MPAOC Conference: Facing our Challenges in Dangerous Times

Saturday, December 3, 2022 @ 9:00 AM
Online

MPAOC virtual conference: Facing our Challenges in Dangerous Times

We live at a time characterized by numerous dire threats to justice, peace, and the very stability of our country. Among these threats are rampant militarism, galloping climate change, growing inequality, an ongoing and divisive pandemic, and the emergence of a dangerous right-wing extremist movement.

The goal of this Conference is to explore with activists and thought leaders how to address these enormous obstacles to the fulfillment of a progressive vision. 

Click here to RSVP

Speakers:

  • John Nichols, National affairs correspondent for The Nation. His most recent book is Coronavirus Criminals and Pandemic Profiteers: Accountability for Those Who Caused the Crisis.
  • Jamie Eldridge, State Senator representing the Middlesex and Worcester District.
  • Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. The seventh edition of her Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict : A Primer was published in 2018.
  • T. J. Jackson Lears, American cultural and intellectual historian with interests in comparative religious history, literature and the visual arts, folklore and folk beliefs. He is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History at Rutgers and Editor in Chief of Raritan. He is author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920.
  • Lindsay Koshgarian, Program Director for the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. She is an expert in dissecting the Federal budget including the contrast between Pentagon spending and domestic needs.
  • Jordan Berg Powers, Executive Director at Mass Alliance. In his over a decade there, he has helped elect new progressive leaders across the state, recruited progressive champions to run, and trained hundreds of grassroots organizers. Jordan is active in campaigns for saving public education, environmental justice, and a more progressive tax system for the Commonwealth.
  • Jean-Luc Pierite, President of the Board of the North American Indian Center of Boston (NAICOB). A member of the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana and originally from New Orleans, he resides in Jamaica Plain.
  • Mallory Hanora, Executive Director of Families for Justice as Healing, a Roxbury based prison abolitionist organization led by incarcerated women, formerly incarcerated women, and women with incarcerated loved ones, which works to move Massachusetts towards community based solutions rather than constructing a new women’s prison.

Sponsored by the Massachusetts Progressive Action Organizing Committee, whose constituent groups are Massachusetts Peace Action; Our Revolution Massachusetts; Progressive Massachusetts; Progressive Democrats of America; North American Indian Center of Boston; and Incorruptible Mass.

The End of the Legislative Session Was Chaotic. Here’s Where Bills Stand.

Sunlight behind the MA State House

Despite the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature is a full-time body, and that legislators have accordingly been in session since January 2021, legislators routinely push a lot of legislating off until the final months, even final days of the formal legislative session.

That formal session ends on July 31 (or, if the Legislature chooses to bend the rules of time as they did this year, early on August 1). However, the actual legislative session does not end until the day before the first Wednesday of the year, so legislators can come back at any time to pass new legislation or unfinished legislation; they just need the will to do so.

Let’s take a look at what important legislation became law in these final months, what passed only one chamber but not the other, what’s stuck in limbo, and what got stuck in various stages of the committee process.

Passed via Veto Override

Work & Family Mobility Act (H.4085, 6/9) 

  • Ensures that any qualified driver, regardless of immigration status, can obtain a driver’s license 

Passed and Signed by the Governor

VOTES Act (S.2922, 6/22)

  • Creates a permanent vote-by-mail option (and requires every voter to be mailed a vote-by-mail application)
  • Expands early voting options
  • Ensures that eligible voters who are incarcerated are able to request a mail ballot and vote
  • Shortens the voter registration cutoff period from 20 days until 10 days (but does not enact Same Day Registration as the Senate bill had)
  • Sets a deadline for that the Commonwealth to join the 30-state Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) to keep voter registration rolls up-to-date
  • See more at https://www.progressivemass.com/votes-act-june-2022/ 

CROWN Act (H.4554, 7/26)

  • Prohibits discrimination against employees, students and other individuals based on their natural or protective hairstyle (e.g., braids or knots)

Protecting Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care (H.5090, 7/29)

  • Critical protections for Bay Staters who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care
  • A requirement that insurance cover abortion and abortion-related care. The bill also ensures coverage is affordable—and not subject to cost sharing—for low income individuals
  • A requirement that Massachusetts public colleges and universities provide medication abortion at campus health centers
  • A statewide standing order for both prescription and over-the-counter emergency contraception, making no-cost insurance coverage possible for all forms of emergency contraception without delay
  • A confidential address program for reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers who too often face threats and violence for providing health care
  • Language to clarify the ROE Act and ensure pregnant people do not have to leave Massachusetts for abortion care later in pregnancy

Gun Safety Regulations (in Judicial IT bill, 8/10)

  • Requires a licensing authority, like a law enforcement official, to conduct a personal interview with anyone seeking an initial application for a license to carry a firearm
  • Bans from getting a gun license anyone subject to “a permanent or temporary harassment prevention order” or who “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others

An Act driving clean energy and offshore wind (H.5060, 8/11)
The Legislature passed a climate bill that takes steps to accelerate the transition to renewable energy (with a special but not exclusive focus on stimulating the offshore wind industry), modernize the grid, make green jobs accessible to the communities most in need, require large buildings to report energy usage, enable 10 municipalities to ban fossil fuels in new construction (provided that they actually allow construction of affordable housing), improve electric car infrastructure and affordability, and require electrification of public fleets. Although the bill was modestly amended since its passage on July 21 in response to amendments from Governor Baker, the Legislature’s final bill mostly adhered to the contours outlined here.

Cannabis Equity Bill (S.3096, 8/11)

The Legislature passed a bill to address equity in the growing legal cannabis industry in the state. The bill would direct 15% of the money in the Marijuana Regulation Fund (which is generated from the marijuana excise tax, application and licensing fees, and industry penalties) into a new Social Equity Fund, which would offer grants and loans to boost participation in the industry by populations disproportionately harmed by the drug war. It would also give the Cannabis Control Commission the authority to review and approve host community agreements as a way to combat both corruption and undue obstacles to Social Equity applicants posed. Baker signed the bill, vetoing only one small part of the bill that would have commissioned a study on how to remove obstacles to the possession and consumption of medical marijuana in K-12 schools.

