CommonWealth: Mail-in voting was huge success; let’s keep it

Issues Committee chair Jonathan Cohn penned an editorial for CommonWealth about the need to make recent voting reforms permanent — and to build on them with Election Day Registration. You can read an excerpt below and the full piece here.

**

ON SEPTEMBER 1, Massachusetts voters broke a record. Whether by mail, by dropbox, or in person, 1.7 million voters cast a ballot for our state primaries, exceeding the previous record from 1990.  

To put this into perspective, 1.7 million is approximately the same as the number of votes cast in the 2014 and 2018 state primaries—combined. And it’s more than the 2010, 2012, and 2018 state primaries combined.  

We also saw more votes cast in our Democratic state primary (1,427,868) than in the Democratic presidential primary earlier this year (1,417,498), which had itself broken the record from 2008 (1,352,157).    

Why did so many more people vote this year? The answer is simple: the Legislature made voting more accessible.  

Mailing every active voter an application to vote by mail accomplished two important goals. First, it reminded voters that an election was even happening. (If you have ever volunteered for a campaign, you would be well aware this is one of the main hurdles to increasing engagement.) Second, it enabled voters to cast their ballot on their own timeline rather than having to figure out when during a narrow 11-hour window on September 1 they would have time to go vote.

CommonWealth: We must act now to protect the primary election

PM Issues Committee chair Jonathan Cohn penned an editorial for CommonWealth earlier today about the need to pass a strong COVID voting protections package. Read an excerpt below and the full piece here:

THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE primary on September 1 is now less than 100 days away. If we want to avoid the horror stories we’ve seen from states like Wisconsin and Florida, then the Legislature needs to take action — and fast — to ensure we can have a high-participation election while protecting public health.

First, we need to expand early voting to include primaries. The landmark 2014 election modernization bill brought early voting to Massachusetts, and it’s been a hit. When it premiered in the 2016 general election, more than 1 million voters chose to vote early. Early voting will help spread the number of in-person voters out across a greater number of days, making it easier for both voters and poll workers to follow physical distancing guidelines.

Second, we need to reduce the number of people who have to show up in person to vote, and that means embracing vote-by-mail. How to go about this was a major sticking point during the recent legislative hearing on election reform, with some legislators preferring to simply enable every voter to request an absentee ballot, others wanting to mail every eligible voter an absentee ballot application, and others wanting to go further to mail every voter a ballot.

CommonWealth: A stronger state safety net is part of the cure

PM Issues Committee chair Jonathan Cohn penned an editorial in CommonWealth with Karen Chen of the Chinese Progressive Association, Elena Letona of Neighbor to Neighbor, and Horace Small of the Union of Minority Neighborhoods about the need to strengthen the safety net in response to the pandemic. You can read an excerpt below and the full piece here.

LIFE UNDER QUARANTINE can easily cause many of us to lose track of time. But one date we should remember is this: Today marks one month since Gov. Charlie Baker issued a declaration of emergency.

Have our state policymakers been responding with the needed urgency? Not really.

The Legislature, now rightfully in remote function, has waived the one-week waiting period for unemployment insurance and allowed cities and towns to postpone local and special legislative elections (and took steps to expand voting access for new dates). These are important first steps. But without larger and more comprehensive action with an equity lens front and center, we risk leaving the most vulnerable populations—those who were already living in a state of emergency—behind.

Pandemics are not “great equalizers”: they underscore and exacerbate all of the inequalities that were already present.

CommonWealth: “Beware of Rodrigues’s ‘boring middle’”

PM Issues Committee chair Jonathan Cohn penned an editorial in CommonWealth about the new Senate Ways & Means chair:

OVER THE PAST few legislative sessions, progressives have looked to the Massachusetts Senate as a beacon of progressive policymaking. Across a range of issues, the Senate has been willing to pass bold and expansive bills that end up watered down—or dead on arrival—in the more conservative, top-down House.

However, Senate President Karen Spilka’s choice of Sen. Michael Rodrigues to chair the powerful Senate Ways & Means Committee should give progressives everywhere pause. Although the Westport Democrat describes himself as part of the “boring middle,” much of Rodrigues’s record locates him squarely on the right.

CommonWealth: A New Year’s Resolution

PM Issues Committee chair Jonathan Cohn and Act on Mass co-founder Matt Miller penned an editorial for CommonWealth calling on progressive state reps to stand for more roll call votes:

THERE WAS SOMETHING different about the start of this legislative session in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. It wasn’t the composition: Yes, Democrats did manage to flip two seats, but a slightly more overwhelming super-majority isn’t much of a sea change.

It was that Democrats were actually willing to stand up and demand a recorded vote on something.

On January 30, a handful of Democrats committed to demand recorded votes on a series of transparency amendments from Rep. Jon Hecht of Watertown. The content of the amendments would have been noncontroversial to the average voter—giving representatives more time to read bills and amendments, publishing the testimony that interest groups submit on bills, and posting the roll call votes taken behind closed doors in committees online. Simple, right?

