« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 3
This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items. The proposed law’s confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig’s expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period. The proposed law would create a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and would give the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce the law, and to issue regulations to implement it. As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of compliance by a supplier. The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not prohibit stricter local laws. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

2016 - Essex County - Question 3Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?

View as: # | %

Essex County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
298,786
80,031
13,972 392,789
Amesbury More »
 
7,425
1,780
197
9,402
Andover More »
 
14,827
4,337
408
19,572
Beverly More »
 
17,784
4,137
492
22,413
Boxford More »
 
3,924
1,198
86
5,208
Danvers More »
 
11,950
3,301
355
15,606
Essex
 
1,825
438
41
2,304
Georgetown More »
 
3,925
1,084
93
5,102
Gloucester More »
 
13,262
2,942
504
16,708
Groveland More »
 
3,178
869
78
4,125
Hamilton More »
 
3,857
828
77
4,762
Haverhill More »
 
23,106
6,014
1,009
30,129
Ipswich More »
 
7,062
1,682
102
8,846
Lawrence More »
 
14,656
7,033
2,848
24,537
Lynn More »
 
24,899
6,941
2,349
34,189
Lynnfield More »
 
5,874
1,664
155
7,693
Manchester-by-the-Sea
 
2,944
622
57
3,623
Marblehead More »
 
10,432
2,404
322
13,158
Merrimac More »
 
2,646
1,225
64
3,935
Methuen More »
 
17,614
5,117
853
23,584
Middleton More »
 
3,917
1,130
164
5,211
Nahant
 
1,873
440
65
2,378
Newbury More »
 
3,583
985
55
4,623
Newburyport More »
 
9,554
1,783
247
11,584
N. Andover More »
 
12,583
3,466
342
16,391
Peabody More »
 
21,881
5,656
1,012
28,549
Rockport More »
 
4,044
829
103
4,976
Rowley
 
3,005
832
68
3,905
Salem More »
 
17,787
3,739
657
22,183
Salisbury More »
 
3,746
956
108
4,810
Saugus More »
 
11,267
2,933
518
14,718
Swampscott More »
 
6,874
1,760
251
8,885
Topsfield
 
3,149
869
196
4,214
Wenham
 
1,962
470
46
2,478
W. Newbury
 
2,371
567
50
2,988
County Totals
298,786
80,031
13,972 392,789