Transportation Bond Bill (H.5151, 8/15)

The Legislature passed a $11.3 billion transportation bond bill (H.5151). The bond bill contained a number of noteworthy authorizations, including $6.95 million for fare-free bus pilot programs for the MBTA and Regional Transit Authorities, $200+ million for electrification of the commuter rail, $1 billion in MBTA modernization and $64 million in RTA capital investments, $275 million for the East-West Rail project, and enhanced data reporting from companies like Uber and Lyft. However, it is important to remember what a bond bill is and what it isn’t. A bond bill is an authorization of debt; much of the funds end up never spent. Note also that Baker chose to weaken the bill before signing it, sending back amendments (a) to urge the use of battery electric trains for commuter rail despite the fact that there are no battery trains in passenger service in North America yet and (b) to remove the language requiring no diesel locomotives after December 31, 2030.

Passed and Signed: Mental Health ABC Act 2.0 (S.3097, 8/16)

The Legislature passed a broadly supported comprehensive mental health care reform bill (An Act addressing barriers to care for mental health, or Mental Health ABC). The bill would do the following, among many other provisions: 

  • Mandate coverage for an annual mental health wellness exam, comparable to an annual physical
  • Provide the state with better tools to implement and enforce mental health parity laws (meaning that if insurance plans must provide equal treatment of mental health conditions, including substance abuse, as they do for other medical conditions)
  • Implement the nationwide 988 hotline to access 24/7 suicide prevention and behavioral health crisis services
  • Initiate a public awareness campaign for red flag laws and extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) that limit access to guns for people at risk of hurting themselves or others
  • Enable individuals over 26 years old who live with disabilities can remain on their parents’ health insurance

In Limbo because of Baker 

However, Baker did not sign all of the bills the Legislature passed in the final days of the session, and by taking so long to finalize their bills, the Legislature gave Baker undue leverage. He was able to veto things when legislators were already in recess or had little time to act (which, in the case of No Cost Calls, they squandered). The Legislature should come back into the session to finish their work.

  • Prison Moratorium, the five-year pause on new prison & jail construction, which was passed by both House and Senate via the infrastructure bond bill. Baker vetoed it when the Legislature already ended the session, leaving them unable to override a veto.
  • No Cost Calls, which was passed by both chambers in the budget and was sent back with an amendment by Baker to add his “dangerousness hearing” bill (which would expand pretrial detention). The House rejected it, and the Senate passed a narrowed, but still harmful version of it, and then both chambers left
  • SAPHE 2.0 Act (Statewide Accelerated Public Health for Every Community), which would create local and regional public health standards and regular state funding to health boards and was passed unanimously. Baker sent back significant amendments when the Legislature already ended the session, leaving them unable to respond. 
  • $30 million in funding for virtual meeting capacities in municipalities, which Baker vetoed in the general government infrastructure bill the Legislature passed.

In Limbo because of the Economic Development Bill 

The Legislature had been working to finalize an economic development bill, centered on rebates (which concerningly excluded the residents of the greatest needs), some progressive tax reforms, some regressive tax reforms (a massive estate tax giveaway), and funding for important programs across the state. These negotiations got sidelined by the realization that a misguided Reaganite 1986 tax law in the state could be triggered, sending automatic (regressive) tax rebates to residents. Important policies that were included in the Senate or House version of the bill are stuck in limbo, and the Legislature should come back to finish them.

  • PILOT Study (H.3083, Robinson), which would order an estimate how much municipalities are losing each year due to the tax exemption for nonprofits
  • Community Immunity Act (S.1517, Rausch), which would create statewide consistent immunization policy and provide residents throughout the Commonwealth the data necessary to prevent future outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infectious disease
  • HOMES Act (S.921, Edwards), which would create a process for sealing eviction records, which can currently be a permanent obstacle for people in attaining new housing even if they won in eviction court 

What Passed the House, But not the Senate

  • Facial Surveillance Regulations, as recommended by a commission created by the Legislature in the 2020 police reform bill (and incorporated by the House into the Judiciary IT bill: H.5076, 7/21/222) 

What Passed the Senate, But Not the House

  • Stronger child care infrastructure (S.2973, passed 7/7/22), which was lauded by the Common Start Coalition as  a significant step forward in transforming the child care system in MA, including more affordability for families, early educator raises, and stability for child care providers 
  • The Healthy Youth Act (S.2541, passed 9/23/2021), which would ensure that Massachusetts schools that offer sex education use an age-appropriate, medically accurate, and LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum (Passed 9/23/2021)
  • Menstrual Equity Bill (S.2730, passed 3/7/2022), which would make menstrual products available without cost in prisons, homeless shelters, and public schools. 
  • Civil asset forfeiture reform (S.2988, passed 6/30/2022), which would raise the legal bar that law enforcement must meet to seize and keep people’s money and property in suspected drug crimes (For more, see our write-up here.)
  • Juvenile Justice Reform (S.2987, passed 6/30/2022), which would increase opportunities for judicial diversion for youth (For more, see our write-up here.)
  • Gender X Bill (S.2540, passed 9/27/2021), which would allow for a non-binary option on birth certificates and drivers licenses in the state.

Reported out of Committee But Never Taken Up

One Fair Wage (S.1213 / H.1971): An Act requiring one fair wage (Jehlen – Farley-Bouvier / Fluker-Oakley), which would phase out the discriminatory subminimum wage for tipped workers

Wage Theft Enforcement (S.1179 / H.1959): An Act to prevent wage theft, promote employer accountability, and enhance public enforcement (DiDomenico-Donahue), which would provide the AG’s office with additional mechanisms for enforcing the Commonwealth’s wage and hour laws and subjects lead contractors to joint and severable civil liability if their subcontractors commit wage theft

Banning Mandatory Arbitration (S.1164 / H.1984): An Act relative to the defense against abuse waivers (Chandler – Gordon), which would ban mandatory arbitration in the workplace, a practice which affords employers one-sided protections such as selecting the arbitrator and holding arbitration at the employment site

Injured Workers Bill (S.1187 / H.2032): An Act to protect injured workers during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Eldridge – Nguyen), which would provide for an administrative complaint and investigation mechanism for enforcement and otherwise addresses employer misconduct that prevents workers from receiving timely medical care and benefits

