In only two states — Vermont and Maine — individuals with felony convictions never lose their right to vote.
Massachusetts used to be another, until that right was taken away twenty years ago by both state legislators and the public in a racist backlash to political organizing by incarcerated individuals.
Full enfranchisement provides individuals with a link to the outside community that facilitates the goals of rehabilitation and reentry and recognizes that the right to vote is sacred and should not be taken away when the flaws and biases of our criminal legal system are so clear.
Over the past few years, activists have been pushing for Massachusetts to restore voting rights, but the Legislature, given an opportunity to do so last week, instead voted down a proposal — and did so in secret.
Because the House and Senate have yet to agree on a set of Joint Rules (including how and whether to post committee votes), no vote was posted.
By hiding how they voted, the MA legislature continues endorsing and affirming our racist history of disenfranchisement without accountability to the public – a dual loss for democracy.
So what’s next?
Although the Legislature gave an adverse report to the full goal of voting rights restoration, there is still important work to be done to ensure that those who do still have the right to vote are able to exercise that right.
Citizens who are incarcerated on non-felony convictions or held on pre-trial convictions retain their right to vote. But without a system in place to provide these citizens with access to ballot applications, voting materials, and deadlines, that right is rendered meaningless.
This leads to a de facto disenfranchisement of as many as 10,000 incarcerated citizens.
Sen. Adam Hinds and Reps. Liz Miranda and Chynah Tyler have a bill this session — the Jail-Based Voting Act — to create a long overdue system to provide citizens behind the wall with meaningful access to the ballot.
The bill would require sheriffs to provide all eligible voters ballot applications, voting materials, and a private place to vote; improve registration of returning citizens; create a robust data reporting system for such work; and more.
Can you email your state legislators in support of the Jail-Based Voting Act?
Earlier this week, we learned some great news: Massachusetts will keep all 9 of its seats in the US House of Representatives.
However, since the country as a whole grew (as did Massachusetts), the size of each Congressional district must grow from about 728,849 after 2010 to 781,497.
Some parts of the Commonwealth grew over the last decade, and some didn’t — and the lines all have to be redrawn.
Here’s where you come in.
The Legislature will be holding hearings about what those new lines should look line.
Next Tuesday (5/4), at 5 pm, the Legislature will hold a hearing about the future boundaries of MA’s 5th Congressional District. You can sign up to testify here.
On Monday, 5/24, at 5:30 pm, the Legislature will hold a hearing about the future boundaries of MA’s 2nd Congressional District. You can sign up to testify here.
Where’s the 2nd? Parts of Central Mass in & around Worcester and the Pioneer Valley in & around Northampton (See a full list here)
So What is Redistricting Anyway?
Every 10 years, the MA Legislature — like state legislatures around the country — uses census data to redraw legislative districts for both state and federal officials. This includes your state representative, your state senator, and your Representative in the US Congress.
Redistricting is about more than just changing lines on a map: it’s about issues of equity and representation that are the bedrock of democracy. When done right, redistricting can increase the power of the communities that are so often disenfranchised — communities of color, low-income communities, and immigrant communities — and give them a greater voice in our political system.
But that doesn’t happen on its own.
In the coming months, we’ll be working with partners in the Drawing Democracy Coalition — community organizations, civil rights lawyers, policy advocates, data experts, and political scientists — to help make that happen.
We’ll keep you posted in the coming months about how to best take action. For now, the first step is to make sure you stay informed. Subscribe to Drawing Democracy’s weekly newsletter, follow the coalition on Twitter, and like the coalition on Facebook.
Earlier this week, a white supremacist mass shooter targeted three spas in Atlanta, killing eight people, six of whom were Asian-American women. We condemn such actions and the dehumanizing rhetoric that fuels them, and stand in solidarity with the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community.
This tragedy was a reminder of how the epidemic of gun violence in this country is deeply intertwined with legacies of white supremacy and misogyny, and it is disturbing to see individuals already trying to deny the racist motivations behind the shooter’s actions.
Hate crimes against Asian-Americans have risen sharply over the past year, although such xenophobia is not a new phenomenon — as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Japanese internment camps demonstrate. Charting a future that is different from the past requires us all to commit to fostering a culture of solidarity borne out not just in words but in laws that strengthen the rights and protections for immigrants and workers who are most at risk.
With the retirement of Speaker Bob DeLeo imminent, news reports have asserted that House Majority Leader Ron Mariano (D-Quincy) already has the votes lined up to be Speaker–something that has been an open secret for years.
If you’ve been worried about the conservative and authoritarian drift of the MA House under Speaker Bob DeLeo, you should be even more worried about what’s to come under a Speaker Ron Mariano, who is more conservative than DeLeo and no less top-down in his approach to legislating.
Legislators who have not yet pledged their support should be asking hard questions about whether Ron Mariano plans to ensure a vote on the Fair Share Amendment next year (given his past opposition to it), whether he plans to diversify the all-white and almost-all-male House Leadership team, and whether he will ensure that important climate and housing legislation gets passed before this year’s session runs out.
With the economic depression we’re facing as a Commonwealth, progressive legislators need to work together to make concrete demands on Leadership for both bold policy and open process, or we’ll just end up seeing more of the same.
In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.
Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.
Baker’s amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.
Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.
To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, “The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for.”
The Legislature Stood Up to Baker. They Can Do It Again.
This week, the MA House and Senate did something that they so rarely do: they stood up to Governor Charlie Baker.
Rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access. Thankfully, they rejected his amendments by wide margins. You can see the votes below.
But they need to stand up to him again.
They need to stand up to him again by rejecting his harmful amendments to the police reform bill.
And they need to stand up to him by rejecting his effort to strike vital oversight language in the budget to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.
