2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 3rd District
The 3rd district is composed of Binondo, Quiapo, San Nicolas, and Santa Cruz. Zenaida "Naida" Angping, who was re-elected with 62% of the vote in 2013, is term-limited and is barred from running again this election. Her party nominated her husband, former representative Harry Angping who represented this district from 1998 to 2004.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 3rd District
His opponents are three-term incumbent City Councilor and actor John Marvin "Yul Servo" Nieto and former Councilor Ramon Morales. Morales also ran in this district in 2013 and lost receiving only 36% of the vote.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 4th District
The 4th district is composed of Sampaloc. Ma. Theresa "Trisha" Bonoan-David, who ran unopposed in 2013, is term-limited and is barred from running again this election. Her party nominated her sister, Annie.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 4th District
Other candidates for this district are six-term councilor Edward Maceda, two-term councilor Don Juan "DJ" Bagatsing, one-term councilor Science Reyes, and former Ateneo basketball player Jobe Nkemakolam.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 5th District
The 5th district is composed of Ermita, Malate, Paco (south), Intramuros, Port Area, and San Andres Bukid (including the Manila South Cemetery). Amado Bagatsing, who was re-elected with 89% of the vote in 2013, is term-limited and is barred from running again this election and will instead run for Mayor. His party's nominee is his daughter Cristal.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 5th District
Her opponents are former representatives Joey Hizon and Mary Ann Susano as well as incumbent three-term councilor Josie Siscar. Joey Hizon represented this district from 1998 to 2007. Meanwhile, Mary Ann Susano represented Quezon City's 2nd Congressional District from 2004 to 2010.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 6th District
The 6th district is composed of Paco (north), Pandacan, Santa Ana, San Miguel, and Santa Mesa. Two-term incumbent Sandy Ocampo, who won re-election in 2013 with 51% of the vote, is seeking a third term. She is co-nominated by NUP and local party KABAKA while Benny Abante is also co-nominated by Asenso Manileño Party.


2016 Manila local elections, District Representatives, 6th District
This is the third straight election in which the two candidates are facing each other with Ocampo winning the first two by narrow margins.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 1st District
Incumbent councilors Dennis Alcoreza, Ernesto Dionisio Jr., and Erick Ian Nieva are term-limited and cannot seek re-election. Meanwhile, councilors Irma Alfonso and Roberto Asilo, who are not term-limited, chose not to seek re-election. Of the six councilors representing this district, only Niño dela Cruz is seeking re-election.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 1st District
Former councilors Rolando Sy, Jesus Fajardo Sr., Ernesto Dionisio Sr., Arlene Koa, Moises Lim, Martin Isidro Jr., and Abraham Cabochan are each trying to regain a seat in the council.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 2nd District
Incumbent councilors Marlon Lacson and Numero Lim are term-limited and cannot seek re-election. Councilors Ruben Buenaventura, Rodolfo Lacsamana, Ramon Robles, and Rolando Valeriano are all seeking another term.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 2nd District
Among those vying for a seat in the council are former councilors Edward Tan and Nelissa Beltran.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 3rd District
Incumbent councilors Joel Chua, Ernesto Isip Jr., and John Marvin "Yul Servo" Nieto are term-limited and cannot seek re-election. Meanwhile, councilors Bernardito Ang, Ma. Asuncion Fugoso, and Manuel Zarcal are all vying for another term.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 4th District
Incumbent councilors Edward Maceda and Jocelyn Quintos are term-limited and cannot seek re-election. Meanwhile, councilors Don Juan Bagatsing, and Science Reyes,  who are not term-limited, chose not to seek re-election. Councilors Krystle Bacani and Anton Capistrano are both vying for a second term.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 4th District
Among those gunning for a council seat are former councilors Luisito Chua, Eduardo "Wardee" Quintos XIV, and Victoriano Melendez. And also, Eduardo 'Bimbo' Quintos XVI would not run for councilor due to his disqualification case in the office.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 5th District
Incumbent councilors Cristina Isip, Josefina Siscar, and Raymundo Yupangco are barred by term limits from seeking re-election. Meanwhile, councilor Arnold Atienza, who is not term-limited, chose not to seek another term. Councilors Joey Hizon III and Roberto Ortega Jr. are both vying for another term.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 5th District
Among those seeking a council seat are former councilors Richard Ibay, Roderick Valbuena, and Arturo Valenzona. Three-term Buhay Party-list Rep. Irwin Tieng is also running for a council seat in this district.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 6th District
Incumbent councilors Priscilla Marie Abante, Leilani Marie Lacuna, Joel Par, Elizabeth Rivera, Casimiro Sison, and Christian Paul Uy are all seeking another term.


2016 Manila local elections, City Council, 6th District
Among those running for a council seat are former councilors Carlos Castañeda, Pablo Dario Ocampo, and Luciano Veloso. Castañeda served in the city council as the President of the Liga ng mga Barangay from 2004 to 2007 while Ocampo represented the 5th district from 1995 to 1998.


2016 Manipur State League
The 2016 Manipur State League was the 11th season of the Manipur State League, the top-division football league in the Indian state of Manipur. The league began on 24 August 2016 and ended on 25 November with the final. NEROCA emerged as champions.


2016 Manipur unrest
From 1 November 2016, Manipur, a state in north-east India faced economic blockade by United Naga Council. This blockade finally ended on 19 March 2017 midnight after discussion between government and UNC. The decision to lift the blockade was taken after the UNC, the state government and the Centre arrived at a consensus. The blockade ended after 139 days.


2016 Manipur unrest, Background
Imphal, the state capital of Manipur, is situated in a valley which has 90% of the population of the state. Meiteis are the majority in the valley. The hills which have 90% of the land of the state are mostly under the Naga, Kukis and the other hill tribes. The valley is reached by National Highways 2 and 37. There is another 100-km road from Moreh on the border of Myanmar. These roads pass through Naga inhabited hills. Manipur has a long history of armed insurgency and violence. Naga tribes have demand of Nagalim or a greater Nagaland which incorporates Naga-majority hill districts of Manipur as well as parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Myanmar into the present-day state of Nagaland. In 2011, there was an economic blockade that continued for more than 100 days.


2016 Manipur unrest, Unrest
Tamenglong, Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel are Naga-majority hill districts. The UNC opposed the creation of seven new districts in the state. United Naga Council (UNC) declared an economic blockade on 1 November 2016 in response. They alleged that the new districts encroach on the ancestral land of the Nagas and it is done to weaken their vote in the upcoming state assembly elections.


2016 Manipur unrest, Unrest
They blocked National Highway 2 and 37 and stopped all trucks carrying supply to Imphal. The Trans-Asian Highway was also blocked. The blockade was continued as the 'total shutdown' when UNC president Gaidon Kamei and information secretary Stephen Lamkang were arrested on 25 November.


2016 Manipur unrest, Unrest
The blockade was still ongoing as of 26 December 2016. It resulted in inflation in prices and shortages of food, fuel, medicines, gas and other essential supplies. Mobile internet has been suspended. The police presence is increased and 4000 personnel of central paramilitary forces are sent by the Government of India. The town remains under curfew.


2016 Manipur unrest, Unrest
There were incidents of assaults on members of Naga and Meitei tribes in their minority areas. The policemen were assaulted at some places; three were killed and 14 were injured. Some government offices were burnt down.


2016 Manipur unrest, Reaction
A delegation of UNC leaders met Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh and asked to impose President's Rule in the state. The chief minister of Manipur, Okram Ibobi Singh, who leads Indian National Congress government in Manipur, requested to withdraw the blockade and discuss the demands. As UNC did not agree, he requested central government to hold tripartite talk s. On 15 November, the Manipur government backed out of talks held by the central government with UNC. The central government ruling Bharatiya Janata Party had requested UNC to withdraw the blockade.


2016 Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts
The 2016 Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts, the provincial women's curling championship of Manitoba, was held from January 20 to 24 at the Sun Gro Centre in Beausejour. The winning Kerri Einarson team represented Manitoba at the 2016 Scotties Tournament of Hearts in Grande Prairie, Alberta.


2016 Manitoba general election
The 2016 Manitoba general election was held on April 19, 2016 to elect members to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, Canada. The New Democratic Party of Manitoba, led by Greg Selinger, were defeated by the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba led by Brian Pallister, ending nearly 17 years of NDP government. The Tories won 40 seats, one of the largest majority governments in Manitoba history, the other one was in 1915 when Liberals also won 40 seats.


2016 Manitoba general election
The election also removed one of the two New Democratic governments in the country, the other being formed by the Alberta New Democratic Party.


2016 Manitoba general election, Date
Under the Manitoba Elections Act, the general election is to be held on the first Tuesday of October in the fourth calendar year, following the previous election. As the last election was held in 2011, that date would be October 6, 2015. However, the act also provides that if, as of January 1 of the election year, the election period would overlap with a federal election period, the provincial election is to be postponed until the third Tuesday of the following April.


2016 Manitoba general election, Date
Under the federal fixed-term act, on January 1, 2015, the next federal election was tentatively scheduled for October 19, 2015, overlapping election periods by approximately three weeks. Thus the next Manitoba election was scheduled for April 19, 2016. The Lieutenant Governor retains the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly early. The legislature was dissolved and writs or the election were dropped on March 16, 2016.


