1788–1789 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts

Massachusetts law required a majority vote, necessitating additional votes if no one won a majority. This was necessary in 4 of the districts.

Elections in Massachusetts
General 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Federal government U.S. President 1788–89 1792 1796 1800 1804 1808 1812 1816 1820 1824 1828 1832 1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 Dem 2008 Dem GOP 2012 2016 Dem GOP 2020 Dem GOP U.S. Senate Class 1: 1788 1790 1796 (S) 1796 1798 1800 (S) 1803 1808 (S) 1810 (S) 1811 1813 (S) 1815 1815 (S) 1816 (S) 1818 (S) 1820 1820 (S) 1822 1826 1827 1829 (S) 1833 1839 February 1841 (S) 1845 1851 1851 (S) 1857 1863 1869 1874 (S) 1875 1881 1887 1893 1899 1905 1911 1916 1922 1928 1934 1940 1946 1952 1958 1962 (S) 1964 1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2010 (S) 2012 2018 2024 Class 2: 1788 1793 1796 1800 (S) 1803 (S) 1805 1810 1811 (S) 1816 1822 (S) 1826 (S) 1828 1835 January 1841 (S) 1841 1845 (S) 1847 1853 1855 (S) 1859 1865 1871 1873 (S) 1877 1883 1889 1895 1901 1905 (S) 1907 1913 1918 1924 1930 1936 1942 1944 (S) 1948 1954 1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008 2013 (S) 2014 2020 U.S. House 1788/1789 1790/1792 1792/1793 1794/1795 1796/1797 1798/1799 1800/1801 1802/1803 1804 1806 1808 1810/1811 1812/1813 1814/1815 3rd 1816/1817 1818/1819 1820/1821 1822/1823 1824/1825 1826/1827 1828 1830/1832 1833/1834 1834/1835 1836 1838/1839 1840/1841 1842/1844 1844/1846 1846 1848/1850 1850/1851 1852 1854 1856 1858 1860 1862 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991 (1st) 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 (9th) 2002 2004 2006 2007 (5th) 2008 2010 2012 2013 (5th) 2014 2016 2018 2020
State government Governor 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 ... 1839 ... 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 ... 1870 ... 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 ... 1897 ... 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 State Senate 1787 1824 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 State House 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2020 Governor's Council 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Ballot measures 1980: Proposition 2½ 2002: English Language Education in Public Schools 2006: 2008 Greyhound Protection Sensible Marijuana Policy State Income Tax Repeal 2010: No Sales Tax for Alcohol Sales Tax Relief Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning 2012: Right to Repair Death with Dignity Medical Marijuana 2014: Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal Expansion of Bottle Deposits Casino Repeal Paid Sick Days 2016: Expand Slot Machine Gaming Charter School Expansion Farm Animal Confinement Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana 2018: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination 2020: pending
Boston Mayor 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1910 1914 1917 1921 1925 1929 1933 1937 1941 1945 1949 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 City council 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
Springfield Mayor 1983 1985 1987 2007 2011 2015 2019
Worcester Mayor 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

In the fourth district,

The first election in the district was in part a reflection of the rivalry between Hampshire and Berkshire counties. Berkshire was the less populous county, but four of the six candidates who received the most votes - Theodore Sedgwick, William Whiting, Thompson J. Skinner, and William Williams - were residents of the county. The two Hampshire candidates were Samuel Lyman and John Worthington. The first election did not reflect the fact that the two counties were centers of agrarian discontent and of support for Shays's Rebellion. Nor did it reflect the fact that in the state Convention the Hampshire delegates voted 32 to 19 and the Berkshire delegates voted 16 to 6 against ratification of the Constitution. Only Whiting was regarded as a Shaysite and an Anti-Federalist, while the other five men were Federalists - and two of these - Worthington and Williams - had been virtual if not actual Loyalists during the Revolution. The issue of amendments to the Constitution was not raised during the first election in the district, but it became so important in the ensuing elections that Theodore Sedgwick, who opposed amendments, publicly promised to support them before the fifth election, which he won.

— The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections: 1788-1790. I. p. 603.