Equity in Public Contracting (S.2018 / H.3166) An Act Relative to Equity in Public Contracting in Honor of Bruce C. Bolling (Chang-Diaz — Holmes), which would commit the Commonwealth’s commitment to lowering unemployment rates in distressed communities and uses both transparency and competition to help ensure projects funded by taxpayer dollars are creating local jobs and promoting workforce diversity

Wage Equity Bill (S.1196 / H.2020):  An Act relative to transparency in the Workplace (Feeney – Malia/Miranda), which would require employers of 100+ workers to publicly post annual wage data reports by race and gender to check compliance with the Pay Equity Law

Lift Kids Out of Deep Poverty (S.96 / H.199): An Act to lift kids out of deep poverty (DiDomenico – Decker) Sets a floor for cash assistance benefits at 50% of the federal poverty level, improving basic financial security for low-income families with children

Homeless Bill of Rights (S.142): An Act providing a bill of rights for people experiencing homelessness (Rausch), which would people experiencing homelessness from discrimination in housing, employment and voter registration; removes archaic and offensive laws about “vagabonds,” “vagrants,” and “tramps” from the General Laws

CHAPA Housing Production Bill (S.871 / H.1448: An Act relative to housing production (Crighton – Vargas/Honan), which would establish a statewide goal of producing 427,000 new units of housing in Massachusetts by 2040, with more than one quarter meeting the definition of affordable housing

Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (S.890 / H.1426): An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal (Jehlen – Livingstone/Consalvo)l which would provide tenants of small, medium, and large multifamily properties with right of first refusal when the owner plans to put a building on the market, provided that they can make a bona fide offer to match the asking price in a reasonable period of time

Visitation Rights (S.1550 / H.2440): An Act to strengthen family and community connection with incarcerated people (Chang-Diaz – Decker), which would strengthen and secure the rights of prisoners to receive visits and maintain relationships with their friends and loved ones without unnecessary interference from the state

Safe Communities Act (S.1579 / H.2418): An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents (Eldridge – Balser/Miranda), which would limit local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, and ensures due process protections

Access to Medication Treatment (S.1296 / H.2067): An Act regarding consistent care for addiction rooted in evidence  (Keenan – Balser), which would require prisons and jails to provide medication for opioid disorders

Media Access in Prisons (S.1638 / H.2513): An Act relative to media access and transparency in correctional facilities (Rausch – Decker/Rogers), which would require correctional facilities to guarantee access of media representatives to incarcerated individuals

We the People Act (S.2402 / H.3658): Resolutions for a United States Constitutional Amendment and a limited amendment proposing convention (Eldridge – Gentile/Vieira), which calls for an Article V convention to propose an amendment to undo Citizens United and authorize campaign finance regulation

Empowering Parents to Run (S.475  / H.769):  An Act supporting parents running for public office (Jehlen – Connolly/Meschino), which would allow parents running for elected office to expense child care to their campaign accounts

Remote Access to Public Meetings (S.2082 / H.3152): An Act to modernize participation in public meetings (Lewis – Garlick), which would guarantee that remote access to public meetings outlives the pandemic by codifying Governor Baker’s March 2020 emergency order in statute (Rather than making this permanent, the Legislature extended the rules only to next March)

Regional Transportation Ballot Initiatives (S.1899 / H.2978): An Act relative to transportation ballot initiatives (Lesser – Lewis), which would allow municipalities to use ballot initiatives to raise revenue (increase a tax of their choice, sales, hotel, gas, etc.) that would be used specifically for identified regional transportation projects, something many other states already allow

Native Mascots Ban (S.294 / H.581):  An Act prohibiting the use of Native American mascots by public schools in the Commonwealth (Comerford – Elugardo/Gouveia), which would prohibit the use of Native American mascots in Massachusetts public schools.

Data Equity Bill (H.3115): An Act ensuring equitable representation in the Commonwealth (Chan), which would require that government agencies that collect demographic information disaggregate by country of origin in order to better identify community needs and inequalities between communities.

Indigenous People’s Day (S.2027 / H.3191): An Act establishing an Indigenous People’s Day (Comerford – Lewis / Fluker Oakley), which would recognize the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day and recommends appropriate incorporation into school curricula

Left in Committee, Sent to Study, or Voted Down 

Medicare for All (S.766 / H.1267): An Act establishing medicare for all in Massachusetts (Eldridge – Sabadosa/Garlick), which would establish a single payer system, in which the state provides health care to all residents as a right

HERO Act (S.1853 / H.2890): An Act providing for climate change adaptation infrastructure and affordable housing investments in the Commonwealth (Eldridge – Elugardo), which would double the deeds excise tax on home sales to provide a funding stream for the Global Warming Solutions Fund, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and the Housing Preservation and Stabilization Fund

Real Estate Transfer Fee (S.868 / H.1377): An Act empowering cities and towns to support affordable housing with a fee on certain real estate transactions (Comerford – Connolly), which would enable cities and towns to assess a fee of 0.5-2% on residential and commercial real estate transactions, with the funds allocated to affordable housing trust funds

Banning Exclusionary Zoning (S.867 / H.1373): An Act promoting fair housing by preventing discrimination against affordable housing (Chang-Diaz — Barber)

HOMES for All (S.866 / H.1799): An Act Relative to Homes for All (Chang-Diaz – Miranda), which would require that any person having the right to rent, lease, or sell properties can not discriminate against any person for sealed criminal records, misdemeanors that occurred over three years ago or that did not result in convictions

COVID Housing Equity Bill (S.891 / H.1434): An Act to prevent COVID-19 evictions and foreclosures and promote an equitable housing recovery (Jehlen – Moran/Honan), which would require landlords to cooperate with rental assistance programs before pursuing eviction; protects the most vulnerable tenants from forced removal for COVID-19 debts; pauses no-fault evictions during the state of emergency and recovery period; pauses foreclosures and requires forbearance based on federal policies; and requires the state to adopt equitable principles, flexibility, and simplification in the distribution of rental assistance funds

Tenant Protection Act (S.886 / H.1378): An Act enabling local options for tenant protections (Gomez – Connolly/Elugardo), which would enable cities and towns to pass tenant protections such as rent stabilization laws, just cause eviction, limitations on condo conversions, etc.

