On Election Day, Massachusetts residents said “yes, please” to marijuana, but “no, thank you” to an additional fruit machine in the Commonwealth.  Ballot Question 1 would have expanded the Commonwealth’s Gaming Act to allow the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to license another slots parlor, but was rejected with 61% voting against the initiative.  Nearly a year ago, opponents filed suit against the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth claiming the Attorney General improperly certified the petition.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected those claims, and the petition lived to see another day, garnering enough signatures to appear on the November 8 ballot.  However, the initiative’s support was not nearly enough to seal the deal.  Perhaps the revelation of foreign investors (whose involvement was previously denied), allegations of bribery and money laundering abroad, or the sentiment that one slots parlor is truly enough swayed voters at game time.