Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County Co-hosts Canvasser’s Training

By Sue Savoy, Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County

On Saturday, May 4th Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County co-hosted a Canvasser’s Training at the Norfolk Public Library.  The event was co-hosted by the Bellingham, Franklin, Medfield, Milford, and Plainville Democratic Town Committees.  Justin Bates of Progressive Mass Salem provided a dynamic training, inspiring local activists to knock doors this election season and beyond. Justin Bates was the campaign manager for State Senator Becca Rausch’s successful 2022 run for the State House.  Twenty-two people attended the training.

Justin called upon participants to understand the barriers to canvassing as well as to consider personal ideals when preparing to knock on doors for candidates and political issues.  In today’s divisive political climate, many folks reported being nervous about going door to door.  However, targeted planning can result in energizing and positive results, especially when planners design turfs to include friendly doors based on voting history.  Door knocking is a time tested and highly effective strategy for energizing voters.  For example during the Freedom Summer of 1964, door knocking was a central tactic used by civil rights activists, many of them college students, to register black Missisipians to vote.  Participants of the canvasser training took time to share their personal stories in small working groups.  Folks talked about what brought them to activism.  They then reflected upon their most important values that led them to the training, and finally practiced crafting their canvassing messages leading with those values.  

Kevin Kalkut of Norfolk, candidate for 9th Norfolk State Representative shared the importance of canvassing to make personal connections with voters to inspire them to vote on election day. 

Participants reported feeling excited to hit doors following the training.  Leading with personal values is a potent way to get empowered and send a clear message to voters about the issues we care about.  After the training several of the attendees spent the afternoon knocking on doors for a progressive school committee candidate. 

 

 

Data Brokers Don’t Need to Know Your Weekend Plans.

I hope you were able to enjoy the long weekend.

But do you know who doesn’t need to know what you did over the weekend? Data brokers.

Currently, there is no law in Massachusetts or federally to prevent the sale and purchase of cell phone location data. Every day, companies collect and sell sensitive location information from cell phones, revealing information about where we live, work, and socialize.

Here’s just one example: Politico recently reported that a data broker company tracked people’s visits to nearly 600 Planned Parenthood clinics in 48 states, including Massachusetts. The company sold that data to inform one of the largest anti-abortion ad campaigns targeting specific individuals. If anti-abortion extremists can use cellphone location data to target abortion seekers with ads, they can also use that data to target, harass, or threaten patients and providers in our state.

The Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cyber Security recently reported out the MA Data Privacy Act, a comprehensive data privacy bill that includes provisions to limit data collection and sharing, treat sensitive health and biometric data with extra care, and prohibit the sale of our cellphone location data. But getting out of committee is just step one. The Legislature needs to pass this before the end of July.

Can you email your state legislators in support of the MA Data Privacy Act?

MA Senate Finishes Up Its Budget Debate. Let’s Talk about the Recorded Votes.

Yesterday, late at night, the MA Senate passed its FY 2025 budget. I’ll defer discussion on the specific funding levels to another time and instead highlight some policy victories in the amendment process and the recorded votes.

On the first hand, two amendments that Progressive Mass had advocated for passed, in modified form:

  • Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #100: Improving Voting Access, which would decouple the municipal census and voter registration status. Currently, cities and towns are required to mark registered voters as “inactive” if they don’t fill out the annual municipal census, a document many easily forget to fill out. When voters are inactive, they have to go through extra hoops at their polling location to vote.
  • Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #938: No Cost Calls Reporting Requirements, which would strengthen the oversight and data collection for No Cost Calls (i.e., the recently passed law that guarantees free access to phone calls and other communication to incarcerated individuals)

But now to the recorded votes. The Senate took recorded votes on 41 amendments, 37 of which were unanimous votes.

At Progressive Mass, we love recorded votes: they are a vital tool for accountability and transparency. But when it comes to unanimous votes like these, their main purpose is for senators to be able to publicly take credit for the addition of a specific program or funding increase rather than highlighting meaningful contrasts between legislators.

So what were those 4 non-unanimous votes?

Senator Bruce Tarr’s Amendment (#118) to prevent the diversion of a fraction of excess capital gains tax revenue to the general budget instead of the rainy day fund failed 4 to 35 on a party line vote.

