# 2008 Massachusetts Question 1

Elections in Massachusetts :
General
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022 :
Federal government
U.S. President
1788–89
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828
1832
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
Dem
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
Dem
2004
Dem
GOP
2008
Dem
GOP
2012
2016
Dem
GOP
2020
Dem
GOP
2024
Dem
GOP
U.S. Senate
Class 1: 1788
1790
1796 (S)
1796
1798
1800 (S)
1803
1808 (S)
1810 (S)
1811
1813 (S)
1815
1815 (S)
1816 (S)
1818 (S)
1820
1820 (S)
1822
1826
1827
1829 (S)
1833
1839
February 1841 (S)
1845
1851
1851 (S)
1857
1863
1869
1874 (S)
1875
1881
1887
1893
1899
1905
1911
1916
1922
1928
1934
1940
1946
1952
1958
1962 (S)
1964
1970
1976
1982
1988
1994
2000
2006
2010 (S)
2012
2018
2024
Class 2: 1788
1793
1796
1800 (S)
1803 (S)
1805
1810
1811 (S)
1816
1822 (S)
1826 (S)
1828
1835
January 1841 (S)
1841
1845 (S)
1847
1853
1855 (S)
1859
1865
1871
1873 (S)
1877
1883
1889
1895
1901
1905 (S)
1907
1913
1918
1924
1930
1936
1942
1944 (S)
1948
1954
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
2008
2013 (S)
2014
2020
U.S. House
1788/1789
1790/1792
1792/1793
1794/1795
1796/1797
1798/1799
1800/1801
1802/1803
1804
1806
1808
1810/1811
1812/1813
1814/1815
3rd
1816/1817
1818/1819
1820/1821
1822/1823
1824/1825
1826/1827
1828
1830/1832
1833/1834
1834/1835
1836
1838/1839
1840/1841
1842/1844
1844/1846
1846
1848/1850
1850/1851
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1991 (1st)
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001 (9th)
2002
2004
2006
2007 (5th)
2008
2010
2012
2013 (5th)
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State government
Governor
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
Apr. 1831
Nov. 1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
State Senate
1787
1824
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
State House
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2020
2022
2024
Governor's Council
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980: Proposition 2½
2002: English Language Education in Public Schools
2006: 2008
Greyhound Protection
Sensible Marijuana Policy
State Income Tax Repeal
2010: No Sales Tax for Alcohol
Sales Tax Relief
Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning
2012: Right to Repair
Death with Dignity
Medical Marijuana
2014: Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal
Expansion of Bottle Deposits
Casino Repeal
Paid Sick Days
2016: Expand Slot Machine Gaming
Charter School Expansion
Farm Animal Confinement
Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana
2018: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination
2020: pending :
Boston
Mayor
1822
1823
1824
Apr 1825
Dec 1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844–45
Dec 1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853–54
Dec 1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1910
1914
1917
1921
1925
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025
City council
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023 :
Springfield
Mayor
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973 (S)
1973
1975
1977
1979
1983
1981
1985
1987
1989 (S)
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2015
2019
2023 :
Worcester
Mayor
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023 :
Massachusetts portal :
vte :
The State Income Tax Repeal, also known as Massachusetts Question 1, was one of the 2008 ballot measures that appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Voters were asked whether or not they approved of the proposed measure which, if it had passed, would have ended the 5.3% income tax in Massachusetts on wages, interest, dividends and capital gains. Ultimately, Massachusetts voters defeated Question 1 by a wide margin, with approximately 70% opposed versus 30% in favor.

## Specific provisions

This proposed law would have had the following features:
* Reduction of the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009.
* Elimination of the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.
* The personal income tax to which the initiative would have applied would have been the 'income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of "S corporations" as defined under federal tax law.'
* The proposed law would not have affected the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009.
* The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

## Supporters of the income tax repeal

The official proponent of the measure was the Committee for Small Government. Michael Cloud and Carla Howell led the committee.
Initiative supporter Michael Cloud believed that the measure would lower the budget from about $28 billion to $17 billion, which is approximately the size of the 1995 state budget.
Polling showed that 46 percent of those asked supported the measure before hearing any of its details, and 40 percent still supported it after hearing about the measure in depth.

### Arguments that were presented in support of Question 1

* Total state government spending is in excess of $47.3 billion. Total state revenues are in excess of $47.3 billion. The income tax is less than 27% of the state government's revenue.
* Municipal (city and town) government spending is more than $22 billion on top of state government spending, bringing total government spending in Massachusetts to nearly $70 billion. The income tax is only 17% of total government spending.
* Waste, fraud and abuse as exposed in the media nearly every day are only the tip of the garbage heap; when polled, voters estimated government waste at 41%. An informal poll of government employees estimated waste at 50%.
* State politicians have not kept faith with their promises to taxpayers. The Massachusetts State Legislature blockaded a ballot question approved by the citizens of the commonwealth in 2000 that would have reduced the state income tax to 5%.
* 3.4 million Massachusetts taxpayers would get back an average of $3,700 each annually.
* People would find the Bay State a more attractive place to live, work, invest, and raise families.
* From 1991 to 2007 more than 550,000 people moved out of Massachusetts, ranking the commonwealth as the 2nd worst state in the US in terms of population loss.

