Governor Baker Needs to Stop Trying to Dilute Police Reform

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.

Can you email Baker today to urge him to stop trying to water down the Legislature’s bill?

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.

Email your legislators in support of key language on police reform and prison oversight.

The House Rejected Baker’s Anti-Choice Amendment. But There’s Still Work to Do.

Last month, the House and Senate finally took action to strengthen reproductive rights here in MA by passing a slimmed down version of the ROE Act that, although it didn’t go as far as the ROE Act would have, contained important measures to protect and expand equitable access to abortion.

Rather than signing the measures into law, Republican Governor Charlie Baker sent back an amendment to nearly gut them entirely.

Fortunately, the House refused to go along.

Yesterday, they voted down his amendment 107 to 49.

Republican Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) put forth another amendment that would promote disinformation and stigmatize individuals seeking abortion care. That amendment also went down, by an even wider margin of 120 to 34.

It now goes to the Senate, which plans to vote tomorrow.

But there’s more work to do.

Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.

Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Can you email your state legislators about the importance of standing up to Baker and for civil liberties?

Charlie Baker Wants to Water Down the Police Reform Bill. Don’t Let Him.

Last week, the MA House and Senate passed their consensus version of a police reform bill, sending it to the Governor’s desk.

Baker had three options. (1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listened to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn’t care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn’t care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill.

He chose #3.

In his letter to the Legislature earlier today, Baker outlined a series of amendments that he is demanding that the Legislature pass. Each one would water down the progress made toward accountability and oversight. 

Here’s what they were–and why they should be rejected. 

  • Restoring the Municipal Police Training Committee: The Legislature’s bill takes the Municipal Police Training Committee from its current location in the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and places it under the oversight of the civilian-majority POST Commission. Baker argued that only police know best how to train police. If that were true, then we wouldn’t be seeing all of the problems that gave rise to the bill. Civilian oversight is necessary for real accountability and for any meaningful reform of the practice of policing.
  • Designating a Seat for Police Unions on the POST Commission: Baker insists that the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Policy Group be able to submit police union representatives for consideration for one of the law enforcement seats on the commission. Police unions have been bullying legislators and lying about the bill. They should not be rewarded for that with an opportunity to work against real oversight.
  • Removing the Ban on Facial Surveillance Technology: Facial surveillance technology is very racist and very dangerous. Baker wants to eliminate the ban on this tool and create more work for a commission to study it.
  • Weakening the Use of Force Regulations: Baker wants to strike the definitions in the bill for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” to make it easier for police officers to say that deadly force was justified.
  • Defining “Bias-Free Policing” out of Existence: The bill creates an affirmative right to bias-free policing, defined as “policing decisions made by and conduct of law enforcement officers that shall not consider a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status or socioeconomic or professional level.” Baker wants to add exceptions large enough to exclude obvious cases of racial profiling.
  • Delaying the Bill: Baker wants to delay implementation of the bill until July, but as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

Let your legislators know that you oppose these amendments.

So You Want to Know What’s in the Police Reform Bill?

Earlier this evening, the Conference Committee working to harmonize the House and Senate police reform bills passed in the summer released their much-awaited final report: S.2963: An Act relative to justice, equity and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth.

Shortest take: The bill creates a POST Commission with fewer voices for real police accountability than in the Senate bill, establishes a lot of new commissions that may not actually produce anything, creates new regulations on the use of force with various strength (stronger on facial surveillance on chokeholds, pretty loophole-ridden elsewhere), makes notable strides on juvenile justice (from expungement to school policing), bans racial profiling, and lacks meaningful reforms on qualified immunity. (A lot of ups and downs in that sentence.)

GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) IN THE FINAL BILL:

  • Expanded access to juvenile records expungement
  • Stronger language around protecting students from profiling (with some unfortunate caveats, though)
  • Making school resource officers (SROs) optional for school districts
  • Ban on racial profiling

GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) *NOT* IN THE BILL:

  • Strong limitations on qualified immunity doctrine (The bill only limits QI in case of decertified officer, as in House bill, and creates a commission on QI.)
  • Requirement of a democratic process around municipal acquisition of military equipment
  • Investment of funds equivalent to savings on incarceration into workforce development and job training/opportunities
  • Strong representation from civil rights groups and impacted communities on the police standards & training commission

GOOD THINGS (HOUSE-ONLY) IN THE BILL

  • Language actually banning chokeholds (unlike the weak Senate language)
  • Stronger language around no-knock warrants (although loopholes still abound)
  • Facial surveillance technology ban (as opposed to just a moratorium) 

Okay, let’s dig deeper, section by section.

