Nov 3, 2026 general election · U.S. Senate, Governor, U.S. House and 4 other statewide races
Election results for Nov 3, 2026: official state sources →
General election: Tuesday, Nov 3, 2026. Dates below are for that election, from official state election sources; rules can change, so confirm with the linked source.
Ed Markey (D) vs. John Deaton (R) + 2 other candidates. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRichard Neal (D) vs. Nadia Milleron (I). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJim McGovern (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareLori Trahan (D) vs. Gary Grossi (R) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJake Auchincloss (D) vs. Thomas Stalcup (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKatherine Clark (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMicah Jones (R) vs. Dan Koh (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAyanna Pressley (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareStephen Lynch (D) vs. Robert Burke (R) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareBill Keating (D) vs. R. Tyler MacAllister (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMaura Healey (D) vs. Mike Minogue (R) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAndrea Campbell (D) vs. Michael Walsh (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareWilliam Galvin (D) vs. Anne Brensley (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDeb Goldberg (D) vs. Elizabeth Dionne (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDiana DiZoglio (D) vs. Al Ozonoff (L). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAll 200 Massachusetts legislative races on the Nov 3 ballot, from the official candidate list.
See the racesLocal and district races for every county, with sources.
Pick your countyEvery candidate we list for Massachusetts's statewide races, with background, positions and votes.
Local and district races: every Massachusetts county.
9 certified statewide ballot measures on the November 3, 2026 Massachusetts general election ballot. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a " yes " vote supports making records held by the state legislature and the governor's office subject to the state's public records law, with the following exceptions: documents related to the development of policy positions of legislators or the governor; and communications between a legislator's… Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports making records held by the state legislature and the governor's office subject to the state's public records law, with the following exceptions: documents related to the development of policy positions of legislators or the governor; and communications between a legislator's office and their constituents concerning a constituent's access to government services. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes making records held by the state legislature and the governor's office subject to the state's public records law. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, argue: “The documents that I have requested for the audit are matters of public record in every other entity that actually follows the public records law.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Senate President Karen Spilka (D), argue: “It’s my understanding that the way this ballot initiative may be written is that confidential information about our constituents collected through our offices may not, in every circumstance, be able to be excluded.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): Question 2 would permit employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices. It would also require CPCS to request funding from the governor for agreements within 30 days after entering into a collective bargaining contract. Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports permitting employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices, and requiring the CPCS to request funding from the governor for agreements within 30 days after entering into a collective bargaining contract. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes permitting employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including SEIU Local 888 President Tom McKeever, argue: “These folks are doing yeoman’s work, and they want to be able to have the same rights as every other state employee in the Commonwealth. One hundred and eighty other state agencies have the right to collectively bargain, and CPCS does not.” Opponents say: Opponents argue: You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]. Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a " yes " vote supports creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot for state elections, regardless of their political affiliation, and the two candidates that receive the most votes would advance to the general election. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot for state elections, regardless of their political affiliation, and the two candidates that receive the most votes would advance to the general election. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot, regardless of their political affiliation, thus maintaining separate political party primaries for state elections. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters argue voters should approve it so that the change takes effect: A " yes " vote supports creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot for state elections, regardless of their political affiliation, and the two candidates that receive… Opponents say: Opponents argue voters should reject it and keep current law: A " no " vote opposes creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot, regardless of their political affiliation, thus maintaining separate political party primaries for state elections. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Arguments: Vote Book summary of the official Yes/No wording. Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a " yes " vote supports permitting same-day voter registration in the state. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports permitting same-day voter registration in the state. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes permitting same-day voter registration in the state, thus maintaining that Massachusetts voters must register to vote 10 days before an election. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, argue: “I have long supported allowing Massachusetts voters to register to vote at their polling place on Election Day. Unfortunately, efforts to pass Election Day registration through the normal process have repeatedly been blocked in the Legislature.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale, argue: “This ballot question would replace advance review with hurried, same-day judgments that could create avoidable vulnerabilities in election administration, increase the risk that unlawful ballots could affect close contests, and weaken confidence that every ballot was lawfully cast in our elections.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a " yes " vote supports changing the method of calculating the state's tax revenue limit so that it is equal to the sum of the net amount of state revenue from the year prior and the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years, and adding income tax revenue… Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports changing the method of calculating the state's tax revenue limit so that it is equal to the sum of the net amount of state revenue from the year prior and the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years, and adding income tax revenue collected under Section 2BBBBBB of Chapter 29 of Massachusetts law to the state's definition of state tax revenue . (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes changing the method of calculating the state's tax revenue limit, thus maintaining that the state's tax revenue limit is equal to the sum of the state tax revenue limit for the prior tax year and the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years, and continuing to exclude income tax revenue collected under Section 2BBBBBB of Chapter 29 of Massachusetts law from the state's definition of state tax revenue . (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance, argue: “The current revenue cap has not constrained budget growth, instead budget spending levels have grown at nearly double the rate of Massachusetts average wages and local inflation.