Senator Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment (#810) to create a two-week sales tax holiday failed 5 to 34. Sales tax holidays drain vital revenue and don’t actually goals of tax progressivity or economic stimulus. The 5 YES votes were the chamber’s 4 Republicans plus Walter Timilty (D-Milton).

Senator Bruce Tarr’s amendment to undermine the Fair Share Amendment by allowing high-income couples to evade the surtax failed 10 to 29. The Senate voted to close this loophole last year in order to prevent couples from being “married in DC, but single in Massachusetts” (i.e., filing their taxes together in DC but separately in MA to avoid the surtax on income over $1 million). The 10 YES votes consisted of the chamber’s four Republicans and six Democrats: Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Joan Lovely (D-Salem), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

Senator Jason Lewis’s amendment (#125) to create a new advisory commission to determine a new seal and motto of the commonwealth (in case you’ve forgotten, our state seal is very racist), as recommended by the last commission, passed 30 to 9. Voting NO were 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Bruce Tarr bucked his fellow Republicans by voting YES). The 6 Democrats were Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Ed Kennedy (D-Lowell), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

10 Weeks Left in the Legislative Session. How Has Your Legislator Been Voting?

Did you know that there are only 10 weeks left in the formal legislative session? That’s right: all the major decisions being made and votes being cast on Beacon Hill will be happening in the next 70 days.

But that’s all still to come. Let’s take a moment to talk about the session so far with our Legislator Scorecard.

Our 2023-2024 Scorecard

Fewer Recorded Votes: As of today, the House has only taken 107 recorded votes. By this date in 2022, the House had taken 187 votes, and in 2020, 174. The same problem exists in the Senate, where there have only been 148 recorded votes so far as opposed to 166 by this point in 2022 (and 14 of those 148 have happened just this week with unanimous votes on budget amendments).

Follow the Leader: We have been talking for years about the culture in the Legislature in which legislators defer to the will of the respective chamber’s Leadership, and that shows up even more starkly this year. Fewer votes that are not just party line are making it to the floor. Votes that show clear divides in the Democratic caucus are rare in the Senate and even rarer in the House. Whey such votes do happen, they are typically on roll call votes requested by Republicans which show which handful of Democrats are the most conservative in the caucus but little beyond that.

New Additions to the Scorecard: Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in (also important) scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent and overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit. Feel free to reach out to your own legislator as well.

Missed Votes: It’s the job of a legislator to show up, so our Scorecard has always counted missed votes against legislators. However, if a percentage of missed votes gets too high, a legislator’s score becomes more a story about attendance than about votes. That’s why you’ll see a number of legislators with no score at all: they missed too many of the scored votes. However, every legislator has the ability to submit on record to the House or Senate clerk how they would have voted had they been present, and we will count those.

What’s Coming:

Our scorecard won’t be finalized until the end of the legislative session, and so there might be many more votes to come — and many opportunities for your legislators to show that they stand for the progressive values you care about.

Letter: “The ‘benefit,’ Mr. Speaker, is more affordable housing, including in wealthier areas”

Jan Soma, “The ‘benefit,’ Mr. Speaker, is more affordable housing, including in wealthier areas” (Letter), Boston Globe, May 22, 2024.

Matt Stout’s March 16 article describes House Speaker Ron Mariano’s reticence to embrace the real estate transfer fee portion of Governor Maura Healey’s housing bond bill. Mariano is quoted as saying that relatively wealthy communities would disproportionally benefit from a local real estate transfer fee. Let’s consider the benefits: As clearly stated in the governor’s proposal, transfer fee proceeds would be deposited in affordable housing trusts that use the funds solely for low- to moderate-income housing. The benefit is more housing opportunities in communities that all but the very wealthy can afford as well as in other communities.

We need affordable housing across the state, not just in enclaves that segregate residents by income. I applaud communities that want to be part of the housing shortage solution. I am proud to live in one. Housing funds from the Commonwealth are generally more available to communities that are struggling economically. If wealthier towns are willing to help share the financial burden through a transfer fee, doesn’t everyone win?

Jan Soma

Needham

The writer is on the steering committee of the Needham Housing Coalition.