Section 1: Commissions —  Creation of Commissions on the Status of African Americans, Status of Latinos/Latinas, Status of those with disabilities, Status of Black men and boys (pp. 1-15)

Section 2: Public records — Elimination of personnel records from public records law exemption (page 15)

Section 3-25, 27: Police Training & Certification Committee (pp. 16-22): This section makes some minor text changes to existing law to reflect the new bill and sets some requirements for police training, such as…

  • requirement of de-escalation training, promotion of “procedural justice,” alternatives to the use of force in interacting with minors
  • requirement of training related to interacting with victims, witnesses, or suspects with mental illness, substance use disorder, trauma history, or developmental or intellectual disabilities
  • requirement of de-escalation training with regard to protests
  • requirement of cultural competency training
  • training for school resource officers with regard to legal standards for police interaction with minors, child and adolescent cognitive development, trauma/behavioral addiction/mental illness/developmental disabilities, conflict resolution and diversion, and de-escalation. Also with regard to hate crime identification, anti-racism, and bullying. Requirement of consultation with experts on child and adolescent development and child trauma and with educators and 415attorneys experienced in juvenile and education law and preventing and addressing youth hate crimes in developing such training.

Unfortunately, however, the police training and certification committee consists entirely of law enforcement or their designees (See pp. 39-40 in Section 30).

Section 26: Facial/biometric surveillance (pp. 22-26): This section bans the use of facial recognition surveillance absent express authorization and provides language governing the role of the Registry of Motor Vehicles in facial surveillance. Section 105 (see below) creates a commission to explore that further.

Section 30 — Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission — Composition  (pp. 26-50)

In the conference bill, the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, i.e., the commission in charge of certification and decertification, would have 9 members (no more than 3 of whom would come from police officers).

Here’s how that breaks down:

  • 3 of them would be appointed by the Governor
    • 1 police chief
    • 1 retired justice of the superior court
    • 1 social worker from a list of 5 nominations from NASW-MA
  • 3 of them would be appointed by the AG
    • 1 law enforcement officer below the rank of sergeant
    • 1 law enforcement officer from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers (MAMLEO)
    • 1 attorney licensed to practice law in the commonwealth appointed from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the civil rights and social justice section council of the Massachusetts Bar Association
  • 3 of whom shall be appointed jointly by the governor and AG (with 1 from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts commission against discrimination, no specifications on the other 2).

The bill includes House language requiring demographic representativeness (“…shall include people of color and women, at least in such proportion as these groups exist in the commonwealth’s population”) and geographical diversity (“The members of the commission shall represent diverse geographic areas of the commonwealth, including urban, rural and suburban areas.”

Like the Senate bill, the conference bill spells out some necessary expertise for the civilian members of the POST commission (“law enforcement practice and training, criminal law, civil rights law, the criminal justice system, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, crisis intervention, de-escalation techniques, or social science fields related to race or bias”).

The House POST Commission had less police representation than the Senate POST Commission (2 out of 7 vs. 7 out of 15), but it also had less guaranteed representation from those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (0 out of 7 vs. 8 out of 15). The composition here is somewhere in between: police representation (3 out of 9) falls in the middle of the Senate and House bill, as does the representation for those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (again, 3 out of 9). Unfortunately, there’s a real loss with the exclusion of the NAACP, ACLU, and Lawyers for Civil Rights–as well as those directly impacted–who had seats in the Senate bill but not the House. 

The Senate POST Commission, although having more police presence, would have had a likely progressive majority (4 civil rights, 2 directly impacted, 2 from the Black and Latino Caucus); the POST Commission here does not.

Section 30 — POST Commission —  suspension & revocation (pp. 51-57) The division of police standards is able to begin a preliminary inquiry if there is a report, complaint, or other credible evidence of officer misconduct and must give notice within 30 days. The division is also responsible for keeping a database of such complaints as well as any discipline or decertification that results. So what’s next? The POST Commission can suspend an officer in these cases (with the officer having the right to a hearing within 15 days)

  • Immediately suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a felony
  • Can (post-inquiry) before a charge initiate proceedings if conduct consists a felony if preponderance of the evidence
  • Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a misdemeanor, if the commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime affects the fitness of the officer to serve as a law enforcement officer
  • Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer if  the commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety or welfare of the public
  • Administratively suspend officers who fail to comply with training and reporting requirements

Revocation of license requires “clear and convincing evidence” — reasons to revoke (p. 52-54 / note “shall” use vs. “may” use for outlined reasons). Note requirements for record-keeping on decertified officers (p. 57) and requirements that decertified officers not be hired even if on contract basis (p. 57). So what’s the difference between “clear and convincing” and “preponderance.” The “preponderance of the evidence” means that something is more likely to be true than not true. “Clear and convincing” sets a higher standard–say, two to four times more likely to be true than not true given the evidence.

Section 30 — Regulations on the Use of force (S1414, p. 58 – 59): The chokehold ban is the clearest of these regulations. Given the conditional clauses in the others, it’s unclear how much of a “ban” they will be in practice.

  • No use of physical force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & such force is necessary to effect lawful arrest, prevent escape from custody, or prevent imminent harm
  • No deadly force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & force is necessary to prevent imminent harm & the force is proportionate to the degree of imminent harm
  • Chokehold ban — Note that Section 30 includes the House’s definition of a chokehold (intent or result of “bodily injury, unconsciousness, or death”) as opposed to the narrower Senate version (definition on page 27).
  • Ban on firing at a fleeing vehicle unless imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. 
  • Requirement of de-escalation for protests. Ban on tear gas, rubber bullets, or attack dogs unless (i) de-escalation tried & failed or not feasible, (ii) imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. Reporting requirements for such uses of force.

Section 30 — Duty to intervene (S15, p. 59): “An officer present and observing another officer using physical force, including deadly force, beyond that which is necessary or objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, shall intervene to prevent the use of unreasonable force unless intervening would result in imminent harm to the officer or another identifiable individual.”

Section 37. Language around Qualified Immunity (pp. 64-65)

  • The bill drops Senate language on reforming qualified immunity and reforming the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, you can sue if an officer violates your rights by means of “threats, intimidation, or coercion.” But here’s the catch: if someone says, “I’ll punch you,” that counts as a threat, intimidation, or coercion. When they punch you, it doesn’t — the threat merely refers to the intent, not the act. So the act of assault falls outside of scope. The Senate language would have reformed this and provided meaningful limitations on qualified immunity so that victims of police brutality can get their fair day in court.
  • Instead, the bill here contains House language saying that qualified immunity only no longer applies when an officer has been decertified or violates someone’s rights by “threats, intimidation, or coercion” (which, as noted above, courts never find to be the case).

Section 78 – – Protecting Students from Profiling (pp. 82-83): This section would protect students from having school officials wrongfully entering them into a gang database and risking their deportation or otherwise criminalization.

  • As in the Senate bill, the language applies to SROs as well as school personnel and contains the Senate’s expanded list of agencies to which information should not be provided.
  • It does, however, drop a few types of information deemed not to be provided in the Senate bill:” (ix) participation in school activities, extracurricular activities outside of school, sports teams or school clubs or organizations; (x) degrees, honors or awards; and (xi) post-high school plans.” Juvenile justice reform advocates are concerned that this information could be used as a proxy for immigration status. And it allows for the transmission of information about gang involvement if deemed “germane” to a “specific unlawful event/activity” that the school is required to report, a possibly large loophole.
  • And it allows for “the sharing of information upon the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student, parent or guardian, to comply with a court order or lawfully issued subpoena, in connection with a health or safety emergency pursuant to the provisions of 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4).” Note that this language could provide opportunities for coerced testimony given the power imbalance that exists.
  • But overall it’s an improvement.

Section 79 — Creation of a model school resource officer memorandum of understanding review commission & other regulations on SROs (pp. 87-90)

  • Note that this includes the language that SROs are hired “at request of” as opposed to “in consultation with” superintendents. Currently, schools are required to have police officers. By changing the language from “in consultation with the superintendent/district” (current law and the House bill) to “at request of” the superintendent or district, it creates space to not make that request. But, unlike in the Senate bill, the power lies with the superintendent and not with a democratic vote of the School Committee.

Section 83 — Ban on racial profiling (p. 91-92): This section adds language to the hands-free driving bill passed last year to ban racial profiling by police and to enable the Attorney General to bring forth civil suits to enforce this. One concern from racial justice advocates was that the law banning texting while driving could lead to an increase in racially motivated traffic stops.

Section 92 — Ban on officers having sex with individuals in custody (pp. 94-97): This section specifies that it is not possible for someone in custody to consent (I mean duh…how was this not law yet?). Note that Section 91 contains House language creating mandatory minimums for “indecent assault on battery” on individuals in custody, with this broken into categories for individuals 14 or over, elders / people with disabilities, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and children under 14.

Section 94 — No-knock warrants (pp. 97-98)

  • Under this section, an officer must submit an affidavit that establishes (a) probable cause that if the law enforcement officer announces their presence their life or the lives of others will be endangered and (b) no reason to believe that minor children or adults over the age of 65 are in the home. Note that (b) comes form the House bill.
  • However, officers can evade this requirement if ” to prevent a credible risk of imminent harm” — a potentially wide loophole.
  • Evidence obtained in violation of this would be rightfully inadmissible in court.

Sections 95-98 — Expanded access to juvenile records expungement (pp. 98-100) The final bill expands eligibility to no more than two convictions or adjudications and not more than two non-convictions/non-adjudications (juvenile justice reform advocates had wanted no limitation), but it does allow for multiple charges from one incident to count as one charge. It maintains the existing list of ineligible offenses, but it does apply retroactively (including for petitions that would have previously been ineligible but now wouldn’t be).

Section 103 — Commission on State & County Correctional Officers and Juvenile Detention Officers  (pp. 103-105): The scope of the commission would relate to regulating use of force, access to records, and suspension/revocation. The commission would consist of the following:

    • a former judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court who shall serve as chair
    • the commissioner of correction or a designee
    • 1 correctional officer who shall be appointed by the New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc.;
    • the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, Inc. or a designee
    • the commissioner of the department of youth services or a designee
    • 1 correction officer who shall be appointed by the president of the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union;
    • 1member appointed by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council who shall be an employee of the department of youth services and who shall have not less than 5 years of experience working in a department of youth services secure facility;
    • the executive director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Inc. or a designee
    • the executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services or a  designee
    • the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
    • the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, Inc. or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
    • the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee;
    • 2 members who shall be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a member of the LGBTQ community and 1 of whom shall be a formerly-incarcerated woman

Section 104 – Body Cameras  (pp. 105 – 109): This section creates a 25-member task force to promote regulations for uniform use of body cameras, with the regulations due July 31, 2022. Of the task force, 11 out of 25 represent cops, sheriffs, and DAs. 8 of them represent civil rights. Here is the breakdown:

    • the secretary of public safety and security or a designee
    • the secretary of technology services and security or a designee
    • the attorney general or a designee
    • a member appointed by the committee for public counsel services
    • a district court judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority Law Enforcement Officers Association
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority State Police Officers Association, Inc.
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Latino Police Officers Association, Inc.
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Association of Women in Law Enforcement, Inc.
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
    • the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association or a designee
    • 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Inc.
    • the colonel of state police or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association or a designee
    • the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
    • the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, Inc., or a designee
    • 5 members appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not fewer than 100,000 people, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not more than 50,000 people, 1 of whom shall be an expert on constitutional or privacy law who is employed by a law school in the commonwealth, 1 of whom shall be an elected official in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and 1 of whom shall be a representative of a law enforcement labor organization.

Section 105 – Commission on use of facial recognition in the Department of Transportation (pp. 109-111)

Section 106 — Commission on emergency hospitalizations (pp. 111-113)

Section 107 — Commission on civil service law reform (pp. 113-116)

Section 108 — Commission on a statewide cadet program (pp. 116-118)

Section 110 — Commission on structural racism in correctional facilities (pp. 118-120)

Section 111 — Commission on structural racism in parole process (pp. 120-121)

Section 112 — Commission on structural racism in probation service (pp. 121-122)

Section 116 — Commission on impact of qualified immunity doctrine (pp. 124-125)

The commission here consists of 15 members:

  • 2 of whom shall be the chairs of the joint committee on the judiciary or their designees, who shall serve as co-chairs;
  • 2 of whom shall be members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house
  • 1 of whom shall be a member of the house of representatives appointed by the minority leader
  • 2 of whom shall be members of the senate appointed by the president of the senate 1 of whom shall be a member of the senate appointed by the minority leader
  • 3 of whom shall be appointed by the gov — 1 of whom shall be a member of a police officers’ union, 1 of whom shall be a member of a firefighters’ union, and 1 of whom shall be a retired justice of the appeals court
  • 1 of whom shall be the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall be the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall be the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Inc. or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee

Based on what we know of these people, what should we expect? There are 5 members we can expect support reform to qualified immunity: the Senate judiciary chair, the 2 designees of the Senate President, the designee of the ACLU, and the Greater Boston NAACP president (or her designee). I am not sure where the Bar or Mass Municipal stands. One should expect that the other 8 members would all be opposed to meaningful reform, making the commission less than useless. Its report (if it happens) is due next September.

Section 117 — Study requirement for the Community Policing and Behavioral Health Advisory Council on a crisis response and continuity of care system to deliver alternative emergency service (pp. 125-127)

Eight Months of Emergency without Emergency Paid Sick Time

Tomorrow marks eight months to the day since Governor Baker issued a state of emergency.

And our Legislature still hasn’t passed emergency paid sick time legislation.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time.

The MA House has the opportunity THIS WEEK to take action via the budget.

But there’s more. 

The proposed budget by the MA House fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year. Our Governor and our Legislature made a promise to students, teachers, and community members that they would fully fund public schools. In a wealthy state like ours, they can’t punt on this obligation and hide behind manufactured budget constraints.

Legislators have a choice of whether to invest in an equitable economic recovery or accept a dangerous trajectory that leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Can you call or email your legislators in support of these four amendments? Find their contact info here.

  • Amendment #231 (Donato) — Emergency  Paid Sick Time
  • Amendment #524 (Sabadosa) — Increase the Tax Rate on Corporate Profits
  • Amendment #675 (Connolly) —Increase  the Tax Rate that Investors Pay on Unearned Income
  • Amendment #719 (Gouveia) —Tax Profits Shifted Overseas by Increasing the Tax Rate on ‘GILTI’

More about the amendments below

Amendment #231 (Donato) — Emergency Paid Sick Time. Would provide ten additional work-days (80 hours) of job-protected emergency paid sick time for immediate use during the COVID-19 outbreak to workers not covered by federal emergency paid sick time protections. This would allow workers with COVID symptoms to stay home so they can recover and not risk infecting others. As we enter a difficult winter with increasing rates of infection, Emergency Paid Sick Time is urgently needed to limit the spread of COVID19.

Amendment #524 (Sabadosa) — Increase the Tax Rate on Corporate Profits. Would raise the current corporate profits tax rate of 8.0% to the pre-2010 rate of 9.5%, generating $375 to $500 million annually for investments in an equitable recovery. Businesses that are turning a profit should be expected to contribute more to support the public goods on which their profits are based, especially during a public health and state fiscal crisis.  

Amendment #675 (Connolly) — Increase the Tax Rate that Investors Pay on Unearned Income. Would tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts), generating millions annually for investments in an equitable recovery. Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, who should be expected to contribute more to support the public goods on which we all depend.  

Amendment #719 (Gouveia) — Tax Profits Shifted Overseas by Increasing the Tax Rate on ‘GILTI’. Would adopt a provision of federal law to tax a portion of MA-based corporate profits that are shifted overseas, raising $200 to $400 million annually for investments in an equitable recovery. Many multinational corporations that do business in MA dodge taxes by using complex accounting schemes that make their MA-based profits appear to have been earned in offshore tax havens. A federal provision called ‘GILTI’ identifies this shifted income and allow states to tax a portion of it.

Vote Yes on Question 1, Yes on Question 2

Election Day is just twelve days away. Can you believe it?

On your ballot statewide here in Massachusetts, you’ll see two ballot questions.

YES on Question 1: Right to Repair  🚙🚙

In 2012, Massachusetts voted for a Right to Repair ballot initiative that required automobile manufacturers to provide non-proprietary diagnostic information as well as safety information directly to consumers so that they can choose who repairs their car (rather than being dependent on the manufacturer itself). Technology has advanced in the past eight years, and Question 1 updates the legislative compromise that resulted from the 2012 ballot initiative accordingly. Curbing monopoly power and protecting consumers is a win for all of us.

Yes on 1: Right to Repair Q

YES on Question 2: Ranked Choice Voting 🗳🗳

Our first-past-the-post system forces ordinary voters to weigh whether they can vote for their preferred candidate or whether doing so would lead to a “spoiler effect” that gives a candidate they like less a clearer path to victory. This same dynamic can lead candidates and their supporters to try to force similar candidates out of a race due to a fear of “vote splitting.” 

Within the current system, the ultimate winner may command less than a majority support, a contradiction of a basic tenet of democracy and a far too common occurrence in Massachusetts elections. We have some of the least competitive elections in the country, and candidates can win with small pluralities and then stay in office for decades. Ranked Choice Voting would eliminate these problems by enabling voters to rank the order of their preferences on the ballot and ensuring that whoever wins does so with majority support. 

Yes on 2: RCV

📢Find opportunities to volunteer with Yes on 2 here. 📢

📢Join Ayanna Pressley for a phone bank for Yes on 2 next Monday at 5:30 pm. 📢

Climate & Democracy Ballot Questions

Some state representative districts across the commonwealth will see non-binding advisory ballot questions. We are supporting a YES on two of them in particular.

YES on 100% Renewable Energy ☀️☀️

Question: Shall the representative for this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would require Massachusetts to achieve 100% renewable energy use within the next two decades, starting immediately and making significant progress within the first five years while protecting impacted workers and businesses?

YES on Transparent Government 🗳🗳

Question: Shall the representative for this district be instructed to vote in favor of changes to the Legislature’s rules that would make the results of all votes in Legislative committees publicly available on the Legislature’s website?

It’s simple: if we want a livable planet, we need to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. And our legislators represent us, so we should be able to know how they are voting.

Find out what’s on your ballot here.

Here’s What You Can Do This Week for Civil Rights & Housing Stability

It’s been quite the 24 hours. And if you’re like us, you’re thinking, “How can I take action, including right here in Massachusetts?”

Here are some ways.

Past Time to Pass the ROE Act

While we mourn the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we must redouble our efforts to strengthen reproductive rights here in Massachusetts.

Contrary to our liberal reputation, we still have retrograde language and laws on the books.

Tell your state legislators to stop delaying and pass the ROE Act.

Housing Is a Human Right

At the end of the July, the MA House and Senate passed economic development bills (H4887). Each bill contains some important steps to address our affordable housing crisis.

Can you call your state legislators in support of the following three housing reforms? You can find their number here if you don’t have it.

  • Tenant Opportunity to Purchase, which guarantees the right of refusal for tenants when a large building is up for sale or foreclosed (from the HOUSE bill)
  • Inclusionary Zoning Reforms, which would lower the threshold for passing such ordinances to a simple majority (from the SENATE bill)
  • Eviction sealing protections to gives tenants with no-fault evictions the legal right to petition the court to seal their record any time after the conclusion of the case and provide tenants with non-payment evictions the ability to petition the court to seal within 14 days of paying off their judgment (from the SENATE bill)

Police Accountability Week of Action w/ the ACLU

In July, the MA Senate and House both passed police reform legislation (not far-reaching enough, but with a number of important steps forward). However, since then, police unions have been bombarding them with ads and misinformation to make sure that a final bill gets watered down or not passed at all.

If we want to have any accountability at all, we can’t let such tactics work. Join the ACLU this week for a series of events to draw attention to police brutality here in Massachusetts and underscore the need for action.

Monday, September 21, 6:00 PM: Virtual rally kick off (RSVP here)

Tuesday, September 22, 5:30 PM: Police accountability phone bank (RSVP here)

Friday, September 25, 11:00 AM: Police accountability phone bank (RSVP here)

Haven’t spoken to your state legislators about this bill recently? Take a moment today to do so.

Phone Banking for the Safe Communities Act

The Safe Communities Act would end the entanglement of police, courts, and county sheriffs in immigration enforcement, and protect basic rights. This entanglement makes immigrants fear sharing personal information with anyone, including medical providers and public health workers.

We need to take a stand and make clear that immigrants are welcome here, and that means passing the Safe Communities Act.

Fortunately, the bill was reported out of committee in July. But we need to make sure that there is enough support for it to be brought to the floor by the end of the year.

Join the Safe Communities Coalition for one of these upcoming phone banks:

Monday, 9/21, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Thursday, 9/24, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Tuesday, 9/29, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Thursday, 10/1, 5:00-8:00PM – Register here

Let Our Families Drive! March & Rally

Thousands of Black and Brown immigrant families continue to live in fear of ICE detention for being stopped for a traffic violation and many are being deported – even during a pandemic. All families deserve the right to move freely in our state and live in dignity. 

Saturday, September 26th, the Driving Families Forward Coalition will be holding a rally in support of the Work and Family Mobility Act, which would support expanding access to driver’s licenses across the Commonwealth

Join the Driving Families Forward Coalition for the Let Our Families Drive: March & Rally on Saturday, September 26th at 2:00PM! RSVP for the event here.

The March & Rally will be broadcast via Facebook Live. The coalition will meet up outside the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) located at 136 Blackstone St, Boston (by the Haymarket T Station) and march to the JFK Federal Building to uplift the need to abolish ICE and the deportation machine. The march will end at the State House for a short speaking program and rally.

Phone Bank for the Census

The 2020 census will determine representation and resource allocation for the next decade. If people are uncounted, their voices will be unheard, and their communities won’t get the resources they need to thrive.

That’s why we’re joining our allies at the Massachusetts Voter Table to call residents and voters in communities of color, working-class neighborhoods, and more to participate in the 2020 Census and to make a plan to vote safely this fall.

Sign up for a phone bank here.

These Bills Passed in July. Why Are They Still in Conference Committee?

In July, the MA House and MA Senate both passed police reform bills (of varying ambition). And the House passed a climate bill (the Senate had done so back in January).

In each case, there are six-member committees of state senators and state representatives (“conference committees”) working to come up with a final bill.

So where are they?

The short answer: We don’t know.

The long answer: Conference committees are incredibly secretive processes. But the more your legislators hear from you about the need for the strongest bills possible on both fronts, the better the odds are that we will see better final products — or any final bills at all.

Can you contact your state legislators this weekend with four key asks for each bill?

Climate Bill

  1. Environmental justice language to protect vulnerable and historically marginalized communities that have borne the brunt of pollution and other environmental harms
  2. An accelerated timeline for emissions targets because we are already so far behind
  3. Increased renewable electricity generation because we need to be shifting away from fossil fuels and toward clean, green energy for us to even meet those targets
  4. A clear equity focus in any carbon pricing scheme that comes out of the bill so that the communities most impacted by environmental injustices can benefit from a sustainable transition

Police Reform Bill

  1. Strong reforms to qualified immunity as well as the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, as in the Senate bill, to ensure that victims of police brutality can have their fair day in court
  2. Breaking up the school-to-prison pipeline by granting schools discretion over whether or not to have school resource officers and ensuring that student information is not being passed on to police or ICE
  3. Reinvestment in communities because strong, thriving communities are the bedrock of any real vision of public safety
  4. Restrictions on the government use of facial surveillance because such tools are notoriously racist and inaccurate and violate basic privacy rights

2020 Primary Election Debrief

Tuesday’s primary broke records, with more than 1.5 million people casting ballots. By contrast, fewer than 1 million people voted in the 2018 state primaries.

What accounts for the difference? A hotly contested Senate race drove turnout for sure. But a major driver was the expansion of vote-by-mail and early voting, which alerted more people to the fact that an election was even happening and made it easier for them to participate. As the next legislative session nears, it will be important to make these reforms not just a pandemic-induced one-off but a part of how we do elections in Massachusetts.

Another major winner on Tuesday?

Senator Ed Markey. Markey’s campaign was able to clearly communicate his history of delivering for Massachusetts and leading on progressive policy (especially on climate action), and he was able to combine support from party regulars with energized youth activists who combined a spirited online presence with a commitment to organizing and mobilizing voters of all ages. When Congressman Joe Kennedy first announced, early polls showed him leading: on Tuesday, Markey won 55.4% to 44.6%, a double-digit win. Kudos to all involved.

While high turnout should always be celebrated, it may have made an uphill battle even steeper for Congressional primary challengers, as countless voters may have cast their ballots before the challengers’ had the chance to make contact with them (or may have never even been in an expected voter universe). Despite this and the myriad of challenges posed by COVID, Holyoke mayor

Alex Morse was able to pull 41.2% of the vote against Congressman Richard Neal, and physician Robbie Goldstein 33.3% of the vote against Congressman Stephen Lynch. We’re excited for their political futures and hope that Neal and Lynch realize that they’re on watch.

So How about the State Senate?

In the Springfield-based Hampden district, progressive Springfield City Councilor Adam Gomez defeated centrist incumbent Jim Welch 52.5% – 47.5%, adding another progressive voice to the MA Senate and increasing the size of the Senate Black & Latino Caucus.

Disappointingly, over in the southern suburbs and exurbs of Boston, progressive challenger Jarred Rose lost to conservative incumbent Walter Timilty 68.1% to 31.9%. A clear sign of the turnout jump from this year? Jarred Rose got 11,637 votes; in 2018’s uncontested race, Timilty got just 1,000 more total votes than that. More than twice as many ballots were cast as were in the contested open race for this seat in 2016.

So How about the State House?

Three of our endorsees —Steve Owens, Orlando Ramos, and Erika Uyterhoeven — won in their open primaries to replace Representatives Jon Hecht, Joe Tosado, and Denise Provost, respectively. All three had strong voter outreach operations and clear messages.

Other candidates — whether running in open seats or against incumbents — were not so lucky, although some came extremely close. Given challenges they faced — the inability to run as aggressive of a field operation due to the pandemic, huge spikes in turnout learned about too late to adjust, and a wave of outside spending from allies of Charlie Baker and Bob DeLeo –they all did respectably, and we look forward to what comes next for all of them. They were fighting for progressive policy change before they started running, and we know they will continue to do so — and have inspired more people to join because of their campaigns.

Orlando Ramos (9th Hampden): WON 47.0% – 39.1% Hurst – 14.0% Mullan [Won by 552 votes]

Marianela Rivera (17th Essex): LOST 64.4% – 35.5% 

Lisa Arnold (17th Middlesex): LOST —  43.8% Howard (WON) – 32.1% Nangle (incumbent) – 24.1% Arnold 

Erika Uyerhoeven (27th Middlesex): WON — Uyterhoeven 62% – Sharp 38% 

Steve Owens (29th Middlesex): WON — Owens 59.65% – Sideris 22.95% – Ciccarelli 17.4% 

Andrew Flowers (8th Norfolk): LOST — Philips 51.7% – Flowers 48.3% [lost by 342 votes] 

Damali Vidot (2nd Suffolk): LOST — Ryan 57.6% – Vidot 42.4% 

Gretchen Van Ness (14th Suffolk): LOST  — Consalvo 53.4% – GVN 32.1% – Duckens 14.5% 

Joe Gravellese (16th Suffolk): LOST — Giannino 61.45% – Gravellese 38.55% 

Jordan Meehan (17th Suffolk): LOST 54.2% Honan – 45.8% Meehan [lost by 662 votes]

Ceylan Rowe (12th Worcester): LOST — Kilcoyne 51.4% – Rowe 28.2% – Turner 20.2% 

Vote for Ed Markey and Downballot Progressives!

ou may have already voted, but we’re sure that even if you have, you still know people who haven’t yet.

TOMORROW — Tuesday, September 1st — is the last day to cast your ballot for the primary.

Polls will be open from 7 am to 8 pm. Find your polling location at wheredoivotema.com. (Note: Some polling locations have changed, so make sure to double check.)

If you still have your mail-in ballot, the best thing to do would be to drop your ballot off at the secure dropbox in your city/town. You need to do so by 8 pm tomorrow (the earlier, the better). You can find dropbox locations here. You cannot drop your mail-in ballot at a polling location tomorrow instead, but you can still vote in-person if you have not submitted your mail-in ballot.

Check if your mail-in ballot has been processed here. If it has not been, you can still vote in-person.

If you have any issues casting a ballot, or see clear issues like long lines or closed polling places, call the Election Protection Hotline: 1-866-OUR-VOTE.

WHOM TO VOTE FOR

You can find a complete list of our 2020 endorsements below. Scroll down to find links to the full sets of questionnaires that we received, including for races in which we did not yet choose to endorse. We make all of the questionnaires we receive available to the public as a service to you, the voters.

NB: There are some races that are contested in the general (but not the primary) in which we haven’t endorsed. Stay tuned for more!

Congress

US Senate: Ed Markey

Read our endorsement announcement of Ed Markey here.

MA-01: Alex Morse

MA-08: Robbie Goldstein

Read our endorsement announcement of Alex Morse and Robbie Goldstein here.

MA Legislature

MA Senate

Adam Gomez, Hampden

Becca Rausch, Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex

Jarred Rose, Norfolk, Bristol & Plymouth

Meg Wheeler, Plymouth & Norfolk

MA House

Amber Hewett, 1st Essex

Christina Eckert, 2nd Essex

Orlando Ramos, 9th Hampden

Marianela Rivera, 17th Essex

Lisa Arnold, 17th Middlesex

Erika Uyterhoeven, 27th Middlesex

Steve Owens, 29th Middlesex

Andrew Flowers, 8th Norfolk

Damali Vidot, 2nd Suffolk

Gretchen Van Ness, 14th Suffolk

Joe Gravellese, 16th Suffolk

Jordan Meehan, 17th Suffolk

Ceylan Rowe, 12th Worcester

Governor’s Council

District 6: Helina Fontes

District 7: Paul DePalo

Sheriff (Special)

Norfolk County: Bill Phelan

Click below for C