2016 Manitoba general election, Campaign
The election was relatively unique within Canadian politics, in that opinion polling indicated that most voters were basing their decision on the local candidate in their riding or the party platform, not the performance of the leader. In most Canadian elections, such as the 2016 Saskatchewan election, the behaviour of the party leader was a stronger motivator for constituents when voting; in the context of the Manitoba election, however, polling found that none of the three main party leaders was particularly well-liked or trusted by the electorate. Although Pallister fared best with 33 per cent support in public opinion polling on the question of preferred premier, even he finished only one point ahead of "none of the above" at 32 per cent.


2016 Manitoba general election, Campaign
The campaigns of all three parties were based on themes of change, with even Selinger suggesting the incumbent NDP government would be able to respond to constituent concerns and change problematic policies in the leaders' debate. Opinion polling during the campaign suggested a lack of enthusiasm for all party leaders, and a general desire for change.


2016 Manitoba general election, Election summary
The Tories went into the election as heavy favourites, having led opinion polls for almost four years. They scored a near-sweep of rural southern and central Manitoba, and also made significant inroads in Winnipeg, taking every seat in the southern and western portions of the capital. In many cases, previously safe NDP seats either fell to the Tories or saw the NDP margins cut by more than half.


2016 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season
The 2016 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season will be the 67th in the club's history. 2016 also represents the 70th anniversary of the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles since their entry into the then New South Wales Rugby Football League premiership in 1947.


2016 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season
The 2016 Sea Eagles will be coached by rookie coach, former Australian international Trent Barrett. The team captain is Jamie Lyon with Brett Stewart and Daly Cherry-Evans named as vice-captains. The club will compete in the National Rugby League's 2016 Telstra Premiership.


2016 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season, Ladder
1 Parramatta were deducted 12 competition points and their for/against tally accumulated between rounds 1-9 for gross long-term salary cap breaches.


2016 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season, Fixtures, Regular season
* 14 May - Manly home game despite playing Brisbane Broncos in Brisbane. Match played as part of an NRL double header at Suncorp Stadium. * 16 July - Manly home game played in Perth.


2016 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season, Player statistics
Note: Games and (sub) show total games played, e.g. 1 (1) is 2 games played.


2016 Manx general election
General elections were held in the Isle of Man on 22 September 2016. Independents won 21 of the 24 seats in the House of Keys. A record number of women were elected (5, or 21% of the house).


2016 Manx general election, Electoral system
Following changes to the electoral system ahead of the elections, the 24 members of the House of Keys were elected from 12 constituencies, each of which returned 2 members. Previously constituencies had varied in size from one to three seats. Election is by multiple non-transferable vote in each constituency, with voters having two votes (of which they may choose to use only one) for the two seats.


2016 Marburg Open
The 2016 Marburg Open was a professional tennis tournament played on clay courts. It was the seventh edition of the tournament which was part of the 2016 ATP Challenger Tour. It took place in Marburg, Germany between 27 June and 4 July 2016.


2016 Marburg Open, Singles main draw entrants, Other Entrants
The following players received wildcards into the singles main draw:


2016 Marburg Open, Doubles main draw entrants, Other entrants
The following pairs received wildcards into the doubles main draw:


2016 Marburg Open, Doubles main draw entrants, Other entrants
The following pair received entry courtesy of a protected ranking into the doubles main draw:


2016 Marburg Open – Doubles
Wesley Koolhof and Matwé Middelkoop were the defending champions but chose not to defend their title.


2016 Marburg Open – Doubles
James Cerretani and Philipp Oswald won the title after defeating Miguel Ángel Reyes-Varela and Max Schnur 6–3, 6–2 in the final.


2016 Marburg Open – Singles
Íñigo Cervantes was the defending champion but chose not to defend his title.


2016 Marburg Open – Singles
Jan Šátral won the title after defeating Marco Trungelliti 6–2, 6–4 in the final.


2016 Marikina local elections
Local elections was held in Marikina on May 9, 2016 within the Philippine general election. The voters elected for the elective local posts in the city: the mayor, vice mayor, two district representatives, and councilors, eight in each of the city's two legislative districts.


2016 Marikina local elections, Background
Incumbent Mayor Del de Guzman and Incumbent Vice Mayor Jose Fabian Cadiz will run for Mayor-Vice Mayor of Marikina under Liberal Party. 1st district Cong. Marcy Teodoro and  Dr. Marion Andres will run for Mayor-Vice Mayor under Nationalist People's Coalition. Former MMDA Chairman and mayor Bayani Fernando, Coun. Samuel Ferriol and Ipaglaban Mo! host Jopet Sison will fight for seat in the 1st district of Marikina. Miro Quimbo is only the candidate for the seat in the 2nd district of Marikina.


2016 Marikina local elections, Candidates, Representative, 1st District
Incumbent Representative Marcelino Teodoro, is term-limited and he is barred from running again this election. Councilor Samuel Ferriol, former Marikina mayor and MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando, and Ipaglaban Mo! host Jopet Sison will be vying for the seat in congress that Teodoro will be vacating.


2016 Marikina local elections, Candidates, Representative, 2nd District
Incumbent Representative Miro Quimbo, is running again this election unopposed.


2016 Marilao local elections
Local elections were held in  Marilao, Bulacan on May 9, 2016 within the Philippine general election. The voters (Marileños) will elect for the elective local posts in the municipality: the mayor, vice mayor, and eight councilors.


2016 Marilao local elections, Mayoral and vice mayoral election
Incumbent mayor Juanito Santiago will run independently with lost mayoral candidate Henry Lutao as his running mate.


2016 Marilao local elections, Mayoral and vice mayoral election
Gerry Atienza Sr, the father of Gerry Atienza Jr, will run independently while supporting Andre Santos' running for re-election.


2016 Marilao local elections, Results
The candidates for mayor and vice mayor with the highest number of votes wins the seat; they are voted separately, therefore, they may be of different parties when elected.


2016 Marilao local elections, Results, Municipal Council election
Voting is via plurality-at-large voting: Voters vote for eight candidates and the eight candidates with the highest number of votes are elected.


2016 Marinduque local elections
Local elections were held in the Province of Marinduque on May 9, 2016 as part of the 2016 general election. Voters selected candidates for all local positions: a town mayor, vice mayor and town councilors, as well as members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, a vice-governor, a governor and a representative for the lone district of Marinduque in the House of Representatives.


2016 Marinduque local elections
In this election, a number of provincial-level officials are seeking reelection, including incumbent governor Carmencita Reyes and incumbent congresswoman Regina O. Reyes.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, District Representative
Regina Ongsiako Reyes was the congresswoman from June 30, 2013 - February 1, 2016. Reyes was disqualified by the Supreme Court due to issues with her citizenship. Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco was sworn on February 1, 2016, becoming the incumbent representative.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, Municipal elections, Boac
Incumbent Dante Marquez is not running for re-election. Despite listed in the ballot as an Independent, Luisito Laylay later joined the Liberal Party.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, Municipal elections, Mogpog
Incumbent Mayor Senen Livelo, Jr. is term limited and not running for any other political position. His brother, Municipal Administrator Augusto Leo Livelo, is the party's nominee.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, Municipal elections, Gasan
Incumbent Mayor Victoria L. Lim is term limited and is running for governor. Her sister-in-law, Lisa J. Lao, is running for mayor in her stead, although they don't belong to the same political party.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, Municipal elections, Santa Cruz
Incumbent Mayor Wilfredo Red is retiring from politics, her daughter Marisa is the party's nominee.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, Municipal elections, Torrijos
Incumbent Mayor Gil Briones is term limited and running for councilor. Notably, Ang Mata'y Alagaan party-list representative Lorna Velasco, wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco and mother of Lord Allan Jay Velasco, is running for mayor.


2016 Marinduque local elections, Results, Municipal elections, Buenavista
Bert Fabrero is the incumbent, he took the post upon the death of Montano Saguid in October 2013.


2016 Marist Red Foxes football team
The 2016 Marist Red Foxes football team represented Marist College in the 2016 NCAA Division I FCS football season. They were led by 25th-year head coach Jim Parady and played their home games at Tenney Stadium at Leonidoff Field. They were members of the Pioneer Football League. They finished the season 5–6, 5–3 in PFL play to finish in fourth place.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix
The 2016 Marrakesh ePrix (formally the 2016 FIA Formula E Marrakesh ePrix) was a Formula E electric motor race held on 12 November 2016 at the Circuit Moulay El Hassan in Marrakesh, Morocco in front of a crowd of 7,000 people. It was the second round of the 2016–17 Formula E season and the first time the series had visited the African continent. The 33-lap race was won by e.Dams-Renault driver Sébastien Buemi, who started from seventh position. Virgin's Sam Bird finished second and Mahindra driver Felix Rosenqvist was third.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix
Rosenqvist won the pole position by recording the fastest lap in qualifying and pulled away from the rest of the field to keep the lead until the mandatory round of pit stops when Buemi led for one lap until he made his stop. Rosenqvist regained the lead but was required to conserve electrical energy because he made a pit stop a lap earlier than other drivers. This allowed Buemi to narrow the time deficit between the two drivers and he passed Rosenqvist for the lead on the 27th lap. Buemi held it for the remainder of the race to win. There were two lead changes among two different drivers during the course of the race.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix
It was Buemi's second consecutive victory of the season and his eighth in the series. The result increased Buemi's lead in the Drivers' Championship to 22 points ahead of Lucas di Grassi. Buemi's teammate Nico Prost moved from fourth to third, while Rosenqvist's finish moved him to fourth place, and Bird was fifth. e.Dams-Renault expanded their Teams' Championship advantage over Audi Sport ABT and Mahindra Racing by 19 points with ten races left in the season.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
In February 2016, Stéphane Roux, the chief organiser of the World Touring Car Championship (WTCC), announced to the local press that Formula E was eager to hold a race on the streets of Marrakesh in the "near future". The Marrakesh ePrix was later confirmed as part of Formula E's 2016–17 schedule in September 2016 by the FIA World Motor Sport Council. It was the inaugural running of the race as part of the FIA Formula E Championship, and the first time that the series had visited the African continent.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
The Marrakesh ePrix was the second of 12 single-seater electric car races of the 2016–17 season, and was held on 12 November 2016 at the Circuit Moulay El Hassan. Prior to the ePrix, Formula One had visited Morocco in 1958 for the Moroccan Grand Prix at the Ain-Diab Circuit in Casablanca and the country has held WTCC races since 2009.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
Before the race, e.Dams-Renault driver Sébastien Buemi led the Drivers' Championship with 25 points, seven ahead of Lucas di Grassi in second and a further three in front of third-placed Nick Heidfeld. Nico Prost was fourth on 12 points, and António Félix da Costa was fifth with ten points. Renault e.Dams led the Teams' Championship with 37 points; Audi Sport ABT and Andretti were tied for second place with 18 points each. Mahindra stood in fourth on 16 points, nine ahead of fifth-placed team NextEV. e.Dams-Renault had won the preceding Hong Kong ePrix with Buemi the victor, di Grassi second and Heidfeld third.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
Buemi said that was looking forward to competing in Marrakesh but had the knowledge that it would not be easy to repeat his Hong Kong victory. He was aware of how different the two tracks were and said that it would be "exciting" to visit Marrakesh for the first time. His team wanted to maximise every detail feasible and Buemi could not wait to drive on the track.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
Mahindra driver Felix Rosenqvist stated that his objective for the race was to continue the momentum his team had built at the season's previous round and wanted to extract the maximum amount possible from his car as soon as he could even at the cost of still learning slightly more about it. However, he was unsure whether the track's layout suited him because it required a different driving style and rhythm than the circuit in Hong Kong.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
The layout of the 2.97 km (1.85 mi) long anti-clockwise track was revealed on 17 October. Nelson Piquet Jr. felt it would be a fast circuit because it was purpose-built for motor racing and other series had visited the track before. He described it as seeming like it would be slightly wider and easier along with relying less on driver skill and making competitive racing closer.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Background
Heidfeld stated that the track layout would mean the drivers would be challenged on electrical energy management and there would a high chance of a full course yellow flag being shown or a safety car being deployed because of the large amount of trackside barriers. Virgin's José María López, who raced on the track in the WTCC, said it would be "tricky" having been used to touring cars which require more space and it would feel wider with Formula E vehicles but spoke off his feeling there would be plenty of space for overtaking manoeuvres.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Practice
Two practice sessions—both on Saturday morning—were held before the Saturday late afternoon race. The first session ran for 45 minutes; the second for 30 minutes. A shakedown session was held on the Friday before the event where Buemi recorded the fastest lap time of 1 minute, 30.152 seconds, one second faster than Rosenqvist and Jean-Éric Vergne for Techeetah in second and third.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Practice
First practice was run in cool weather with low sun because dawn had broken through one hour before. Di Grassi used 200 kW (270 hp) of power during a qualifying simulation lap to go fastest with a 1 minute, 21.923 seconds lap, almost two-tenths of a second faster than Prost in second. Buemi, Vergne, Félix da Costa, Jérôme d'Ambrosio, Rosenqvist, Mitch Evans, Piquet, and Stéphane Sarrazin rounded out the session's top ten drivers. The full course yellow flag was necessitated when Loïc Duval stopped his Dragon car after five minutes.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Practice
Evans spun and ran wide at the first turn late in the session, and López damaged his car's suspension after colliding with the turn 11 barrier, causing him to spend most of practice in the pit lane for repairs, but further damage was caused with another hit in the session's closing period. In the second practice session, Buemi was fastest with a lap of 1 minute, 20.599 seconds; Rosenqvist, Vergne, Oliver Turvey, Duval, Daniel Abt, Piquet, Félix da Costa, di Grassi and Heidfeld followed in the top ten. The session was ended prematurely with three minutes remaining when Bird lost control of the rear of his car, slid into the turn eight barrier, heavily damaging his vehicle's rear, and stopped on the circuit.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Qualifying
Saturday afternoon's qualifying session ran for 60 minutes and was divided into four groups of five cars. Each group was determined by a lottery system and was permitted six minutes of on-track activity. All drivers were limited to two timed laps with one at maximum power. The fastest five overall competitors in the four groups participated in a "Super Pole" session with one driver on the track at any time going out in reverse order from fifth to first.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Qualifying
Each of the five drivers was limited to one timed lap and the starting order was determined by the competitor's fastest times (Super Pole from first to fifth, and group qualifying from sixth to twentieth). The driver and team who recorded the fastest time were awarded three points towards their respective championships.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Qualifying
In the first group of five runners, Prost paced the session, nearly three-tenths of a second faster than Félix da Costa in second, and Lopez third. D'Ambrosio and Ma Qinghua (who was unable to complete a maximum power lap) were the group's two slowest drivers. Buemi was the fastest driver in the second group, half a second ahead of teammate Turvey. Heidfeld, Sarazzin, and Evans rounded out the top five. In the third group, Vergne recorded the overall fastest group qualifying time of any competitor at 1 minute, 20.993 seconds.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Qualifying
Di Grassi qualified 12th overall after narrowly avoiding colliding with the wall between turns six and seven. His teammate Abt was second quickest in the group, ahead of di Grassi, Maro Engel (Venturi), and Duval, who ran wide on his timed reduced power lap. Rosenqvist immediately ran on full power and was the fastest driver in the fourth group, ahead of Bird, who equalled Vergne's pace at first, but then his rear tyre made contact with the wall, losing him time. Piquet was third on his fastest lap which saw him hit the wall. Robin Frijns and Adam Carroll (Jaguar) were the fourth group's slowest drivers; Carroll locked his rear tyres and ran wide at the first corner, restricting him to 20th. At the end of group qualifying, Rosenqvist, Vergne, Buemi, Bird and Piquet qualified for super pole.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Qualifying
Piquet was the first driver to attempt his lap in super pole and heavily locked his tyres in turn nine and ran over some kerbs, as well as grazing the wall,  qualifying fourth. Bird opted to drive cautiously to achieve an improved balance and took third. Buemi missed the turn one apex but was 0.140 seconds faster to move into provisional pole position. Rosenqvist began his timed lap by going faster than Buemi in the first sector. He drove cleanly in the track's next section, before running smoothly to move into first with a lap of 1 minute, 21.509 seconds.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Qualifying
Vergne was unable to set a lap time because an operational error by his team caused him to miss the 30-second period to exit the pit lane and participate. Hence, Rosenqvist won his and Mahindra's first pole position in Formula E. After qualifying, Buemi incurred a five-place grid penalty because his car's fire extinguisher was 3.25 kg (7.2 lb) underweight after it had been emptied from a possible leak. Buemi was fined €2,500. The rest of the grid lined up after penalties as Abt, Prost, Buemi, Turvey, Frijns, Félix da Costa, Heidfeld, di Grassi, López, Engel, Sarrazin, Evans, d'Ambrosio, Ma, Duval and Carroll.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
A special feature of Formula E is the "Fan Boost" feature, an additional 100 kW (130 hp) of power to use in the driver's second car. The three drivers allowed to use the boost were determined by a fan vote. For the Marrakesh race, Abt, Buemi and di Grassi were handed the extra power.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Weather conditions at the start of the race were dry and sunny with an air temperature ranging between 21.5 to 22 °C (70.7 to 71.6 °F), and a track temperature between 25 to 27.8 °C (77.0 to 82.0 °F); conditions were expected to remain consistent with no rain forecast. A total of 7,000 people attended the event. When the race started at 16:00 Western European Time (UTC+0), Rosenqvist made a fast start to keep the lead entering the first corner. Bird narrowly kept second from Piquet and Vergne.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Abt attempted to pass a slow-starting Vergne on the outside into turn one but both drivers went wide after Piquet locked his tyres and Abt held off Prost on the inside. Heidfeld made a slow start and separated the field into two halves, delaying di Grassi. Engel and Heidfeld twice struck each other between turns one and three, but both continued without sustaining major damage to their cars. Carroll moved from 20th to 17th by the end of the first lap, while his teammate Evans lost four positions over the same distance.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
At the end of the first lap, Rosenqvist led followed by: Bird, Piquet, Vergne, Abt, Prost, Buemi, Turvey, Frijns and Félix da Costa. Rosenqvist began to pull away from the rest of the field by recording fastest laps to open a two-second advantage over Bird by the start of the fourth lap. He informed his team that the dashboard on his steering wheel displayed only one page, limiting the amount of information available to him.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Buemi overtook teammate Prost on the outside at turn seven to move into sixth place on the third lap, as Heidfeld went wide, allowing di Grassi to pass him for 11th position, and pulled away from the traffic jam. He overtook Frijns for tenth position two laps later. Buemi moved into fifth place after braking later than Abt on the inside for turn ten on lap seven. Vergne drafted Piquet on the start-finish straight and the latter locked his tyres with Vergne passing him on the inside at the first corner for third to start the ninth lap. Vergne immediately began to draw closer to Bird.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Abt fell to seventh when Prost overtook him at the first corner on lap ten; Abt defended from a large pack of cars. By the twelfth lap, Buemi had more electrical energy available and closed up to Piquet, overtaking him on the inside for fourth position at the seventh turn. Félix da Costa's vehicle stopped at turn eight on lap 12; the deployment of a full course yellow flag was avoided when he received radio instructions from his team to perform a full reset, allowing him to drive again.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
By then, he had dropped to the back of the field, and later became the race's first retiree. By the 14th lap, Rosenqvist led Bird by almost five seconds, but Vergne caught the latter by more than four-tenths of a second per lap. Although he had less electrical energy, Vergne caught Bird, (Vergne was backed into Buemi), and passed him for second at the start of the 15th lap with Bird not defending. The mandatory pit stops to change into a second car began on the next lap.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
When Rosenqvist and Vergne entered the pit lane Buemi and Bird elected to remain on the circuit for another lap. Buemi was running quicker and overtook Bird at turn eleven on lap 17. He braked late for turn eleven but avoided going off the circuit. Piquet was affected by an electrical problem, ending his chances of finishing in a points-scoring position. Engel stopped with electrical problems after his pit stop, curtailing his race. After the pit stops, Rosenqvist regained the lead, retaining much of his lead of four seconds over Vergne. Turvey had passed Di Grassi but the latter retook sixth place soon after and started to draw closer to teammate Abt.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
On lap 20 it was announced that the stewards were investigating Vergne for speeding in the pit lane. They imposed a drive-through penalty on Vergne two laps later, ending his chances of battling for the victory. He fell to fifth place in front of both Audi Sport ABT cars but behind Prost, and Buemi inherited second place. Duval stopped on the track with powertrain problems on the 24th lap but he restarted his car and continued in 18th.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Having made a pit stop a lap earlier than the rest of the field, Rosenqvist conserved electrical energy, allowing Buemi to close up to him by almost two seconds per lap because he used FanBoost, had more available electrical energy, and the requirement to lift and coast was minimal. Di Grassi overtook his teammate Abt for sixth at turn six on lap 27. Soon after, Buemi drafted Rosenqvist, braked late, and passed on the outside at turn eleven to take the lead. López passed Frijns for tenth place. Vergne attempted to pass Prost but could not do so, allowing di Grassi to close up. Vergne defended his position, but di Grassi passed him at turn seven for fifth.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Duval recorded the race's fastest lap of 1 minute, 22.600 seconds during the 30th lap, earning him one point. Rosenqvist slowed as he was struggling to conserve his battery's energy usage, allowing Bird to close up. Bird slipstreamed Rosenqvist and overtook him braking for second place at the eighth corner on lap 31. Rosenqvist continued to focus on preserving electrical energy to finish the event. On the final lap, after Piquet locked his brakes, Evans ran wide, drove off the circuit, and hit a trackside barrier; he was able to continue.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race
Duval stopped his car for the second time on the same lap. Buemi held the lead to earn his second victory in succession and his eighth career win. Bird finished second, ahead of the third-placed Rosenqvist. Prost took fourth, with di Grassi fifth. Abt and Turvey overtook Vergne on the final lap for sixth and seventh. Heidfeld and López rounded out the top-ten points scoring positions. Frijns, Sarrazin, d'Ambrosio, Carroll, Ma, Piquet, Evans and Duval were the final classified finishers. There were four lead changes in the race; two drivers reached the front of the field. Rosenqvist's 26 laps led was the highest of any competitor. Buemi led twice for a total of seven laps.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race, Post-race
The top three drivers appeared on the podium to collect their trophies and spoke to the media in a later press conference. Buemi was delighted to take the victory, saying both his vehicles were "amazing" and cars' balance was "really good". He stated his team were aware that his car was efficient and needed to use this after starting the race in a position he was not expected to be in. Second-place finisher Bird said he was happy to score points in Marrakesh and felt being on the podium was like a victory.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race, Post-race
He revealed his car did not behave as well as Buemi's, or the third-position driver, after his second free practice crash and he struggled with its balance. Rosenqvist spoke of his shock and expectation at taking his first pole position and podium finish in his second Formula E event. He revealed his team had made the car for qualifying up to a good standard, were aware of its fast pace, and were feeling confident about next year's races.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race, Post-race
Vergne argued that he could have won the race had he not been observed speeding in the pit lane which he attributed to a defective speed limit button. Describing the situation as "extremely frustrating" he said: "I was quicker than Rosenqvist and Buemi was quite far behind. Then the energy he would have spent to catch me, he would have had no extra energy to pass." Mahindra team principal Dilbagh Gill agreed that Buemi's presence would have delayed Vergne, or caused him to use more additional electrical energy.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race, Post-race
He said he felt Rosenqvist would have been able to fend off a challenge from Vergne. Engel was disappointed not to finish; he claimed he would have finished in the top-ten had problems not affected his car and revealed his team had changed his vehicle's battery in the morning: "Our race pace was strong and the energy management was good so I was looking forward to the second stint but it never really came." e.Dams-Renault team principal Jean-Paul Driot revealed that Buemi's five-place grid penalty had been a sporting regulation safety violation, which they had no control over. He spoke of his belief that two wires detached after Buemi ran over a kerb in qualifying.


2016 Marrakesh ePrix, Race, Post-race
The result increased Buemi's lead in the Drivers' Championship to 22 points in front of second-placed di Grassi, who in turn, was a further four points ahead of Prost in third position. Rosenqvist moved to fourth place on 19 points, with Bird fifth on 18. e.Dams-Renault's first and fourth-place finishes extended their Teams' Championship gap over Audi Sport ABT to 38 points, although the latter tied with Mahindra. Virgin moved into fourth, while Andretti fell to fifth with ten races left in the season.


2016 Marshall Thundering Herd football team
The 2016 Marshall Thundering Herd football team represented Marshall University in the 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football season. The Thundering Herd played their home games at the Joan C. Edwards Stadium in Huntington, West Virginia, and competed in the East Division of Conference USA (C–USA). They were led by seventh-year head coach Doc Holliday. They finished the season 3–9, 2–6 in C-USA play to finish in a tie for sixth place in the East Division.


2016 Marshall Thundering Herd football team, Schedule
Marshall announced its 2016 football schedule on February 4, 2016. The 2016 schedule consists of 7 home and 5 away games in the regular season. The Thundering Herd will host C–USA foes Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky (WKU), and will travel to Florida International (FIU), North Texas, Old Dominion, and Southern Miss.


2016 Marshall Thundering Herd football team, Schedule
The team will play four non–conference games, three home games against Akron from the Mid-American Conference (MAC), Louisville from the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), and Morgan State from the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, and travel to Pittsburgh from the ACC.


2016 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League
The 2016 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League season is the second-tier club football competition in Nepal. The season started on August 21. All matches were played at Halchowk Stadium and the ANFA Complex.


2016 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League, Teams
A total of 14 teams compete in the league, including 10 sides from the 2014 season, three relegated from the 2013-14 Martyr's Memorial A-Division League and one promoted from the 2014 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League.


2016 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League
The 2016 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League season is the third-tier club football competition in Nepal. A total of 13 teams competed in the league. 9 teams from the previous season were joined by 3 teams relegated from 2014 Martyr's Memorial B-Division League and 1 team from the 32-team qualifiers. The qualifiers were played at the Sanogaucharan Ground. The league was played at the ANFA Complex at Satdobato, Lalitpur.


2016 Mary Hardin–Baylor Crusaders football team
The 2016 Mary Hardin–Baylor Crusaders football team was an American football team that represented the University of Mary Hardin–Baylor in the American Southwest Conference (ASC) during the 2016 NCAA Division III football season. In their 20th year under head coach Pete Fredenburg, the team compiled a 15–0 record (6–0 against conference opponents) and won the ASC championship. The team advanced to the NCAA Division III playoffs and defeated Wisconsin–Oshkosh, 10–7, in the 2016 Stagg Bowl.


2016 Mary Hardin–Baylor Crusaders football team
As a result of rules violations self-reported by Mary Hardin-Baylor, the NCAA later vacated 13 of the team's victories, including its national championship and victory in over Wisconsin-Oshkosh in the Stagg Bowl.


2016 Mary Hardin–Baylor Crusaders football team
The team played its home games at Crusader Stadium in Belton, Texas.


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary
The 2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary was held on April 26 in the U.S. state of Maryland as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary
The Democratic Party's primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were held the same day, as were Republican primaries in the same five states, including their own Maryland primary.


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary, Results, Results by county
Hillary Clinton won every county (and the independent city of Baltimore) with the exceptions of Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, and Garrett counties, which went for Bernie Sanders.


