2006 Initiative General Election Results

Note: The Google advertisement links below may advocate political positions that this site does not endorse.

Data for this Contest was Contributed by on 2007-06-15

* Unofficial Results *

Initiative: Question 3 (Family Child Care Providers)

Popular Vote

1,042,253

52.28%

Yes

951,517

47.72%

Map Key

> 40%
> 50%
> 60%
> 70%

Turnout

Maps

2006 Massachusetts County Map of General Election Results for Initiative

Election Notes:

This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state's child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state's public employee labor relations law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed-upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could not finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de-certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Demographic Data

2010 Population:	6,547,629	Enum.	2010 Population Density:	322.4	persons/km²
2006 Population:	6,410,084	Est.	2006 Population Density:	315.7	persons/km²
2000 Population:	6,349,097	Enum.	2000 Population Density:	312.7	persons/km²
Land Area (2000):	20,306	km²	Annual Pop Growth Rate:	0.3	%

Election Data and Statistics:

Election Tools

Atlas Forum Image Code for Maps: County, Pop

Data Sources:

Source for Popular Vote data: Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Elections Division. 2006 Return of Votes, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Elections Division (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/elepdf/rov06.pdf) (accessed 15 Jun 2007)
Source for Population data: U.S. Census Bureau.

Results for and Individual County: