The Globe has the results for the two questions - and that third one about car repair.

NOTE: This is a corrected version of this post.

The state Attorney General's office said today a proposed referendum on requiring government-issued IDs to vote in Massachusetts is unconstitutional because it "infringes on freedom of elections."

Currently, Massachusetts voters facing a residency challenge can present a current utility bill or paycheck stub. The proposal by Mansfield Selectman Olivier Kozlowski would have required people showing up to vote to show a driver's license, passport or government-issued ID card.

Associated Press uncovers a memo from Baker to then boss Paul Celllucci, urging him to sit on news of escalating Big Dig costs until after Cellucci beat Scott Harshbarger back in the day. Tony ponders:

Robert Dwyer, who writes about wine, will be voting yes on Question 1, which would repeal the sale tax on wine. Dwyer explains why that was no easy decision, especially after he learned that even with the tax, Massachusetts still ranks in the bottom ten states for tax levels on booze.

One Massachusetts is a group seeking a "No" vote on all three of this year's ballot questions, which would cut the sales tax in general, repeal the sales tax on booze in particular and eliminate a state requirement that communities ensure a certain percentage of their homes are "affordable." The group's Harmony Blakeway makes the case that "No" votes would actually be saying:

CW Unbound looks at the numbers, discovers a huge shift in votes in western Massachusetts from the last time voters considered a ban. But why?

Richard Howe wonders if the president-elect would consider a Massachusetts greyhound, since there will soon be plenty of those available.

Here's a guide to the 3 referendum questions on the ballot Tuesday, with pro's con's articulated by the experts who are supporting and opposing the measures. It's surprisingly concise.

Q1 Would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent for the tax year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010.

Q2 Would replace the criminal penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil penalties, and would exclude information from the state's criminal record system.

Worth noting that the people opposing Question One are backed almost entirely by Big Government Unions.

The MTA and SEIU gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the pro-tax movement.

No one should be shocked that government employee unions are fighting Question One to the death. If it passes they will lose their superhuman benefits and government perks that no one except the CEOs of AIG get.

Coaliton for Our Communities report 1