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary, Results, Results by county
Note: Maryland is a closed primary state. Turnout is based on registered democrats before the primary on April 26, 2016. Others vote totals consist of votes for Rocky De La Fuente and Uncommitted


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
With its coalition of African Americans and college-educated, affluent white progressive/liberal professionals, Maryland was a state Hillary Clinton was expected to win in the so-called "Acela Primaries" on April 26. She swept the state on election day, winning the primary by 29 points, a clear difference from 2008 when she lost Maryland to Barack Obama. According to exit polls, 43 percent of voters in the Maryland Democratic Primary were white and they opted for Clinton by a margin of 52-42 compared to the 46 percent of African American voters who backed Clinton by a margin of 75-22. Clinton swept all socioeconomic/income classes and educational attainment categories in Maryland as well. She won the votes of people over the age of 45, 75-20, but lost the youth vote to Sanders 52-46. She won both men (55-40) and women (68-29).


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
In terms of party identification, of the 80 percent of self-identified Democrats who voted in the primary, 69 percent backed Clinton while 30 percent supported Bernie Sanders; Independents, who made up 17 percent of the voters, backed Sanders by a 51-39 margin. Clinton also won all ideological groups.


2016 Maryland Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
Clinton performed well in the urban and suburban parts of the state in and around Baltimore (which she won 63-34), and the Washington, D.C. suburbs (which she won 71-27), and she also won in the more rural parts of the state like the Eastern Shore (which she won 57-37) and Western Maryland (which she won 53-47), which includes parts of Appalachia.


2016 Maryland Republican presidential primary
The 2016 Maryland Republican presidential primary took place on April 26, 2016. The state sent 38 delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, of which Donald Trump won all. The Democratic Party held its primary the same day. Donald Trump won nearly every demographic group, some more than others.


2016 Maryland Republican presidential primary, Results, Vote by county
Donald Trump won every county (and the independent city of Baltimore).


2016 Maryland Terrapins football team
The 2016 Maryland Terrapins football team represented the University of Maryland, College Park in the 2016 NCAA Division I FBS football season. It was the Terrapins' third season as a member of the Big Ten Conference, and a member of the East Division. Maryland played its home games at Maryland Stadium in College Park, Maryland. It was their first year under new head coach D.J. Durkin. They finished the season 6–7, 3–6 in Big Ten play to finish in fifth place in the East Division. They were invited to the Quick Lane Bowl where they were defeated by Boston College.


2016 Maryland Terrapins football team, Previous season
They finished the season 3–9, 1–7 in Big Ten play to finish in last place in the East Division.


2016 Maryland Terrapins football team, Schedule
Maryland announced its 2016 football schedule on July 11, 2013. The 2016 schedule consists of 7 home and 5 away games in the regular season. The Terrapins will host Big Ten foes Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Purdue, and Rutgers, and will travel to Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State.


2016 Maryland Terrapins football team, Schedule
The team will play three non–conference games, one home game against Howard Bison from the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, and two road games which are against the Central Florida Knights (UCF) from the American Athletic Conference and the Florida International Panthers (FIU) from Conference USA.


2016 Maryland flood
The 2016 Maryland flood was a natural disaster in the United States that took place on July 30, 2016. The flooding, which occurred in the Baltimore area, affected low-lying areas of the Patapsco and Jones Falls valleys. The storm caused significant damage to the historic downtown area of Ellicott City, Maryland.


2016 Maryland flood, Flood event
On the evening of July 30, a severe thunderstorm moved into the area of Ellicott City where it dumped an estimated 6 inches (15 cm) of rain in two hours. The flash flood that resulted inflicted severe damage to the area primarily on Main Street (Maryland Route 144). Flooding damaged many homes, businesses, sidewalks, and landmarks, including the city's landmark clock. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency and at least two people were confirmed to have died (Jessica Watsula, 35, and Joseph A. Blevins, 38).


2016 Maryland flood, Aftermath
Main Street remained closed for more than two months as businesses and residents cleaned up from the floods and began repairing damaged buildings and sidewalks. The street  reopened to vehicle and pedestrian traffic on October 6, 2016. The Howard County Councilman Jon Weinstein (District 1) attempted to put a moratorium on development throughout the Tiber-Hudson watershed, but the push was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing further development.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary
The 2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary took place on March 1 in the U.S. state of Massachusetts as one of the Democratic Party's primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary
On the same day, dubbed "Super Tuesday," Democratic primaries were held in ten other states plus American Samoa, while the Republican Party held primaries in eleven states including their own Massachusetts primary.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary
Clinton's win came from urban support in Boston and Springfield. She had the endorsement of then-Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, appearing with the Mayor at the Old South Meeting House in Boston the day before the primary.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
Clinton ran a close race against Bernie Sanders, much closer than her 15-point-win in the state eight years earlier against Barack Obama, but ultimately she came out victorious in the Bay State. She lost the white vote (85% of the electorate in Massachusetts) narrowly, 50-49, to Bernie Sanders, according to exit polls. She also lost the male vote 58-41. However, she won the non-white vote 59-41, and the votes of women 57-42 (including both married women 59-40, and unmarried women 53-46), which likely put her over the top statewide.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
Sanders won among voters who had only a high school diploma or less, while Clinton won more highly educated voters, including postgraduates, who made up a larger proportion of the Massachusetts electorate. And while Sanders won 54-46 among voters under the age of 45, Clinton won 54-45 with those over 45 years of age, including a resounding 59-39 victory among senior citizens. And while Sanders won 55-45 among voters who make less than $100k per year, Clinton won with more affluent voters.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
In terms of political party affiliation, Clinton won Democrats (65% of the electorate) 60-40, but lost Independents to Sanders 66-33.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
While Sanders carried a majority of counties statewide, Clinton swept most of the major urban areas and cities, as well as the affluent suburbs. She won Boston by a large margin and also emerged victorious in other urban and more conservative towns such as Springfield and Worcester.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
The Clinton win in Massachusetts came as a major blow to the Sanders campaign on Super Tuesday, as he had wanted to win a blue, largely white and liberal state like Massachusetts resoundingly in order to stay competitive after disappointing losses across the Southeast.


2016 Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Analysis
Following the primary, Elizabeth Warren, the state's senior US senator, was widely criticized by Sanders supporters online for her refusal to endorse him prior to the primary. Supporters of Bernie Sanders have argued that an endorsement from Warren, whose political positions were similar to that of Sanders's, and who was a frequent critic of Hillary Clinton in the past, could have handed Massachusetts to him. Warren though, had made it clear prior to the primary that she would not endorse either candidate until the end of the primary season, in which she eventually endorsed Clinton.


2016 Massachusetts Question 1
The Massachusetts Expand Slot Machine Gaming Initiative was a 2016 Massachusetts ballot measure. Also known as Question 1, it was an indirect initiated state statute question that would allow the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to issue an additional license for another slot machine parlor to exist in the state. The ballot question specified that the additional slots parlor be licensed only on a property within 1,500 feet (460 m) of a racetrack and built on a parcel that is at least 4 acres (1.6 ha) in size. The only location in the state where this would have applied was Suffolk Downs in East Boston.


2016 Massachusetts Question 1, Results
The measure was not approved, voting was 57% "no", 37% "yes", and 6% left blank.


2016 Massachusetts Question 2
The Massachusetts Charter School Expansion Initiative, Question 2 was an unsuccessful initiative voted on in the Massachusetts general election held on November 8, 2016. It was one of four 2016 ballot measures put to public vote.


2016 Massachusetts Question 2, Voting
If the ballot measure had been approved, the proposed law would have taken effect on January 1, 2017.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3
An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, more commonly known as Question 3, was the third initiative on the 2016 Massachusetts ballot. The measure will require Massachusetts farmers to give chickens, pigs, and calves enough room to turn around, stand up, lie down, and fully extend their limbs. It will also prohibit the sale of eggs or meat from animals raised in conditions that did not meet these standards.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3
In 2016, eleven other states had enacted laws against some of these forms of confinement, and California had a law prohibiting the sale of any eggs from chickens kept in small cages. The measure was supported by the Humane Society of the United States and its allies, and opposed by regional and national animal agriculture groups. Proponents argued that the initiative represented a modest animal welfare reform that would benefit food safety, while opponents rejected both claims and warned that the regulations would sharply increase the price of animal products, harming low-income Massachusetts residents.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3
The measure was overwhelmingly approved by voters, with 77.6% of votes in favor, becoming the broadest statute against farm animal confinement in the country. It will take full effect on January 1, 2022.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3
Question 3 has been the subject of two legal challenges. The first, attempting to block it from the ballot for procedural reasons, was ruled against by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in July 2016. The second was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by a coalition of agricultural states, claiming Question 3's provisions violated the dormant Commerce Clause; the Court declined to hear the case in January 2019.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Intensive animal confinement in the U.S.
Modern animal agriculture in the United States is dominated by indoor-housing systems in which animals are kept at very high densities, in order to maximize economic profit. These systems decrease land use requirements and increase feeding efficiency, but they restrict animals' movement, prevent animals from engaging in natural behaviors, and can lead to production-related diseases.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Intensive animal confinement in the U.S.
Three such systems have been the focus of most regulatory debate: battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates for pregnant sows, and veal crates for male dairy calves. Battery cages are stacks of wire crates that contain one to eight or more hens, with each hen typically being allotted less space than a sheet of printer paper; according to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates, this practice accounted for over 90% of commercial U.S. egg production in 2016. Gestation stalls are not much larger than the sows they confine, and were used by more than 80 percent of U.S. pork producers. In the dairy industry, both male and female calves are taken from cows within a few days of birth to maximize milk yields, and kept in crates that limit their movement and ability to interact with other calves.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Intensive animal confinement in the U.S.
In the decade before Massachusetts Question 3, a number of large American food chains, retailers, and animal agriculture corporations had voluntarily committed to plans phasing out the use of battery cages in egg production and gestation crates in pork production.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations
No federal legislation protects the welfare of U.S. farm animals except during transportation and slaughter, and poultry are excluded from the latter regulations. This lack of regulation has sometimes been attributed to the influence of agricultural interest groups at the federal level.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations
Between 2011 and 2013, the animal protection group Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the industry group United Egg Producers (UEP) jointly lobbied for compromise legislation that would have phased out the use of battery cages, implemented minimum space requirements for cage-free systems, and prohibited the sale of eggs produced in conditions that violated these standards. A bill with these provisions was introduced by Oregon Representative Kurt Schrader in 2012 as H.R. 3789 and received a hearing.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations
However, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and National Pork Producers Council lobbied against the bill, believing it could set a precedent for regulation of other animal industries, and it was not brought to a vote. After this failure, HSUS and UEP did not renew their agreement, and HSUS returned its focus to state-level regulations.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, State-level regulations
Eleven other U.S. states had imposed or planned restrictions on one or more of these intensive animal confinement practices, beginning with Florida in 2002. Five of these policies were implemented by legislative action, one by executive action, and five by public referendum. These policy changes were largely driven by the activities of HSUS along with other animal-welfare groups, who used a strategy of initially targeting coastal, relatively liberal states with little animal agriculture activity.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, State-level regulations
This strategy, and the use of broad-based, non-partisan messaging, allowed consistent success for HSUS; at the time of the 2016 election, voters had passed every state ballot measure banning similar "cruel" confinement. However, most of the states with the most intensive animal farms continued to allow these practices, have no mechanism for public ballot initiatives, and were perceived by animal welfare activists as having legislatures friendly to agricultural interests. As a result, this activity was unlikely to be affected except by other states' restrictions on the sale of such products.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, State-level regulations
In 2008, California voters passed ballot Proposition 2 with a 63.5% majority. This initiative prohibited confining hens, pigs, and calves so that they could not turn around, lie down, stand up, or fully extend their limbs. Although Proposition 2 did not restrict the sale of animal products produced using these practices, it was amended by an accessory bill passed by the California Assembly in 2010 that banned the sale of eggs from intensively confined hens.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, State-level regulations
Supporters of this law argued that it was necessary to "level the playing field" and prevent California egg producers from being placed at a competitive disadvantage with out-of-state producers. When both laws went into effect in 2015, they were the first comprehensive restrictions on farm animal confinement conditions, both during production and when selling animal products, including those imported from outside the state.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, State-level regulations
After California's laws went into effect, the number of hens kept and eggs produced in the state both decreased while the price of eggs rose; however, these effects were partly attributable to a widespread outbreak of bird flu at approximately the same time. As a result of this, and the historical variability of egg prices, there was considerable uncertainty about the effects of California's laws on egg prices at the time of the 2016 election.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, State-level regulations
The attorneys general of six agricultural states filed a lawsuit challenging California's ban on the sale of eggs produced under intensive confinement in other states, on the grounds that it violated the federal government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and preempt state laws. This case, Missouri v. Harris, was pending before the Ninth Circuit appeals court during the 2016 election.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, Previous efforts in Massachusetts
Prior to Question 3, there were no laws governing the confinement of farmed animals in Massachusetts.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, Previous efforts in Massachusetts
In 1988, a ballot question in Massachusetts proposed the creation of a state Department of Food and Agriculture to issue rules against “cruel or inhumane practices" in animal farming. The measure was defeated by a vote of 66% to 27%, in part because it was opposed by major newspapers and because the campaign in favor of the referendum, which focused on the treatment of veal calves, was poorly organized.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Background, Previous farm animal protection regulations, Previous efforts in Massachusetts
In each session of the Massachusetts legislature between 2009 and 2015, bills were introduced that would have prevented chickens, calves, and pregnant sows from being confined so that they could not turn around or extend their limbs. These bills were not brought to a vote. In 2013 and 2015, State Representative Stephen Kulik introduced bills to create a state commission that would issue standards for livestock treatment; this proposal earned the support of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot
Supporters of the initiative, led by the HSUS, formed a committee to support it on August 28, 2015. The text of the proposed question was submitted to the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey for certification that it complied with the state's constitutional requirements, and received approval on September 2, 2015.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot
Supporters then had to gather 64,750 registered Massachusetts voters' signatures in order to present the proposal to the state legislature. They collected over 130,000 signatures, saying in a press release that they did so without paid assistance; the office of Secretary of State William F. Galvin certified 95,817 of them, more than for any other initiative that year, and sent the bill to the Massachusetts General Court as H. 3930 on December 18, 2015.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot
The legislature held a hearing in February 2016, at which free-range farmers, veterinarians, and animal protection advocates spoke in favor of the initiative, while representatives of egg and pork producers testified against. The Democratic and Republican co-chairs of the hearing, the latter of whom owned a beef farm, said afterwards that they were concerned about potential Commerce Clause issues, and would favor Rep. Kulik's bill establishing a state commission governing the treatment of farm animals instead.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot
The legislature's failure to adopt the initiative by May 3, which was expected given its history with similar bills, initiated the next stage of the process, in which proponents had to collect the signatures of 10,792 additional voters by June 22. They gathered 40,000, again more than for any other question, and in July the initiative was certified by Secretary Galvin as the third of four 2016 Massachusetts ballot measures.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court challenge
Opponents of the initiative filed a lawsuit on April 25, 2016, claiming that Attorney General Healey had erred in certifying the initiative and requesting that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court bar it from the ballot under the Single Subject clause. This provision of the Massachusetts Constitution requires that ballot initiatives only contain subjects "which are related or which are mutually dependent". It is intended to prevent controversial proposals from being unfairly bundled together with more popular ones to increase their chance of passing; for example, in 2006 the Court struck down a proposed initiative that combined a ban on dog racing with an increase in penalties for abusing dogs.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court challenge
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were Diane Sullivan, an anti-poverty activist, and James Dunn, a farmer; they were funded by Protect the Harvest, a national nonprofit that opposes restrictions on animal use. The plaintiffs argued that the initiative's bans on the production and the sale of intensively confined animal products represented unrelated questions, and that the bans on confinement of chickens, pigs, and calves were similarly separate issues on which voters might have divergent opinions. They also argued that the law inappropriately contained an "argumentative" statement of its purpose. The sincerity of Protect the Harvest's commitment to anti-poverty work was questioned by HSUS president Paul Shapiro, who pointed to "offensive" comments about welfare recipients made by its attorney, Jon Bruning, in 2010.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Path to the ballot, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court challenge
On July 6, the court unanimously ruled against the plaintiffs. The court wrote that all the provisions of the initiative were "complementary" and shared the unifying purpose of "preventing farm animals from being caged in overly cramped conditions", and that the text was of an appropriate form for a law. They also questioned why the plaintiffs had delayed their filing so long after Healey's office issued its decision in September, and recommended that future litigants appeal ballot initiatives by February of an election year.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
Contains the full text and summary of the initiative, with brief arguments in favor and against.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
The initiative's language was very similar to that of California's Proposition 2. It built on this law's framework by adding more details about each species' required space allotment, including in cage-free systems, and by including an explicit enforcement mechanism: private citizens would be able to file complaints with the attorney general's office, which would be able to issue fines to violators. It also went further than California's laws in prohibiting the sale of intensively confined pork and veal products in addition to eggs, making it the broadest anti-confinement regulation in the country at the time of the campaign.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
Do 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?


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
The ballot question was accompanied by the following explanatory text:


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
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.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
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.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
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.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
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.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not prohibit stricter local laws.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
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 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
A YES VOTE would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Text
The full text of the law was later entered in the Massachusetts Session laws of 2016 as Chapter 333, "An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals".


