they pushed a “public education campaign.”
Griffin also dismissed the claims of a monopoly, noting that there are 2,555 licenses in the state with 1,800 individual owners, many of them family-owned businesses.
Supermarkets wanted to create a “self-serving” bill that would give them “hundreds of licenses,” she said.
“Voters really took a look at it, realized the issues involved are a lot more complex, and rejected it,” she said.
The other two statewide ballot initiatives - Questions 2 and 3 – appeared to generate little interest among voters and in the local media.
Question 2 would have allowed for candidates for to be nominated by more than one party, also referred to as “fusion voting.” A similar system is already in effect in New York.
Question 3 would have allowed in-home child care providers who serve children subsidized by the state to organize and negotiate rates with the state.
The aggressive battle between the package stores and the food stores was fought on almost all fronts: on the airwaves, on the Internet, and on the ground.
Proponents claimed the measure could save consumers between $26 million to $36 million a year and provided convenience to shoppers. Opponents asserted approval would lead to an increase in under-age drinking and drunk driving fatalities.
The campaigns reportedly spent over a record $11 million heading into Election Day, according to the Boston Globe.
The Mass. Package Stores Association hired Griffin and Doug Bailey, senior vice presidents at the Boston consulting firm Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, to handle publicity, while the Massachusetts Food Association tapped Kim Hinden, a former deputy director of the state’s consumer affairs office, among others.
Each campaign also launched their own slick website, with the ‘Yes’ campaign touting editorial endorsements from the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald and their television ads. The ‘No’ campaign had a blog and a long list of supporters, including the State Police Association, the Massachusetts Public Health Association, and nearly 20 boards of selectmen.
The ‘No’ campaign also held press conferences announcing the support of elected officials from both sides of the aisle. Question 1 opponents included Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy), Sen. Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield), and Ron Bersani, grandfather of the girl whose death inspired the anti-drunk driving, Melanie’s Law. The ‘Yes’ campaign was more low key, aiming for greater visibility by notably decorating supermarkets with promotional materials.
At the Quincy Super Stop and Shop on Newport Avenue, which holds one of the company’s licenses, ‘Yes on 1’ flyers and stickers were posted at every cash register, and posters mounted on the islands in the parking lot.
Each campaign accused the other of attempting to deceive and mislead voters on the merits of the question.
Two polls, a WHDH-TV/Suffolk University survey and a State House News Service poll, on Monday showed voters trending towards rejecting the measure, but deemed the measure too close to call.
The Suffolk poll showed 51 percent of voters opposed to the question and 42 percent supporting the measure, with a 5 percent margin of error. The SHNS poll showed 49 percent were opposed to 47 supporting it, within the margin of error.
Earlier polls showed greater support. A State House News Service poll in September 2005 showed 77 percent supporting the measure, with 22 percent opposed.
The Mass. Ballot Freedom Campaign pushed for Question 2, saying approval will allow for greater visibility for third parties, including the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and Working Families Party.
Under the measure, a candidate could be a nominee for the same office under two different parties.
But a spokesman for the state Green-Rainbow Party said the party, along with the Libertarian Party on its website, opposed the measure.
“In a way, it benefits the parties in power, because it encourages minor parties to run established party candidates on their ballot lines,” said Colby Peterson, a party spokesman.
The Green-Rainbow Party would prefer instant run-off voting instead, and putting up its own candidates, he said.
Question 3 was backed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 888, which aired television ads in support of the measure, and opposed by the state Department of Early Education.
Cape Business Newsletters
Keep up with the latest issues affecting your business and your life! To sign up for any of the Cape Business newsletters, click here.