Right to Counsel (S.874 / H.1436): An Act promoting housing stability and homelessness prevention in Massachusetts (DiDomenico – Day / D. Rogers), which would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and owner-occupants in eviction proceedings

Paid Leave for Municipal Workers (S.1160 / H.2044): An Act to ensure paid family and medical leave benefits for municipal employees (Brady – D. Rogers), which would extend the 2018 paid family and medical leave law to cover municipal employees

Dignity At Work Act (S.1185 / H.3843): An Act addressing dignity at work without regard to protected class status / Dignity At Work Act (DiZoglio/Lewis), which would create a legal claim for bullying targets who can establish they were subjected to malicious, health-harming behavior in the workplace

Debt-free higher ed (S.829 / H.1339): An Act to guarantee debt-free public higher education (Eldridge – Higgins), which would create a higher education system where every Massachusetts resident has a right to attend any public college or university free of tuition and fees

Endowment Tax (S.836  / H.2931): An Act to support educational opportunity for all (Gomez – Higgins/Barber), which would impose an excise tax on university endowments greater than $1 billion to create a fund subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth

PILOT Funding (S.1874 / H.3080): An Act relative to payments in lieu of taxation by organizations exempt from the property tax (Gomez – Uyterhoeven), which would enable cities and towns with nonprofits owning total property valued at or above $15 million to require them to make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) equal to 25% what they would have owed without the exemption

CHERISH Act (S.824 / H.1325): An Act committing to higher education the resources to Insure a strong and healthy public higher education system / CHERISH Act (Comerford – Garballey/Mark), which would commit the Commonwealth to funding public higher education at 2001 levels, adjusted for inflation

CARES Act (S.365 / H.584): An Act relative to anti-racism, equity and justice in education (Lewis / Elugardo – Uyterhoeven), which would create a commission to develop curriculum materials with a social justice perspective of dismantling racism and ensure that ethnic sftudies, racial justice, decolonizing history, and unlearning racism is taught at all grade levels using a critical approach and pedagogy that is age-appropriate (The bill was folded into an Educator Diversity bill, but none of the text was incorporated into the bill it was folded into…)

Safer Schools (S.286 / H.648): An Act relative to safer schools (Chandler – Khan), which would support schools that want to transition their school safety program to one that does not rely on a school police model and require greater transparency on the impact of school policing on students’ discipline and information sharing with law enforcement agencies

Decriminalizing Consensual Sex (S.1126 / H.1726): An Act relative to consensual adolescent sexual activity (Rausch – Lewis), which would decriminalize consensual activity between teenagers close in age

Curbing Solitary Confinement (S.1578 / H.2504): An Act to provide criminal justice reform protections to all prisoners in segregated confinement (Eldridge – Miranda), which would expand the rights of those in solitary confinement, including requiring treatment for those with serious mental illness and monthly reviews for eligibility to return to the general population

Ending Life without Parole (H.1797): An Act to reduce mass incarceration (Livingstone/Miranda), which would repeal mandatory sentences of life without parole, which have strong racial biases and have been deemed human rights violations by international courts

Raising the Age (S.920 / H.1826): An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults (Boncore-O’Day/Khan), which would raise the age of criminal majority to 21, allowing offending youth to have better access to treatment and educational services and thereby reducing recidivism

Justice Reinvestment Act (S.1815 / H.2008): An Act to reinvest justice and opportunity in communities affected by incarceration (Chang-Diaz — Keefe), which would establish a training and workforce fund that would reinvest the savings from lower incarceration into neighborhoods most affected by the criminal justice system

Eliminating Mandatory Minimums (S.977 / H.1910): An Act to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to drug offenses (Creem – Uyterhoeven), which would repeal mandatory minimum sentences for opioid-related offenses, which were left in or newly created by the 2018 criminal justice reform bill

Cannabis Expungement (S.1048 / H.1904): An Act ensuring equitable access to cannabis related expungement (Gomez – Comerford / Tyler – Lewis)w, which would permit a person eligible for expungement of a decriminalized offense for possession of marijuana to expunge the charge without a hearing and permits a person who is incarcerated due to a possession of marijuana that is now decriminalized to seek release from incarceration

COVID Decarceration (H.1868): An Act regarding decarceration and COVID-19 (Sabadosa), which would direct the Department of Corrections and Sheriffs to to release people from incarceration who pose no immediate threat to the community so that the virus does not spread quickly in our jails and prisons, and in turn, to staff, families, and our health care system

Curbing Police Militarization (S.1539 / H.2479):  An Act relative to military grade controlled property (Barrett – Keefe/Lewis), which would require a vote by a local legislative body before a municipality can acquire military equipment

Banning Tear Gas (S.1637 / H.4150): An Act banning the use of tear gas by law enforcement (Rausch – Connolly/Lewis), which would ban the use of tear gas and other chemical weapons by law enforcement

Limiting Qualified Immunity (S.945): An Act to Allow Restitution for Civil Rights Violations (Chang-Diaz), which would prevent  qualified immunity from being used as a shield against lawsuits for violations of a person’s civil rights

Updating the MA Civil Rights Act (S.946): An Act to Secure Civil Rights through the Courts of the Commonwealth (Chang-Diaz), which would remove a narrow limitation in the MA Civil Rights Act in order to allow people to seek recourse through the courts for any violation of their civil rights

Vote16 (S.448):  An Act ensuring municipal participation of the widest eligible range (Chandler), which would enable cities and towns in Massachusetts to lower the voting age for municipal elections to 16 to encourage good voting habits early

All Resident Voting (S.465 / H.770): An Act extending voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizen voters of the commonwealth (Eldridge — Connolly/Elugardo), which would allow  non-citizens to vote in municipal elections

Local Option RCV (S.485 / H.825): An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections (Rausch – Pignatelli), which would enable cities and towns in Massachusetts to adopt ranked choice voting for municipal elections

Expanding Public Records Law (S.2107, S.2048, & H.3239):  An Act expanding the public records law (Rausch) & An act to apply the public records law to the legislature (Eldridge – Uyterhoeven), which would remove the full exemption that the Governor and Legislature have from public records law

IPCC by 2030 (S.2170 / H.3372): An Act investing in a prosperous, clean commonwealth by 2030 (Eldridge – Uyterhoeven), which would commit MA to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity and net zero carbon emissions across all sectors by 2030

Rooftop Solar (S.2165 / H.3278): An Act Increasing Solar Rooftop Energy / An Act establishing solar neighborhoods (Eldridge – Lewis/Connolly), which would require that all new construction be built to accommodate solar energy installations