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents
Question 3 was supported throughout the campaign by a dedicated ballot question committee, Citizens for Farm Animal Protection, which was incorporated in August 2015. Its campaign was directed by Stephanie Harris, the Massachusetts director of the Humane Society, and headquartered at an office provided by the animal charity and hospital MSPCA-Angell.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents
Question 3 was endorsed by stakeholders who had already committed to not using intensive confinement, including over one hundred Massachusetts farmers and certain large food retailers; by public interest groups, including animal and environmental protection groups, labor organizations, and religious groups; and by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, U.S. senator Ed Markey, five U.S. House members, 35 of 200 state legislators, and Attorney General Healey.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents
The committee opposing the initiative, Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice, did not formally incorporate until the end of September, 2016. It represented a coalition of trade organizations for egg and pork producers and food retailers, Protect the Harvest, and anti-poverty advocates. The committee hired Diane Sullivan, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Judicial Court case, as its director. Sullivan, a lawyer, had previously experienced homelessness with her children, and had been working with an organization to end family homelessness for several years before joining the campaign. Although she coordinated with Protect the Harvest and the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, Sullivan primarily campaigned alone, emphasizing her experiences of relying on intensively caged eggs as a cheap source of protein for her family during periods of food insecurity.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents
The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association opposed the measure, saying that while it did not disapprove of eliminating the confinement practices in question, a state commission was needed to implement more comprehensive and flexible standards. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals opposed a similar measure two years later in California on the abolitionist grounds that there should be no commercial egg-laying hens, whether in cages or not; however, they did not play a significant role in the 2016 Question 3 campaign.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents, Campaign finance
Citizens for Farm Animal Protection spent a total of $2.8 million. This was provided primarily from HSUS (approximately $1.8 million, in addition to in-kind donations of staff time), but also included large donations from animal-welfare organizations including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; many donations from private individuals, including $250,000 from finance executive Maximilian Stone; and $100,000 from Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents, Campaign finance
Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice was funded primarily by a $195,000 contribution from Forrest Lucas, president of Lucas Oil Products and founder of Protect the Harvest, and $100,000 from the National Pork Producers Council. The committee had a total budget of $302,900.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Supporters and opponents, Campaign finance
Both sides began airing television advertisements at the end of October, 2016.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
The state of Massachusetts only contained one farm whose practices fell under the scope of the initiative. As a result, the campaign focused largely on the price, quality, and ethical status of animal products imported from outside the state.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
Although both sides agreed the initiative would increase the price of covered animal products, a primary focus of public debate was how much it would do so. Opponents warned that eggs and meat would become "luxury items," and cited analyses of California's laws indicating they raised the price of a dozen eggs by approximately $.49, or $.75 or more, in the year they went into effect. They argued that such an increase would represent a serious hardship for Massachusetts residents struggling with poverty, and that this group's voice had been excluded from food policy debates.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
Proponents cited an egg industry study finding that switching to cage-free systems would only increase costs by one to two cents per egg; they also argued that the relative cost of cage-free eggs would decrease when retailers could no longer charge a premium for them, and that Massachusetts "shouldn’t have a two-tiered system where safer food is only accessible to some."


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
of chicken cages at Diemand Farm, a point of controversy during the campaign.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
Proponents of Question 3 focused on the animal welfare impacts of the initiative, framing the requirement for animals to be able to turn around and extend their limbs as a modest and minimal reform. However, opponents charged that the measure could have negative effects on animals and farm workers. The operators of the only caged egg farm in the state, Diemand Farm of Wendell, described how their previous cage-free system had resulted in cannibalism, crowding, hygiene problems, and uneven access to food and water, concerns echoed by statewide allies.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
They also argued that chickens did not need to be able to spread both wings, as they could extend them one at a time to stretch while caged. Even some farmers who used cage-free systems for welfare reasons expressed concern that the question would be decided by voters who did not have experience with agriculture, or appreciation for the complexity of the issue.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
Supporters of Question 3, including some veterinarians, argued that the initiative would have public health benefits, claiming that the stress and high density of intensive confinement systems increases the risk of animal products being contaminated with salmonella and other diseases. Opponents rejected these arguments, claiming that cage-free systems caused more salmonella.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Issues
Finally, opponents questioned the necessity of the measure. The Massachusetts Farm Bureau, primarily concerned about consumers losing trust in Massachusetts farms, emphasized that intensive confinement practices were rare in Massachusetts and unlikely to become more common; its president argued that the initiative targeted out-of-state producers, violating the Commerce Clause. Others maintained that the free market was already shifting away from the confinement practices in question, making the initiative unnecessary. The National Pork Producers Council alleged that the move was part of a "vegan agenda"; HSUS denied this, claiming their interest was in ensuring humane conditions on farms. The CEO of United Egg Producers said that a “patchwork” of state-level restrictions on egg sales could cause “significant challenges for egg producers”.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Campaign, Polling
Question 3 consistently received higher support than the other ballot measures in opinion polls. Some polls indicated that support for Question 3 was higher among voters younger than 35, women, and people earning $40,000 or less per year.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Referendum results
On November 8, 2016, Question 3 was passed overwhelmingly by Massachusetts voters. The initiative was supported by 2,530,143 (77.6%) of the 3,258,797 votes cast on the issue, with 120,004 blanks. It had majority support in all but 3 of Massachusetts' 351 towns. Question 3 was the first ballot measure to ban the sale of animal products raised under certain conditions, and won the largest majority of any animal protection ballot measure in U.S. history.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Referendum results
An analysis published in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics analyzed town-level votes on Question 3 along with U.S. Census data. The analysis found that, after controlling for demographic factors, support for the referendum correlated positively with a town's support for Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and with the town's average income, and correlated negatively with the proportion of a town's residents employed in agriculture. Extrapolating their analysis from this referendum and California's 2008 Proposition 2, the authors predicted that such a measure would have enjoyed majority support in every state in 2016.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath
Representatives of Citizens for Farm Animal Protection described the vote as a "historic advancement for animal welfare," and said it showed the strength of the American public's desire to reduce farm animals' suffering. Diane Sullivan, of Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice, said the measure would cause food prices to skyrocket, and said "my work on this has just begun".


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath
In 2017, Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner introduced federal legislation that could have nullified Question 3, forbidding states from setting conditions on how businesses outside the state produce goods. Sensenbrenner said that excessive regulation was interfering with economic growth. In 2018, Republican Congressman Steve King introduced an amendment to that year's Farm Bill that would have similarly forbidden states from imposing welfare restrictions on animal products imported and sold in the state, such as those of Question 3. Supporters of this amendment argued that such restrictions posed a threat to American agricultural activities and to the freedom of interstate commerce. The King amendment drew heavy opposition from groups who noted that it would invalidate a wide range of state food-safety, labor, and animal welfare regulations, and it was not adopted into the final bill.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath
By May 2019, the only farm in Massachusetts that was directly affected by Question 3, Diemand Farm, had transferred one of its three flocks to a cage-free system. The owners estimated that it would cost $80,000 to transition their entire farm's architecture, in addition to incurring additional ongoing labor costs.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, U.S. Supreme Court challenge
On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Missouri v. Harris, the lead case against California's ban on the sale of battery cage eggs, without prejudice. The court found that the plaintiff states did not have standing, because they were bringing the case on behalf of specific egg farmers in their jurisdictions, rather than on behalf of their entire populations. The plaintiff states requested for the U.S. Supreme Court  to hear the case, and in May 2017 it declined, letting the Ninth Circuit's dismissal stand. On December 4, 2017, a similar coalition of agricultural states re-filed a case against California's law with the Supreme Court, this time arguing that they had standing because their low-income residents would be injured by increased egg prices, as would the prisons and other institutions operated by the states themselves.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, U.S. Supreme Court challenge
On December 11, the state of Indiana, joined by twelve other agricultural states, filed a complaint against Massachusetts in the Supreme Court over Question 3. The case brought by Indiana overlapped with that brought by Missouri against California. The plaintiff states argued that Massachusetts's law violated the dormant Commerce Clause, which forbids states from discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce, while Attorney General Healey responded that the plaintiffs' arguments had been tested and rejected by "centuries of precedent". On April 16, 2018, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General, at the time Noel Francisco, to give an opinion on whether it should hear both cases.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, U.S. Supreme Court challenge
Francisco's office responded on November 29, 2018. Its filing emphasized that the plaintiff states had still failed to show proper standing, in part because the impact of Question 3 on out-of-state food prices had not been determined, but also discussed the Commerce Clause issue. State laws may violate the dormant Commerce Clause if they explicitly provide different treatment for identical situations found inside or outside the state. The Solicitor General argued that, as the Ninth Circuit noted in its dismissal of Missouri v. Harris, regulations like California's and Massachusetts's treat in-