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Protect Massachusetts' Future, argue: “Together, these initiatives would force towns and cities across Massachusetts to lay off thousands of hard-working teachers, police officers, and firefighters, leaving families to pay the price for corporate greed.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): Question 6 would create a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund, that would be used to further efforts of nature conservation. Question 6 would require that 50% of the tax revenue from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses be placed in the fund. After July 1, 2028, 100% of tax revenue from the sale and use of those items would be placed in the fund. Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports creating a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund , to be used to fund nature conservation efforts, and requiring: that before July 1, 2028, 50% of the tax revenue from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses be placed in the fund; and that after July 1, 2028, 100% of such tax revenue be placed in the fund. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes creating a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund, to be used to fund nature conservation efforts. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including Mass Audubon, argue: “By setting aside just a portion of the revenue already generated from the existing sales tax on sporting goods, we would be able to dedicate more than $100 million every year for the Fund without any increase in taxes.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Republican Party of Massachusetts, argue: “Earmarking dollars for a single purpose reduces the flexibility lawmakers need to address the Commonwealth's most pressing priorities each year.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a " yes " vote supports requiring that cities and towns allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at least 5,000 square feet in area, at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and access to public sewer and water services. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports requiring that cities and towns allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at least 5,000 square feet in area, at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and access to public sewer and water services. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes changing statewide requirements for single-family homes, thus maintaining that such zoning policies are set by municipalities and local governments. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including Daniel Hornung, director of Airbnb’s Housing Accelerator, argue: “The Airbnb Housing Accelerator is proud to support the ‘Yes on 7’ Legalize Starter Homes campaign because allowing more starter homes to be built in more places is the kind of common sense reform that will unlock more housing and affordable homeownership opportunities, and should be replicated in communities across the country.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, argue: “Zoning decisions are inherently local, and have been determined by the residents of our communities. Any attempt to preempt this local process with a one-size-fits-all policy strips local residents and officials of their role and their voice.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a " yes " vote supports making changes to marijuana laws, including: repeal laws that allow the sale, regulation, and taxation of recreational marijuana; repeal laws permitting the personal cultivation of cannabis in homes; for people aged 21 or older, permit possession of up to one ounce of… Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A " yes " vote supports making changes to marijuana laws, including: repeal laws that allow the sale, regulation, and taxation of recreational marijuana; repeal laws permitting the personal cultivation of cannabis in homes; for people aged 21 or older, permit possession of up to one ounce of marijuana without penalties, and possession of up to two ounces of marijuana with civil penalties only; and for people aged under 21, make possession of up to two ounces of marijuana a civil offense. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A " no " vote opposes making changes to marijuana laws, including: repeal laws that allow the sale, regulation, and taxation of recreational marijuana; repeal laws permitting the personal cultivation of cannabis in homes; for people aged 21 or older, permit possession of up to one ounce of marijuana without penalties, and possession of up to two ounces of marijuana with civil penalties only; and for people aged under 21, make possession of up to two ounces of marijuana a civil offense. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, argue: “From bus stops to public parks, marijuana smoke is impossible to escape. But it’s not just public spaces.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Stop the Repeal, argue: “Voting NO protects: state and local budgets funding schools, housing, transportation, health care, and more; 20,000 jobs across the Commonwealth; [and] cannabis safety and consumer protections in our communities.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a "yes" vote would uphold House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state's firearm regulations: developing an electronic registration system to track firearm ownership; prohibiting assault-style firearms (as defined in law); requiring safety certificates to obtain firearm permits;… Plain-language summary (AI-written; see official wording) A Yes vote means: A "yes" vote would uphold House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state's firearm regulations: developing an electronic registration system to track firearm ownership; prohibiting assault-style firearms (as defined in law); requiring safety certificates to obtain firearm permits; mandating serial numbers for firearms; allowing school administrators and licensed healthcare providers to request that a court issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order ; and permitting courts to order firearm surrender when issuing Harassment Prevention Orders . (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) A No vote means: A "no" vote would repeal House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state's firearm regulations. (Ballotpedia plain-language summary of official ballot measure) Supporters say: Supporters, including Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, argue: “Every resident of Massachusetts has the right to live free from the threat and trauma of gun violence.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Toby Leary, Chairman of The Civil Rights Coalition, argue: “Gun rights are civil rights and it’s our belief that, just like other civil rights that have been hard fought in our country’s history, this is one worth fighting for.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side.Question 1 — Public Records Requirements for Legislature and Governor’s Office Initiative
If approved, a " yes " vote supports making records held by the state legislature and the governor's office subject to the state's public records law, with t…Official ballot wording
QUESTION 1 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY This proposed law would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This proposed law would exempt documents related to the development of public policy and communications between legislators and their constituents, if those communications are reasonably related to a constituent's request for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services or interacting with a government agency. A YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
Question 2 — Permit Collective Bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees Initiative
Question 2 would permit employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices.Official ballot wording
QUESTION 2 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY This proposed law would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services ('CPCS') are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement from the Governor. A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer. A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees.