Building Justice with Jobs (S.2226 / H.3365): An Act providing for building justice with jobs (Pacheco – Robinson/LeBoeuf), which would put thousands of MA residents to work retrofitting 100,000 homes each year to improve energy efficiency and health outcomes, and reduce utility bills and carbon emissions

Environmental Justice Protections (S.996 / H.1792): An Act to create access to justice (DiDomenico — Meschino/Madaro), which would increase access to legal remedies for communities disproportionately impacted by environmental burdens, e.g., by eliminating the legal burden of proving that programs or activities with a disparate impact are motivated by discriminatory intent

Siting Reform (S.2135 / H.3336): An Act Relative to Energy Facilities Siting Reform to Address Environmental Justice, Climate, and Public Health (Boncore – Madaro), which would add environmental justice, public health, and climate to the factors that the Energy Facilities Siting Board must consider in its deliberations; requires community engagement prior to filing for environmental or Siting Board review of a petition to construct an oil, gas, or substation facility; among other steps

100% Clean Act (S.2136 / H.3288): An Act transitioning Massachusetts to clean electricity, heating and transportation (Boncore – Decker/Garballey), which would transition Massachusetts to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and 100 percent clean heating and transportation by 2045

State Infrastructure Bank (S.665 / H.1223): An Act establishing the Massachusetts infrastructure bank (Eldridge – Connolly/Elugardo), which would create a public bank, capitalized by the Commonwealth and offering financing at lower cost to Mass cities and towns, increasing municipal capacity for making infrastructure improvements

The Fight for Reproductive Justice Isn’t Over

We’ve seen it coming for months (years, even), but it was still a gut punch to see the Supreme Court vote 6-3 today to overturn Roe vs. Wade, ending protections for legal abortion in the United States and taking our country back decades.

Here in Massachusetts, abortion is still legal, thanks to strong laws we have on the books (a thank-you especially to everyone who fought for the ROE Act two years ago).

But barriers to care—including exorbitant costs, complicated insurance coverage, and under-resourced providers—still exist, especially for low-income communities, communities of color, and immigrant communities.

And Massachusetts can do more for those who might need to leave other states to obtain abortion access. The Senate budget included strong language to protect reproductive health care providers who serve out-of-state residents, and it’s vital that that stay in.

Our allies at the Mass Beyond Roe Coalition (spearheaded by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Reproductive Equity Now) laid out a comprehensive agenda for reproductive justice. You can read about it — and get ready to advocate for it — here: https://massbeyondroe.com/.

As abortion access has always been most difficult for those with the least resources, please consider donating to one of the Commonwealth’s abortion funds:

Eastern Mass Abortion Fund: https://emafund.org/

Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts: https://arfwm.org/

The Jane Fund: https://www.janefund.org/

Progressive Massachusetts Statement of Support for Boston Starbucks Workers Organizing a Union with Workers’ United — SEIU

Progressive Massachusetts stands in solidarity with the Boston area Starbucks baristas who are joining together and standing up for their right as workers to form a union.

Our founding belief is that we all do better when we all do better. Labor unions serve as powerful embodiments of that ethos, providing workers with a greater voice and greater economic security through collective agency.

We call upon Starbucks management to accept their workers’ decision to unionize and to refrain from union-busting tactics that pressure workers to vote No. Starbucks has gained a reputation as a socially responsible company, and we ask management to live up to their professed ethos and treat workers asking for a union with respect and dignity, not coercion and retaliation.

A Valentine’s Day Poem and Call to Action

No New Womens Prison

From Progressive Watertown member Eileen Ryan

For me,
Accountability is Action –
So, take a fraction
Of your time
To learn what is not fine.
Take a stand
And address those in power and make them understand
That all injustice is intertwined.

“Justice is What Love Looks Like in Public.”
This is what Cornel West Said
And why I’ll be dressed in red
On Valentine’s Day
Standing outside the golden-domed State House
In collective action with those who want to show the way,
And be a beacon to help to sway
Those who write the policies.
To teach the leaders that radical love
Must come above
All other reasons why
Leaders guide.

We are done with the seasons of delay.
We will carry our signs that say
We cannot continue on this way.
Without LOVE for all:
Those coming from other places
People of different races
We need to welcome all faces
And face the consequences of income inequality
Of healthcare and education disparity
Housing insecurity, climate change,
Misogyny, and more.
We need to leave the system that pushes us
To consume more and more, and leaves us feeling spiritually poor.
Let us listen to Rebecca Cokley and Brittany Packnett Cunningham and “Spend Our Privilege” whatever that may be:
Health, or wealth, education, sexual orientation, citizenship of this nation,
The privilege of your race, your gender, your abled-bodied personhood
Take that privilege and spend it for the greater good.

It is not the role of the oppressed to address
The injustice that keeps them and us
Hushed. Voices unheard must rise up aided by those who can
Those who can do – Is that you?
It is I and it is why
I keep on writing, calling, showing up.
There is so much to do.

We need systemic change
We need an economy of gift exchange,
Not an economy of extraction, and exploitation, the system that
Created Mass incarceration.

Come to the world with gratitude
Welcome enough,
Stop buying all that stuff.
Know you are enough, you understand.
Lend your heart and hands.
In the words of Melnea Cass:
“If you can’t do great things
Do small things in a great way”
And have a Happy Valentine’s Day.

Why Your State Rep Opposed Election Day Registration…and Why They’re Wrong

VOTE buttons

On Thursday, during the floor debate on the MA House’s weakened version of the VOTES Act, the MA House voted to block the inclusion of Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration in the underlying bill.

President Biden, Senator Warren, Senator Markey, all 9 of our US Representatives, and all 37 Democratic members of the MA Senate support allowing eligible voters to register or update their registration at the polls, and yet the MA House remains undemocratically opposed.

During that floor debate, several House Democrats—Assistant Majority Leader Mike Moran (D-Brighton), Rep. Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough), Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham), Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy), Rep. Kip Diggs (D-Barnstable), Rep. Joan Meschino (D-Hull), Rep. Dan Hunt (D-Dorchester), and Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston)—spoke against implementing Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration (terms often used interchangeably, but in the context different as to whether or not the early voting period would be included for at-the-polls registration), delivering remarks filled with specious arguments and factual inaccuracies. Their colleagues have given similarly specious defenses of the vote to constituents afterwards. Let’s go through them.

Bad Argument #1: We are already a leader on voting rights.

“When I think about what we have done — pre-registration, where we allow our young kids ages 16 and 17 to pre-register so they automatically are registered — you can go online right now. We require the secretary of state to have an online portal where you can register to vote online. It takes approximately 12 to 15 minutes to register to vote online on your phone. If you’re moving and you need to change your address or change your voter registration address, you can do it online. You can follow your ballot online, much like FedEx lets you track your package. We’ve also done election day audits and early voting by mail. All of these are part of the package we should be very proud to talk about in this Legislature. The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters.” (MORAN)

“We have enacted the most sweeping voter protection laws in the nation. No one is more frustrated about what is going on in this country and the attacks on voting.” (GREGOIRE)


“Based on some of the debate some might conclude we’re sitting in the Georgia State House. We seem to be losing sight of the gains we are making. Our constituents expect us to determine what’s best for here, not other states. Here in Massachusetts, we lead the country in making the franchise available and accessible to all eligible voters. No other state offers pre-registration, mail-in voting, outdoor ballot boxes, automatic and online registration and online updating.” (DAY)

“The gentleman from Stoneham was saying some say this is voter suppression. I say give me a break. Massachusetts has been a leader. I think our work today proves that.” (HUNT)

Massachusetts Democrats often like to describe our state as a leader in small “d” democracy, but it’s a claim in desperate need of a reality check. Massachusetts only began allowing early voting, pre-registration, and online registration after the election reform package in 2014 (we were a late adopter). Massachusetts was not the first state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration; we were the 14th. Our 20-day voter registration cutoff puts us to the right of most states. Eight states mail every eligible voter a ballot, going even further than the mail-in voting reforms discussed in Massachusetts (which, to be clear, have lapsed and which did not exist before 2020).

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Vermont, and Washington have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, and all-mail elections (with the equivalent of in-person early voting with the drop-off centers). DC, Illinois, Maryland, and Michigan have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, in-person early voting, and no-excuse absentee voting. So our current laws, or even the bill passed by the House, do not make us a leader.

But what if we were? What if our election laws were the best in the country? Simply “being better than other states” is not a sufficient benchmark; the question is always whether we are doing all that we can. And we’re not.

Bad Argument #2: It is a solution in search of a problem.

“The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters. We have an opt out system, so when you engage with the Registry of Motor Vehicles or other agencies, you have to tell them you don’t want to be registered. I can tell you when we passed that vote, I won’t divulge names, one of the advocacy groups said to me, “You’re making it very, very challenging for us to make the case for same day voter registration.” I agreed with her then, but I think we have something to do in that direction, and that is what this further amendment is about.” (MORAN)

“I rise in support of the further amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the underlying proposals are solutions looking for problems. We do not have a voter registration problem, we have a perception problem here. This past November, in the election, that was historic, only 28.9 percent of registered voters cast a ballot. In the last municipal election before COVID in Marlborough, the turnout was 25 percent… However, enacting solutions to non-existent problems does nothing to change the national discourse. It creates issues and opens us to unprecedented criticism.”  (GREGOIRE)

People move, and that includes moving close to Election Day. Especially when our state primary is so close to a major move-in day in Boston (i.e., September 1). The act of moving close to Election Day, or even being evicted close to Election Day, can lead to disenfranchisement if people are far away from their old polling location, and that is an injustice.

Moreover, these arguments are ignorant of the many stresses that working-class people face: planning more than 20 days (or even 10 days) in advance can be difficult for those balancing family commitments and multiple jobs with erratic work schedules, not to mention an array of bills and other responsibilities. Missing deadlines is common (the legislature does it all the time), and managing a deadline that far in advance can be difficult for those with ADHD (one Election Day is easier to get a handle of than the many steps that need to be juggled prior). None of that should make someone less worthy of participation.

Imagine as well how likely of a scenario it could be that someone thought they had registered but, indeed, hadn’t (they already get to fill out a provisional ballot, so why not let them register? ) Or imagine if someone’s pre-marriage or pre-divorce name, or deadname, were the one on the rolls, differing from what they use now and what their ID shows. Or, since poll workers are human, imagine if there was a clerical error in the books. Why should none of this be able to be fixed?

Automatic Voter Registration is great, but it will never capture everyone, both for the reasons stated above and for the fact that not everyone would be interfacing with a designated agency (not everyone has a license!).

That legislators would not see a need for Election Day Registration shows that they are not talking with their constituents with the greatest need. And that’s a problem.

Bad Argument #3: It doesn’t even lead to any demonstrable increases in turnout.

“To the contrary of the lady before me, I found the National Conference of State Legislatures, research from them has concluded that there is no demonstrable increase in voter participation in states that have same day or election day registration.” (GREGOIRE)

From the very website referenced: “There is strong evidence that same-day and Election Day registration increases voter turnout, but the extent of the impact is difficult to conclude. Immediately following the implementation of SDR, states usually see a boost in voter numbers. SDR states also tend to outperform other states in terms of turnout percentages. Many states that have implemented SDR have historically produced higher voter numbers, making changes hard to gauge. Multiple studies place the effect between an increase of 3% to 7%, with an average of a 5% increase.”

Bad Argument #4: We haven’t done the research, and we don’t know the cost and the impact. We need to study this.

“Now we come to the further amendment. The further amendment would call on the secretary of state to create a report. One of the things that having some institutional knowledge gives you is you have some sense of where this comes and where this is going. For years, it was something we talked about, it was debated in bills, but it wasn’t something that we really took in a serious way and did any real prudent research on.” (MORAN)

“When you’re talking about paying for same-day voter registration or the mechanisms you need to put in place and what that means to 351 cities and towns that range in size from 89, which is Gosnell, to Boston, it means very different things to very different cities and towns. What this report would hopefully do is identify some of those challenges that we would have.” (MORAN)

“I think it’s important to get it right and reject the argument this is suppression. It’s not a study in procedure only. It’s a true study. We have 351 cities and towns because when they were founded, individuals in one town got fed up with government, went to the next plot of land and started over. I think it’s important to spend some time and get down to the facts and get it right. The argument that this is voter suppression is not unlike Mona Lisa Vito. It does not hold water.” (HUNT)

The fact that the House has done no research on this issue, if true, is damning. The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on the VOTES Act in May of last year. If cost were a genuine concern, the Committee had ample time to investigate that question. Why does it exist if not to perform due diligence on bills?