193rd Session: House Roll Call Votes in Review

Crafting a scorecard depends on recorded votes, and the House has simply not taken very many recorded votes in the 193rd legislative session (2023-2024) to date. 

As of today, the House has only taken 107 recorded votes. By this date in 2022, the House had taken 187 votes, and in 2020, 174. 

Not every vote is worth scoring: we have generally avoided scoring votes that the Legislature must take (veto overrides line item budget vetoes, enactment of state loans, public land transfers), as well as the non-controversial unanimous or near-unanimous votes that occur on budgets and supplemental budgets. 

For the 193rd Session scorecard, visit here.

The Session Starts: Rules

Although the last two sessions had contentious debates on the House rules, 2023 started much quieter on the rules front. However, House Democrats showed again that basic transparency measures supported by the Senate remain anathema in their own chamber. A proposal to require one week notice for legislative hearings (as opposed to the current 72 hours) failed 24 to 129, with Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) the only Democrat to vote for it (RC#8). 

Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts 

Although the voters passed the Fair Share Amendment in 2022 to raise taxes on the rich so that we can invest more, the House made clear that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations by passing a tax cut package filled with giveaways to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Only three legislators–Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville)–voted against the bill (RC#16). 

Democrats did, however, vote against Republican proposals to make the bill even worse (RC#14, RC#15). 

During the budget, House Republicans continued that line of attack, but their attempt to divert Fair Share revenue to regressive tax cuts via the “tax cap” law failed on a party line vote (RC#17). 

Although the final tax package was less regressive than what the House passed originally — including some important provisions passed by the Senate to protect Fair Share revenue — it was still skewed too much toward the rich and large corporations and risked harming our ability to invest. It passed near unanimously, with only Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) voting no (RC#33). 

Gun Safety Bill 

In October, the House voted 120 to 38 for a comprehensive gun safety bill that strengthened the state’s assault weapons ban, prohibited machine gun conversion devices, cracked down on ghost guns, among other steps. During the debate, Democrats voted down on party line a Republican effort to stall consideration of the bill (RC#59) and on almost party line a Republican effort to expand pretrial detention (RC#61). 

No Cost Calls 

One of the most exciting wins of the session so far was the passage of No Cost Calls, i.e., guaranteeing free access to phone calls to incarcerated individuals and ending the predatory practice of price gouging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to stay connected.

The House and Senate both originally passed this through their FY 2024 budgets; however, Governor Healey’s desire for technical changes on the implementation date led to the need for a standalone vote in the fall (RC#63). House Republicans tried to deplete the fund for implementation of No Cost Calls during the FY 2025 budget debate, but the effort was soundly defeated (RC#92). 

Pay Equity 

To strengthen the pay equity law passed a few sessions ago, the House passed the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, which would require salary and wage range disclosures and improve statewide data collection (RC#88). 

Shelter Funding 

In light of the rise of migrants and refugees to Massachusetts, the state’s essential right to shelter law has come under attack given the cost of housing new arrivals. Massachusetts should be proud of our right to shelter and of the diversity of our immigrant communities. 

The efforts to restrict the shelter law pose difficulty for a scorecard, since they inspire principled progressive opposition and xenophobic conservative opposition. However, the votes on Republican amendments to restrict new arrivals’ access to emergency shelter are unambiguous. Republicans tried to do this in the supplemental budget in November (RC#65), in a supplemental budget in March (RC#75), and in the FY 2025 budget (RC#99). 

Republicans secured recorded votes on several other xenophobic messaging amendments during budget season: 

  • A xenophobic amendment to the supplemental budget that falsely implied that job training programs for new arrivals are taking resources away from working-class people when the state already has many existing programs to help (RC#17)
  • A xenophobic amendment to prioritize individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year in the emergency shelter waitlist (RC#100)
  • A xenophobic amendment to prioritize honorably discharged unhoused veterans in the emergency shelter waitlist—an attempt to falsely imply that new arrivals are taking housing away from veterans (RC#101) 

Prison & Jail Accountability

Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent, overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit.

193rd Session: Senate Roll Call Votes in Review

For the 193rd Session scorecard, visit this page.

Starting the Session: Rules 

Whereas the House has been the home of contentious rules debates in recent sessions, the Senate began with more of a rules fight than the House, as Senate Leadership put forth an amendment to eliminate term limits for the Senate President (what had been a welcome check on the centralization of power, in contrast to the House). The repeal passed 32 to 6 (RC#7), with three Democrats—John Keenan (D-Quincy), Becca Rausch (D-Needham), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton)—joining Republicans. 

Tax Policy 

After last 2022’s victory for the Fair Share Amendment (i.e., the 4% surtax on income over $1 million, creating dedicated funding for public education and transportation), the business community and conservatives (of both parties) have been organizing to cut taxes. 

During the FY 2024 budget debate, the Senate defeated Republican amendments to reduce the amount of designated funds raised by the Fair Share Amendment: 

  • An attempt to enable wealthy individuals to reduce their taxable income subject to the Fair Share surtax, which failed 5 to 34 with Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans (RC#38) 
  • An attempt to eliminate language to prevent Fair Share revenue from being redirected to the rainy day fund rather than being used for constitutionally protected purposes, which failed 5 to 34 with Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans (RC#45) 

During the Senate debate on its tax package, Senate Democrats took another stand to protect Fair Share revenue by voting to ensure that couples who file jointly on their federal taxes do so in Massachusetts as well (RC#51), but with Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joining Republicans. 

Democrats also defeated several Republican efforts to make the tax package more regressive 

  • Reducing the tax rate for short-term capital gains, a tax cut that goes disproportionately to the top 1% (e.g., day traders, speculators), which failed 5 to 34 (again, Finegold and Timilty) (RC#52) 
  • Raising the estate tax threshold to $5 million (which would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to such multi-million-dollar estates), which failed 5 to 34, with Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joining Timilty and Republicans (RC#53) 
  • Applying cost of living increases to the estate tax threshold of $2 million (something the Legislature has always avoided doing for wage increases), which failed 6 to 33, with Collins, Timilty, and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans (RC#54) 

However, senators also voted down a progressive amendment from Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) to ensure that Housing Development Incentive Program funds support much needed mixed-income housing by requiring developments funded under the program to have at least 20% permanently affordable housing. Only 9 senators voted in support of it (RC#50): Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett), Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston), Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester), Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham). 

The Senate tax bill passed unanimously, and although opposed to the focus on tax cuts, we chose not to score it was better than the House’s package in ways that would be important for House-Senate negotiations: 

  • The Senate bill rejected the proposed $117 million tax cut for day traders and speculators proposed by Gov. Healey and passed by the MA House in April. Notably, both chambers rejected this idea last year when Governor Baker proposed it.
  • The Senate bill rejected a $79 million corporate tax giveaway that the House back in April with no public debate.
  • The Senate bill offered a less expensive and less regressive cut to the estate tax.

The bill was also significantly less costly than the House’s bill, and it included the important loophole-closing mentioned earlier. 

However, the final tax bill included those two regressive tax cuts and a more regressive estate tax cut than the Senate proposed, even though it did include the loophole-closing. Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) was the lone no vote (RC#62). 

Gun Safety 

In February, the Senate passed its gun safety package, which would crack down on ghost guns, codify the state’s assault weapons ban, ban machine gun conversion devices, and other steps  on a party line vote of 37 to 3 (RC#114). 

In the lead-up to doing so, Senate Democrats voted down a Republican effort to send the bill back to committee 31 to 9 (RC#109), with Mike Brady(D-Brockton), Paul Mark (D-Peru), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Walter Timilty (D-MIlton) joining Republicans. They also voted down a proposal to replace the bill with a narrower, Republican-drafted bill 33 to 6 (RC#111), with Pacheco and Timilty joining Republicans.  

Supporting Our Immigrant Neighbors 

Senate Democrats defeated several xenophobic amendments from Republicans throughout the session: 

  • Eliminating the language in the FY 2024 budget to extend in-state tuition to all Massachusetts high school graduates, regardless of immigration status (RC#6, party line) 
  • Excluding arriving families from access to emergency housing assistance funding (RC#92, party line) 
  • Barring resettlement agencies from doing their work if the emergency shelter could be at capacity at an undefined future point — solving a problem via exclusion that can be solved via funding (RC#119), with Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans 
  • Determining  eligibility for emergency shelter according to the duration of residence in the commonwealth (RC#120), with Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans 

Pay Equity 

To strengthen the pay equity law passed a few sessions ago, the Senate voted 38 to 1 to pass the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, which would require salary and wage range disclosures and improve statewide data collection (RC#88). The sole NO came from Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). 