### Funding

According to campaign finance reports, as of November 1, 2008 the Committee for Small Government had raised approximately $385,000 since creation and had $14,131.72 cash left. They also had about $80,000 in outstanding liabilities.
As of August 15, 2008, Ms Howell and Mr Cloud had paid themselves almost $200,000 from committee donations for "consulting fees" over the previous 6 years for services rendered to their own campaigns while soliciting donors for additional contributions because the campaign was out of funds.

### Earlier attempt to repeal income tax

The Committee for Small Government advanced a similar initiative, called the Massachusetts End the Income Tax initiative, in 2002. That measure did not pass and received 885,683 votes, or 45.3 percent.

### Individual Support

The Republican senatorial candidate, Jeff Beatty, said that he supported Question 1 while challenging incumbent-John Kerry.

### Editorial Support

Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal stated: "The forces of the tax-and-spend status quo will descend on this initiative like British troops after the original Boston tea party, but somebody has to make an effort to stop the relentless growth of government."
Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine stated: "This is an attack on political establishments there and throughout the U.S. that routinely put their own interests above those of their constituents: lavish government pensions with payouts that would bankrupt private companies; resistance to genuine reform in Medicaid spending, which has become the biggest item on virtually every state's budget; ever more pork-barrel spending; and ever more obsequiousness to rapacious special interests. Bay State voters – go for Proposition 1."

## Opposition
### Funding

According to campaign finance reports, as of October 15, 2008 the Coalition for Our Communities, the organization opposing this tax cut, had raised over $5 million—99.8% from teachers' and other government sector unions.

### Individual opponents

Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation,
Gov. Deval Patrick
The Selectman in the town of Wayland voted unanimously to oppose the initiative.
State Rep. Tom Conroy, D-Wayland
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) publicly opposed it while running for reelection for senate.
Republican State Senator and future U.S. senator Scott Brown voted against Question 1 despite voting against raising the state's flat tax to 5.95% while in the state senate in 2003.

### Organizations against the measure

Coalition for Our Communities, an organization created by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO that reportedly had $1.34 million with which to mount an effort to defeat the measure. The Coalition's funds are derived mainly from unions, including $750,000 from the National Education Association. The group also received $250,000 from American Federation of Teachers Solidarity Fund. Both the NEA and the AFTSF are based in Washington, D.C.

### Editorial opposition

The Boston Globe officially asked voters to vote "no" on Question 1.

### Arguments that were presented against Question 1

* Massachusetts would lose about 40% of its income and would deal an $11 billion blow to the state, which would have adverse effects throughout state government.
* It would put education, health care, public safety and infrastructure at risk.
* Mass Municipal Association, representing all 351 towns, estimated cuts in local aid as approximately $3 Billion.
* Proponents have not specified any specific cuts that could be made that approach 40% of state revenue.

### Funding

According to campaign finance reports, as of November 1, 2008 The Coalition for Our Communities had raised approximately $6,625,000 since creation and had $117,270.95 cash left. They also received about an additional $650,000 in in-kind donations from unions such as donated staff, supplies, postage etc.

## History of petition drive and blocking allegations

The proponents submitted about 100,000 signatures to the Massachusetts Secretary of State for the first phase of signature collection. 76,084 of those signatures were determined to be valid, with a requirement that 66,593 must be valid for the initiative to proceed to the next step. The next step was for the Massachusetts State Legislature to take up the measure. They declined to pass it by the first Wednesday in May 2008, meaning that the proponents had to collect an additional 11,099 valid signatures by June 18, 2008. On July 3, it was announced that 15,913 additional certified signatures had been filed, making the measure extremely likely to appear on the ballot.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association, whose mailing address is the same as the "Committee for our Communities", admitted in December 2007 that it had made phone calls to people who had signed the petition to place the income tax repeal on the ballot, inquiring about whether their signatures were valid. The calls were made from a group identifying itself as the "Committee for our Communities".

## Results

State Income Tax Repeal Initiative :
| Choice | Votes | % |
| No | 2,070,699 | 69.37 |
| Yes | 914,420 | 30.63 |
| Valid votes | 2,985,119 | 96.20 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 117,876 | 3.80 |
| Total votes | 3,102,995 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 4,220,488 | 73.52 |