Moreover, Same Day Registration has been filed each session at least going back to the 2000s, and it was voted on by the MA Senate in 2007 and 2014 (in both cases, the House refused to take it up). Why did the Joint Committee on Election Laws never collect such desired information in the hearings or meetings in the past? The only logical conclusion is that they never wanted to do it, and that they still don’t.

A “study” that has no deadline and no funding is not a study. Sending a bill or amendment to “study” is a common procedural trick in the Legislature to avoid having to formally vote yes or no. It is done all the time. The House routinely uses “further amendments” (which send an amendment to study) to nullify Republican messaging amendments that Democratic members are afraid to vote on. It gives people the ability to deflect from criticism of having opposed the thing itself: they didn’t oppose it; they just asked for a study. It is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

And—before I move on—Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, our top elections official, was quite clear that we don’t need a study to make this happen; we can and should just do it.

Bad Argument #5: The clerks oppose it.

“I had a chat with the clerk with the city of Marlborough and his assertion was that if we implement same day or election day voting in addition to codifying emergency measures, the additional burden would be a logistical nightmare he was unsure of how it would work.” (GREGOIRE)

“A lot has been said today about clerks. Yes, we do read every single thing you send us. Reading the letters and the communications from the clerk and speaking with the women, the clerks, in my communities, they actually share our commitment to increasing voter access and engaging voters. These women are trained and knowledgeable in every facet of elections, including the parts you don’t see. They are committed to ensuring integrity, making sure it is a smooth easy process. They do a fantastic job. If they are the ones reaching out and asking us to just take a small pause, I think we owe it to them to listen to the people who do this work. I’m asking you to join me in supporting the further amendment.” (MESCHINO)

“In speaking with the clerks in my district, same day registration would be an overwhelming task to add to what is already a daunting process.” (LANATRA)

To the contrary, the Town Clerks’ Association expressed support for Election Day Registration (see their letter here). They disagreed with allowing voters to register at the polls during early voting. We can debate whether or not their opposition has merit (it doesn’t; other states have handled it fine), but the legislators are clearly disingenuous in invoking clerks to cover for themselves.

Bad Argument #6: This would be burdensome for staffing.

“In our caucus earlier, the gentlelady from Gloucester brought up some of the staffing issues and staffing levels that would have to happen in the state to do this. Also brought up was training people to know how to do this correctly. There’s more than 2,000 precincts in Massachusetts and approximately 1,220 polling locations, and there are 391 early voting locations. All of those would need to be looked at to see how they could appropriately carry out the process of same-day voter registration. In many of those locations, they’ve never even considered it.” (MORAN)

“Other issues we need to consider: bilingual residence. How many additional staff do we need across the commonwealth to make sure those people coming in have their voices heard?” (MORAN)

“Those who spend quite a bit of time at polling locations know that there is a challenge regarding staffing election days. The expansion of early voting prompted a lot of questions about staffing. Challenges were met and overcome but it took some time. The same issue applies to linguistic access to polling places, people that you can find on election day to work polls, to talk to people who don’t speak English to help them to vote. I want to have a system where no one is disenfranchised or one that makes people feel small when they have the opportunity to cast a vote.” (CHAN)

If legislators had good faith concerns about staffing, they would have asked for an analysis last year or years prior and made the necessary appropriation. The feigned concern for overworked small towns is undermined by the fact that the House made early voting requirements more burdensome for small municipalities than the Senate did (see the chart below). Having more early voting hours is, obviously, better than having fewer ones, but it demonstrates that staffing is not a genuine concern.

Furthermore, our poll workers, on whom our democracy depends, have to prepare for full turnout every election. We never get close to that unfortunately; turnout more than 50% is often deemed impressive. But what that means is that going into Election Day, we need to assume that everyone who has not yet voted by mail or voted early could show up to vote. The additional voters that EDR could turn out will be small in comparison to that (although meaningful in terms of election results).

Bad Argument #7: We do not have the technology.

“Internet accessibility was brought up by the gentleman from Quincy. There are parts of this commonwealth we have yet to get appropriate access. Are we going to have a closed system, where only clerks are limited to using that system? Or is it going to be held in the cloud? These are lots of challenging things we’ve never really thought about when it comes to same-day voter registration.” (MORAN)

“We do not have a plan before us to equip them with technology and access to the internets [sic] they would need to implement these proposals. We do not have a sense of what it would cost. Our clerks describe a normal election day, charitably, as a nonstop fire drill, sometimes ending days later. Clerks have not been provided with information about these changes. This amendment would do just that. You want same day or election-day voting? Let’s figure it out. That’s what this amendment does. As enshrined in this bill voters may register up to the day before.” (DAY)

Maine has had Election Day Registration since the 1970s, and New Hampshire has since the 1990s. We are no less technologically advanced. It is not a question of technology; it is a question of political will.

Moreover, the small towns in Massachusetts that have bad Internet access (digital inequities are real) are places where voting likely occurs at one location: their city hall—a place that will have decent Internet access. (Additionally, Rep. Day’s comment that “voters may register up to the day before” is factually untrue; the underlying bill only narrows the cutoff period to ten days.)

Bad Argument #8: What if it leads to more people voting in a pandemic?

“What about queuing in line, where there are many people who want to vote but the facility has a queue that can’t build up? What about COVID? What about the next variant? How serious is that going to be? We all took that vote last year. Our clerks and the people that administer our elections are essential workers to us. These are things that we have not really fleshed out or considered when thinking about same-day voter registration.” (MORAN)

First of all, this frames higher turnout as an inherently bad thing, a disappointing thing to hear from an elected.

Second of all, see the comments about staffing earlier.

Third, isn’t the very purpose of mail-in voting and early voting to spread out when voting occurs to avoid lines? This bill is creating less work on the day of by doing so.

Bad Argument #9: People should have to register in advance; it’s a vital step of responsibility and a part of political education.