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, U.S. Supreme Court challenge
and out-of-state suppliers equally, and are therefore not economically discriminatory in this sense. Under a test established in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., if a state statute is not explicitly discriminatory but does affect interstate commerce, the court balances the local interest served by the law against the burden it places on interstate commerce. The Solicitor General opined that a district court, not the Supreme Court, would be the appropriate place to weigh this balance.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, U.S. Supreme Court challenge
On January 7, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear both the California and Massachusetts cases, without explanation and with Justice Clarence Thomas disagreeing.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, Proposed amendment
In May 2019, the Massachusetts House approved an amendment to the state budget that would have relaxed Question 3's space requirement, allowing farmers with chickens in cage-free buildings to provide only 1 square foot of space per chicken instead of 1.5, if they also provided additional “enrichments”, such as perches or multi-tiered platforms, meant to allow chickens to engage in more natural behaviors. This amendment was supported by the New England Brown Egg Council as well as by HSUS, which said it represented an improvement to the 2016 law; it was patterned after similar compromises worked out in other states. However, the move drew criticism from other animal protection groups as well as from the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, which had opposed the original ballot initiative but said its members had already invested in new buildings compliant with the 2016 version of the law.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, Proposed amendment
The amendment was dropped in response to the criticism, but reintroduced in October.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, Related legislation in other states
A few months after the passage of Question 3, a nearly identical bill was introduced in the Rhode Island state legislature, with an opinion poll finding 68% support among Rhode Island residents. The bill passed the House by a vote of 61–9 in June 2017, following a public campaign by HSUS; the House had passed similar bills twice before, but they had failed to pass the Senate, in part due to opposition from the representative of a town containing a large egg farm. The bill passed the General Assembly on June 27, and is scheduled to take effect in 2026.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, Related legislation in other states
In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, which refined 2008 Proposition 2 and imitated Massachusetts Question 3 in banning the sale of eggs, veal, or pork from animals raised with less than certain space requirements. The ballot measure was similarly supported by HSUS and opposed by animal agriculture groups.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Aftermath, Related legislation in other states
In 2019, the legislatures of Oregon and Washington passed bills to phase out the sale of eggs produced by caged hens. The laws were similar to Massachusetts Question 3, and were negotiated between the HSUS and regional egg producers' associations.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Analysis
Several legal scholars have argued that Massachusetts and California's laws pass the Pike test and are therefore constitutional. They point out that courts have ruled that states have a legitimate interest in preventing animal cruelty as their populations understand it, pointing to cases such as Hughes v. Oklahoma. Furthermore, since out-of-state producers are not obliged to sell to the states with stricter welfare regulations, the burden imposed by these regulations is comparatively minimal, as the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have found in cases upholding California and Chicago bans on the sale of foie gras produced by force-feeding geese.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Analysis
A separate Commerce Clause argument against Question 3 is that the law regulates economic activity outside of Massachusetts borders, making it unconstitutional according to the 1935 case Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. However, U.S. courts have increasingly discarded the Baldwin doctrine as a relic of a less interconnected economy, especially when the law in question does not directly regulate prices.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Analysis
One of these scholars, Kathryn Bowen, writes that state-level anti-confinement measures such as Question 3 are a laudable expression of "food populism", in which citizens organize for "just, sustainable, and welfare-enhancing food and agriculture outcomes". She predicts that agricultural interests will attempt to preempt and undo such measures at the federal level, through interventions such as Rep. King's amendment, and recommends that states coordinate and harmonize their regulations and efforts to defend them.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Analysis
Another, Sean Murphy, argues that these regulations are bad policy despite being constitutional, because they may harm low-income humans while their benefits to food safety and animal welfare are debatable. He argues for federal preemption of these laws through a legislative process that allows nuanced concerns to be accounted for, praising the failed 2013 compromise legislation agreed on by the HSUS and United Egg Producers, and calls for more detailed and accurate labeling of eggs.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Analysis
In a 2019 paper, two agricultural economists note that the typical 2016 Massachusetts voter supported banning the sale of intensively confined animal products despite regularly consuming such products themself. They cite several possible explanations from behavioral economics for this apparent discrepancy between individuals’ choices as consumers and as voters. First, individuals may not have been fully informed about the effects of their choices in either case.


2016 Massachusetts Question 3, Analysis
Second, individuals may have felt that their personal purchasing decisions did not have a meaningful effect on animal welfare, because others will continue to buy low-welfare products, and believed that voting addresses these free-rider problems. Certain consumers may have had a desire to purchase higher-welfare eggs but lacked the willpower to do so, and viewed the referendum as a chance to enforce a choice on themselves. Finally, some evidence suggests that, in the ballot box, individuals value the opportunity to support public goods more than they do in the marketplace.


2016 Massachusetts Question 4
The Massachusetts Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Initiative also known as Question 4, was an indirect initiated state statute question to legalize, regulate and tax recreational marijuana that appeared on the November 8, 2018 Massachusetts general election ballot.


2016 Massachusetts Question 4, Delays in implementation
In December 2016, the state legislature voted to delay the opening date for recreational marijuana stores in Massachusetts by six months. The opening would be extended from January to summer and eventually to November 20, 2018, the first day of state-licensed cannabis sales in Massachusetts.


2016 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary
The 2016 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary was held on March 1, 2016, as one of the Republican Party's 2016 presidential primaries. Massachusetts was one of eleven states that held both their Democratic and Republican presidential primaries on that day, dubbed "Super Tuesday". 42 delegates were allocated proportionally to all candidates who received at least 5 percent of the vote in the primary.


2016 Massachusetts Republican presidential primary
Donald Trump won the Massachusetts primary comfortably, in keeping with polls that had shown him with double-digit leads over his primary rivals in the state. Trump's victory also reflected his relative strength among Republicans in the Northeastern United States. Trump received about 49% of the vote statewide. John Kasich and Marco Rubio came in second and third, respectively, each with about 18% of the vote. Ted Cruz came in fourth with just under 10% of the vote. Of the state's 42 delegates, Trump received 22 of them, Kasich and Rubio each received eight, and Cruz received four.


2016 Massachusetts elections
The Massachusetts general election, 2016 was held on November 8, 2016, throughout Massachusetts. All 160 seats of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and all 40 seats of the Massachusetts Senate were up for election. The primary election for state offices was held on September 8. Early voting was used for the first time, and took place from October 24 through November 4.


2016 Massachusetts elections, Federal Elections, Presidential election
Official state results from the Massachusetts Secretary of State are as follows


2016 Massachusetts elections, General Court, House of Representatives
Source: Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ballotpedia (for information on incumbency)


2016 Massachusetts elections, Ballot measures
Four statewide ballot measures were certified for the 2016 ballot.


2016 Masters (darts)
The 2016 Unibet Masters was the fourth staging of the non-ranking Masters darts tournament, held by the Professional Darts Corporation. It was held between 30–31 January 2016 at the Arena MK in Milton Keynes, England.


2016 Masters (darts)
Michael van Gerwen retained his 2015 title, beating Dave Chisnall 11–6 in the tournament's final.


2016 Masters (darts), Qualifiers
The Masters only features the top 16 Players in the PDC Order of Merit. These are:


2016 Masters (snooker)
The 2016 Masters (also referred to as the 2016 Dafabet Masters for the purposes of sponsorship) was a professional non-ranking snooker tournament that took place between 10 and 17 January 2016 at the Alexandra Palace in London, England. It was the 42nd staging of the Masters tournament and the fifth successive time it was held at the Alexandra Palace.


2016 Masters (snooker)
The defending champion Shaun Murphy lost 4–6 against Mark Allen in the first round. Murphy forfeited the sixth frame of the match by missing a red on three consecutive occasions.


2016 Masters (snooker)
The quarter-final between Judd Trump and Neil Robertson produced six century breaks, setting a new record for the most centuries in an 11-frame match. These included the two highest breaks of the tournament, 140 from Trump and 139 from Robertson. The match was singled out for particular praise, with John Virgo calling it one of the greatest in Masters history.


2016 Masters (snooker)
Playing in his first major televised tournament since taking an eight-month hiatus from professional snooker, Ronnie O'Sullivan reached his eleventh Masters final and won the tournament for a sixth time, equalling Stephen Hendry's record for the most Masters titles. Losing only the first frame, he defeated Barry Hawkins 10–1, the biggest winning margin since Steve Davis whitewashed Mike Hallett 9–0 in 1988, and the first time a player had won ten consecutive frames in a Masters final.


2016 Masters (snooker), Field
Defending champion Shaun Murphy was the number 1 seed with World Champion Stuart Bingham seeded 2. The remaining places were allocated to players based on the world rankings after the 2015 UK Championship. Liang Wenbo made his debut at the Masters after he entered the top 16 due to reaching the final of the 2015 UK Championship.


2016 Masters Tournament
The 2016 Masters Tournament was the 80th edition of the Masters Tournament, held April 7–10 at Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, Georgia. Danny Willett won his first major championship, three strokes ahead of runners-up Lee Westwood and defending champion Jordan Spieth. Spieth suffered one of the biggest collapses in Masters history. Spieth led the tournament from the first round and built a five-shot lead going to the back nine on Sunday, but lost six shots to par over the next three holes culminating in a quadruple-bogey on the 12th hole where he hit two balls into Rae's Creek. Willett shot a bogey-free 67 to overtake Spieth when the leader faltered on the back nine. Willett became the first European to win the Masters since 1999, and the first Englishman to do so since Nick Faldo in 1996.


2016 Masters Tournament
This was the final Masters appearance for former champion Tom Watson.


2016 Masters Tournament, Course
The course was formerly a plant nursery and each hole on the course is named after the tree or shrub with which it has become associated.


2016 Masters Tournament, Field
The Masters has the smallest field of the four major championships. Officially, the Masters remains an invitation event, but there is a set of qualifying criteria that determines who is included in the field. Each player is classified according to the first category by which he qualified, with other categories in which he qualified shown in parentheses.


2016 Masters Tournament, Field
Golfers who qualify based solely on their performance in amateur tournaments (categories 6–10) must remain amateurs on the starting day of the tournament to be eligible to play.


2016 Masters Tournament, Field
Ángel Cabrera, Trevor Immelman, Zach Johnson (3,11,13,16,17,18), Bernhard Langer, Sandy Lyle, Phil Mickelson (3,11,17,18), Larry Mize, Mark O'Meara, Charl Schwartzel (15,17,18), Adam Scott (12,15,17,18), Vijay Singh, Jordan Spieth (2,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18), Bubba Watson (15,16,17,18), Tom Watson, Mike Weir, Ian Woosnam


2016 Masters Tournament, Field
Martin Kaymer (5,17,18), Rory McIlroy (3,4,11,15,16,17,18), Justin Rose (11,14,15,16,17,18), Webb Simpson


2016 Masters Tournament, Field
Paul Casey (16,17,18), Bill Haas (16,17,18), Charley Hoffman (16), Dustin Johnson (12,16,17,18), Hunter Mahan, Hideki Matsuyama (15,16,17,18), Ryan Moore (18), Kevin Na (16,17,18), Ian Poulter, Kevin Streelman