In the fifth district,

The only problem was whether Partridge could retain his post of sheriff of Plymouth County and accept a seat in Congress, as he had done in 1779-1782 and 1783-1785. He received a certificate from Governor Hancock on 10 January notifying him of his election. Partridge wrote three letters to the Governor. In the first, which he apparently did not send, he refused the appointment. He accepted in the two following letters but explained that he would not take the seat if he had to give up his post as sheriff (12, 20 January, 23 February). The issue of whether or not a state officeholder could retain a state post and still serve in Congress had been and would be raised in other states. On 12 February Governor Hancock asked his Council for advice about Partridge and about George Leonard, judge of probate in Bristol County, who had been elected to Congress from the Bristol-Dukes-Nantucket District. The Council replied in writing the same day that it was 'inexpedient' for a man to hold the office of judge of probate and a seat in Congress, but that it did not find anything in the state constitution which prevented a sheriff from also being a member of Congress. The Council advised, however, that it would be inexpedient to introduce the practice of sheriffs being absent for long periods although Partridge 'may at present be indulged' and take a seat in Congress 'consistently with the safety of that county' (Council Proceedings, Thursday 12 February, M-Ar). The next day Governor Hancock sent the Council's written reply to the legislature and asked for its advice (13 February, Miscellaneous Legislative Documents, House Files, M-Ar). The two houses appointed a joint committee which wrote a report that was approved and sent to the Governor on Monday, 16 February. The legislature declared that if George Leonard continued to hold the office of judge of probate and also took a seat on Congress, any future legislature would address the Governor authorizing him and the Council to appoint another person judge of probate in Bristol County. But the legislature refused to give advice about George Partridge. It pointed out that sheriffs served during the pleasure of the governor, and (with the advice of his Council) were removable by him at any time. Sheriffs were not removable in any other way except through impeachment by the House and a trial before and conviction by the Senate. Therefore the House and Senate declared that intervention by the legislature was 'neither necessary or proper; and from the conduct and advice of your Council, they see no reason to doubt the wisdom of that constitutional provision' (House and Senate Proceedings, 13, 14, 16 February).

— The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections: 1788-1790. I. p. 575-76.

In the eighth district,

It was evident before the elections were completed in Worcester District that a candidate who did not support amendments to the Constitution had no chance of winning. The three leading candidates in the three Worcester District elections were Jonathan Grout, Timothy Paine, and Artemas Ward. Grout, a local leader during the Revolution, had voted against ratification of the Constitution and in 1788 was a member of the legislature. Paine, a prominent officeholder in the county for two decades before the Revolution, had been appointed to the Royal Council in 1774. Unlike most 'mandamus councillors,' he did not become a Loyalist. By 1788 he had regained much of his influence in the town of Worcester. Ward had been appointed commanding general of Massachusetts troops after Lexington and Concord, he remained in charge until George Washington was appointed commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in July 1775. The popular Ward resigned his commission in April 1776 and returned to state politics. The past records of these three men did not become a public issue until shortly before the third and final election.
…
AS in the two previous election, the two Worcester newspapers, with one exception, printed nothing until their last issues before the election on 2 March. The exception consisted of two items (one of which supported Timothy Paine) in the Massachusetts Spy on 19 February. Then on 26 February the Massachusetts Spy published five articles. Two of them supported Jonathan Grout, one supported Artemas Ward, one backed Timothy Paine, and the fifth did not mention any names. On the same day the American Herald published four items. One supported Grout, one opposed Paine because he had been a mandamus councillor, and the other two items urged that he be elected. The issue of Paine's appointment as a mandamus councillor by the British government in 1774 had been brought up for the first time by the Boston Independent Chronicle, 12 February, and not by the Worcester newspapers. Despite the ambivalence of the newspapers, there was a considerable increase of interest, for the vote almost doubled over the first election on 18 December 1788: from 1,886 to 3,484. Grout was elected Representative by a decisive majority. Artemas Ward, who ran a poor third in each of the three elections, finally defeated Grout in the election to the second Congress in 1791. Paine was elected to the state House of Representatives in 1789.

— The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections: 1788-1790. I. p. 601, 676.