Question 3 — Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative
If approved, a " yes " vote supports creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot for state elections, regar…Official ballot wording
QUESTION 3 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY This proposed law would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election ballot. This proposed law would require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the ballot in the primary. This proposed law would provide political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary. A YES VOTE would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters could vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election. A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing primary elections.
Question 4 — Permit Same-Day Voter Registration Initiative
If approved, a " yes " vote supports permitting same-day voter registration in the state.Official ballot wording
QUESTION 4 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY This proposed law would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day. An individual who is eligible to vote could register to vote on Election Day by going to the polling place in the precinct where they live during voting hours and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath. Proof of residency could be a valid photo identification, or documentation showing the individual's name and the address where the individual resides, such as a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, residential lease, wireless telephone statement, paycheck, current student fee statement or other document from a post-secondary school, or another government document or correspondence. The written oath would require the individual to certify that they are a citizen of the United States, are at least 18 years old, are not legally prohibited from voting, and have not and will not vote in the same election at another location. The oath would require the individual to acknowledge that providing false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. If an individual did not present proof of residency, they would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted only if the individual returned to provide the required information before the close of polls for a municipal election; within two days after a state primary; or within six days after a state election. Individuals who register to vote on Election Day would be registered to vote in future elections as well as in the election taking place that day. Individuals who are already registered to vote would not be able to change their political party affiliation on Election Day. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028. A YES VOTE would permit eligible citizens to register to vote or to update their voter registration address at their polling place on Election Day. A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing voter registration.
Question 5 — Change State Tax Revenue Limit Initiative
If approved, a " yes " vote supports changing the method of calculating the state's tax revenue limit so that it is equal to the sum of the net amount of sta…Official ballot wording
QUESTION 5 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY This proposed law would change the limit on how much revenue the state can collect in a given year. The proposal would limit state revenue in a given year to the net amount of state revenue from the year before, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years. If revenue collected by the state in a given year exceeds the limit, the excess amount would be refunded to taxpayers the following year. The proposed law would include all revenue from the surtax on incomes over $1 million when calculating the revenue limit and when determining whether state revenue exceeds the limit. The provisions of the proposed law would all be effective as of July 1, 2027. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A YES VOTE would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit. A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection.
Question 6 — Establish the Nature for All Fund Initiative
Question 6 would create a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund, that would be used to further efforts of nature conservation.Official ballot wording
QUESTION 6 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?
Question 7 — Limit on Required Lot Size for Single-Family Homes Initiative
If approved, a " yes " vote supports requiring that cities and towns allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at…Official ballot wording
QUESTION 7 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY This proposed law would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road, or public way that it faces, and has access to public sewer and water services. The proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements, and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis. The proposed law would also allow the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to issue guidance or regulations to administer the proposed law. A YES VOTE would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes. A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes.
Question 8 — Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative
If approved, a " yes " vote supports making changes to marijuana laws, including: repeal laws that allow the sale, regulation, and taxation of recreational m…Official ballot wording
QUESTION 8 - LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026? SUMMARY The proposed law would change the type and amount of marijuana that may legally be possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts. The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate, and to gift or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older 1 ounce or less of marijuana including no more than 5 grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of 1 and 2 ounces. For persons 21 years of age and younger, the proposed law would make the possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program and community service, and notification to their parents or legal guardian of the offense and penalties. The proposed law would allow currently licensed adult recreational marijuana businesses to apply on an expedited basis to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary and to sell their remaining inventory of adult recreational marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposed law would retain the Cannabis Control Commission but modify its authority so it would regulate only the medical marijuana market. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2028. A YES VOTE would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, and change the penalties for possession of marijuana. A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana.
Question 9 — Firearm Regulations Referendum
If approved, a "yes" vote would uphold House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state's firearm regulations: developing an electronic registrati…Official ballot wording
QUESTION 9 - REFERENDUM ON AN EXISTING LAW Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 124 to 33, and approved by the Senate on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 35 to 5?
Know someone voting? Send them this page.