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.