“It is a privilege and it comes with responsibilities and efforts in registration, in a timely way. We agree that they are benchmarks of our democracy. Forward thinking people of all races walked over the trenches in the South to get here to vote. I am a professional boxer but to have to fight on same day voting is a bit much. I will fight for anyone in the state to vote but I feel that they have to register in time. They have from now until 10 days before our voting day. And then we can give 10 days to mail in or walk in to vote. We have plenty of time to vote and that is the best way to do it.” (Diggs)

“I have a different perspective as a person who in his 20s stood on street corners to register voters. This was some 25 or so years ago today. And in Quincy at the time it was predominantly Chinese and people of color. We had to engage them one on one. I didn’t do this sitting at a fair, it was a direct approach for engagement. Voter education is a large part of voter registration and the need to explain why it is important to register. This is very time consuming. Since my days of registering people in person, new ways have come up. The ability to vote online which at the time websites were not used that much back then, but it is very commonplace now. I never thought that we would have automatic voter registration through the RMV. There are many new ways to cross different barriers. I am concerned about the impact on the underlying amendment because the engagement of registering to vote is a one on one experience. To have the linguistic ability present at the polls to explain to people how to manage a ballot, how to register is important.” (CHAN)

To some extent, the response is the same in #2 about the need that Election Day Registration fills, especially among BIPOC communities, working-class communities, immigrant communities, young people, and renters.

But both of these comments ignore the simple fact that figuring out that an election is happening, finding your polling place, and doing some research on candidates—all things that people who show up at the polls have done—is a demonstration of the very responsibility and political education that they are demanding. To Rep. Chan’s remarks, the work of civic engagement is year-round, and that reality is not an excuse for turning anyone away from the polls.

Bad Argument #10: This would allow voter fraud.

“From my conversation with constituents, there is a sense that same day or election day voting could give a fog of potential nefariousness. I have faith in our clerks and the secretary to have fair elections but I do have concerns over that sentiment, which I believe is false. I’ve heard from constituents who are looking for this underlying amendment and numerous who have great concern.” (HUNT)

It should be beneath any Democrat, and any elected official, to dignify voter fraud myths that have been debunked time and time again and are only ever invoked as a justification for racist and exclusionary policies.

Bad Argument #11: We didn’t have a veto-proof (two-thirds majority) for Election Day Registration, and Baker would have vetoed it.

Several state reps have said this in response to constituents, arguing that they themselves don’t oppose Election Day Registration but that the votes aren’t there in the caucus and they wanted to do something. None of them are willing to name the colleagues that are the roadblocks; they just seek to absolve themselves of all blame.

It is unclear why a study with no funding and no deadline that is never intended to actually happen is the solution to a political question. Given the centralization of power in the House, if the votes are wanted for something, the votes are typically corralled one way or another (when one is in charge, one has many tools at one’s disposal). Framing a fake study as a “consensus, second-best outcome” is an insult to the intelligence of voters, and it also conveniently ignores how many of the people who voted for this study are vehement opponents of Election Day Registration (indeed, almost every Republican voted for it, with the only ones opposing it doing it because they thought even a study was too much).

A Democratic supermajority should not lower its ambitions to cater to a Republican governor, especially now.

Bad Argument #12: If we allowed people to register to vote on Election Day, then people in my district I don’t know—such as college students, recent graduates, renters, working-class people, immigrants, members of BIPOC communities, etc.—might show up to vote and not for me.

No one said this out loud, but it’s the dominant reason why many are opposed. And if they want people not to show up to vote for someone else, they should do the work of engaging with their constituents and welcoming new ones. Indeed, isn’t that what representative democracy is about?

Child Care Is Essential Infrastructure

Common Start

By Jan Soma, Progressive Needham

The Common Start Coalition hosted a Round Table Event January 24th to underscore the importance of the Common Start bill (S.362/H.605), a comprehensive, innovative bill that will transform the lives of many families as well as the Massachusetts economy by guaranteeing affordable, high-quality child care and early education for all. Check out this visual to see how many benefits radiate out of this one piece of legislation.

Colin Jones from Mass. Budget and Policy Center gave an overview of recent federal funding. The upshot is that federal relief has not offset the total losses of our child care system during the pandemic.  More federal funds are expected but they will constitute a bridge for a couple years until we can develop state funding for the universal child care program.

Representative Katherine Clark spoke of child care as a PUBLIC GOOD. She has been a consistent supporter of accessible child care even before being elected to the U.S. House of Representative in 2013. She explained that lack of available child care costs the U.S. economy $57 billion dollars a year because 30% of families can’t find care for their children. Other developed countries spend about $14,000 per year to subsidize child care while the U.S. spends about $500. She emphasized that our legislators are continuing to fight for adequate funding for child care initiatives.

Parents and educators provided real stories about the realities they face these days. The additional stresses of the pandemic make their needs especially clear.

Naomi Meyer, an attorney at Greater Boston legal Services who helped develop and write this bill, explained that it may take five years to fully implement the legislation but would start by covering the families with the lowest incomes first.

Over the past few years, the Common Start Coalition has done an impressive job of bringing together stakeholders across the state to work on the bill. As Meyer explained, we can’t solve one piece of the puzzle by itself: we will only succeed by bringing parents, teachers, providers, and community members together around a shared vision.

‘Twas the Night Fore the New Year

Twas the night ‘fore the new year
And all through the state,
Not a bus or train was stirring.
They don’t run very late.

The college students were back home,
Their debt burden growing
Like the size of Ole Frosty
When it’s heavily snowing.

The ice on the roads
Was hiding their crumbling.
Like the gusts of the wind
Quelled the old bridge’s mumbling.

The teachers were hoping
For an HVAC or two
To flow some clean air
Through a building not new.

The students were dreaming
Of smaller class sizes,
Because more focused attention
Can be better than prizes.

The top one percent had naught
To want or to fear.
Their needs were all met.
They are every year.

Their wealth had gone up
Like a shining bright star,
The distance ‘tween them and the rest
Was getting quite far.

If we want a true common wealth,
We need to invest.
When the rich pay what’s fair,
we can all get the best.

We don’t need three ghosts
To give Old Scrooge a big scare.
Just show up November 8th
And vote YES on Fair Share.

Redistricting 2021

Curious what your new districts will look like when you go to the polls next year? Here’s an overview of how MA’s legislative districts changed. If you don’t see your district on here, that means it didn’t change.

NOTE: All precinct numbering in the below spreadsheets refer to the precincts as they existed 2012-2021. Go here for the new numbering.