Unanimity: It Can Be Good 

The Senate also passed several noteworthy bills unanimously, all of which it passed last session only to see the House take no action: 

  • Allowing for a non-binary option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses in the state (RC#57) 
  • Making it easier for unhoused individuals to obtain a state-issued ID (#58) 
  • Making disposable menstrual products such as sanitary napkins, tampons, and underwear liners available for free in public schools, homeless shelters, and prisons in Massachusetts. (RC#89) 
  • Expanding access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by allowing pharmacists to provide a 60-day supply for those facing barriers to care. (RC#90) 

We often shy away from scoring unanimous votes, but the Senate’s persistence amidst House intransigence is worth rewarding.

The Senate unanimously passed legislation based on the Common Start bill: the EARLY ED Act, which would make the state’s Commonwealth Cares for Children (C3) operational grant program permanent, expanding eligibility for the state’s subsidy program, and boosting compensation for educators by creating a career ladder and providing scholarships and loan forgiveness (RC#116). During the debate, the Senate also voted down a Republican amendment to require a Legislative commission in the bill to study the development of a tax credit for employer-supported early education and care, a policy that has proven ineffective and underutilized in other states that have adopted it. It failed 7 to 32, garnering the support of Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Nick Collins, and Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) along with the chamber’s now-four Republicans (RC#115). 

Prison and Jail Accountability

Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent, overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit.

Take Action: Your Legislator Needs to Hear from You about the Housing Crisis

Massachusetts has a housing crisis. It’s true all across the commonwealth, and it registers as a top priority in every poll.

We know that in order to address our housing crisis, we need every tool in the toolbox. Unfortunately, because of heavy lobbying from the real estate industry, one of those vital tools is under attack: the real estate transfer fee local option.

Under Gov. Healey’s housing bill, a community could choose to impose a small fee on high-end real estate purchases to build and preserve affordable homes if this tool is important to them in preserving their community.

Has your state rep heard from you yet in support of this?

Cities and towns across MA have shown that they want to do this. And it’s not hard to see why. In Nantucket, for example, you need to be earning 7x the area median income to afford the median value home. That’s why voters, including local realtors, support the transfer fee for housing.

House Speaker Ron Mariano recently dismissed this urgency, but what that means is that state legislators are not hearing enough from the majority of voters who want to see real action on the housing crisis.

Tell your state representative to vote “yes” on the transfer fee for real estate to give municipalities an option to fund local housing solutions. It is time to give communities a choice, and a chance to preserve their hometowns for all residents – not just the wealthy.

PM in the News: Earmarks in the Senate Budget

Matt Stout and Samantha Gross, “$1.5m for a wedding venue and conference center. $250,000 for historic ships. Here’s what top Senate brass put into the budget.,” Boston Globe, May 17, 2024.

“It really is a fundamentally broken process where you have pet projects of specific legislators getting designated funding outside any kind of rationale or equitable analysis of whether or not that is a worthy use of public funds,” said Jonathan Cohn, policy director for the group Progressive Massachusetts. The approach, he said, means that earmarks are doled out “not based on need, but rather on power and proximity to power.”

PM in the News: “Are Massachusetts politics on immigration changing? Strategists, activists weigh in”

Cassandra Dumay, “Are Massachusetts politics on immigration changing? Strategists, activists weigh in,” The Sun Chronicle, May 12, 2024.

Jonathan Cohn, policy director of the activist group Progressive Massachusetts, said Democrats who choose to “appease” “the most stridently anti-immigrant voter” pose a more important threat to their party than Republican campaigning.

“Too many Democrats have adopted a conservative framing of an increased number of immigrants and refugees as being a terrible burden — rather than viewing them as people who we should feel so blessed want to live here,” Cohn said. “The bigger issue is Democrats demoralizing their own base by abandoning them than Republicans being energized.”