Representatives spoke both in favor and against each amendment, and they took a roll call vote. Although the amendments unfortunately went down, the public process is how most people imagine that democracy works: Legislators debate vigorously and then go on record for what they believe in.

But that has become exceedingly rare.

CommonWealth: Don’t let corporations limit our policy ambitions

PM Issues Committee chairman Jonathan Cohn penned an editorial for CommonWealth on the need for the MA Legislature to be bolder in its policy ambitions, especially around taxes and housing. Read the full piece here and an excerpt below:

LAST SESSION, one of the only significant bills that Massachusetts legislators passed before budget season was sweeping legislation to raise their own pay. By contrast, this year, the Legislature has already passed important bills to lift a retrograde welfare cap and ban the homophobic and abusive practice of conversion therapy.

This could be a sign that the Legislature is interested in being more proactive this session, and that would be a welcome change indeed.

There are plenty of issues that the Legislature can—and should—tackle this session, all of which require bold and comprehensive policy solutions and all of which face the same risk: that the Legislature lets the business lobby set the limits of its ambitions.

MetroWest Daily News: “Robinson’s transparency pledge a necessity for Legislature”

“Robinson’s transparency pledge a necessity for Legislature” — Jonathan Cohn, MetroWest Daily News (1/14/2019)

The Massachusetts Legislature often touts its status as the second oldest deliberative body in the world. If only it lived up to that description. Unfortunately, public deliberation in our supposedly-deliberative body, especially the House of Representatives, has become exceedingly rare.

Consider, for example, the frequency with which state representatives withdraw their amendments. When a bill is brought to the floor, representatives have the opportunity to offer amendments. With most negotiations taking place behind closed doors among a small number of high-ranking members, this is the first and only chance for most representatives to affect the language being proposed. When an amendment is filed, however, its sponsor faces intense pressure from leadership to withdraw it. Hundreds of amendments are filed, only to be withdrawn without a second of debate.

Read the rest here.

CommonWealth: House’s Trump working group hasn’t done much

“House’s Trump working group hasn’t done much” — Jonathan Cohn, CommonWealth (7/6/2018)

LAST MARCH, a self-described “deeply worried” Speaker Robert DeLeo created a nine-member working group to guide responses to the “unprecedented actions” of the Trump administration.

The group, led by House Majority Leader Ron Mariano of Quincy and House Speaker Pro Tempore Pat Haddad of Somerset, consisted of Assistant Majority Leader Byron Rushing of Boston, Ways and Means Chair (and then Health Care Financing Chair) Jeffrey Sanchez of Boston, and an assortment of other chairs and vice chairs. Its mandate? Zeroing in on “impacts on economic stability, health care, higher education, and the state’s most vulnerable residents.”

The end of the legislative session is just a few weeks away. Setting aside the catch-all of “economic stability” for now, what has the House been up to on these key areas?

Read the full op-ed here.

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in budget talks for next year? (Redux)

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (2/16/2018)

YES

Lynne C. Hartley

Chelmsford resident, member of Progressive Massachusetts

I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life. I am so proud of the many “firsts” that we have claimed, such as legalizing gay marriage and providing universal health coverage. So, when I hear that the Legislature will consider no increases to major taxes or fees for the upcoming fiscal year, I just don’t understand it.

As great as our state is, it is in need of many improvements to remain competitive and a place where people want to live and work. We need major infrastructure improvements to our buildings, roads, and highways. We need a complete overhaul of much of the MBTA. Most importantly, we need additional funding for our public schools.

If we cannot increase state revenues, we will never be able to pay for all the improvements we need. Massachusetts will not only be unable to fix what’s broken, but those deficiencies will continually get worse. We have to face the facts that this will require increased revenue.

Our state’s moniker of “Taxachusetts” is a relic of the 1970s. Since then, Massachusetts has reduced taxes by more than all but one other state. That lost revenue isn’t a mere abstraction. We can see it in MBTA service delays, roads and school buildings in disrepair, and a myriad of other results of chronic disinvestment.

I always like to use an analogy to the home budget. What if your car needed extensive work to keep it on the road, and you don’t have the money? Would you not even discuss the possibility of earning more money: working overtime or getting a temporary part-time job?

Currently Massachusetts already runs a deficit for spending vs. tax revenue. According to the PEW Charitable Trusts, our revenue totaled 96 percent of expenses with deficits in 10 out of 15 years, fiscal 2002 to 2016. That gap will continue to increase, putting the fiscal well-being of Massachusetts at risk. Under Governor Charlie Baker’s reserve policies, our bond rating was downgraded in 2017. We cannot afford to continue believing the fairy tale that somehow the money is going to magically appear.

I hope Speaker Robert DeLeo reconsiders his position against considering more taxes because more revenue is necessary to keep Massachusetts the safe, free, and progressive state it is.

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe  [opinion] (2/2/2018)

YES

Ted Steinberg

Needham resident, community organizer, former Congressional aide, member of Progressive Massachusetts

It’s déjà vu on Beacon Hill.

The decades-long hostility towards raising additional revenue strikes again. It was just last fall that the Legislature let stand $210 million of the $320 million Governor Charles Baker vetoed from the fiscal 2018 budget. The slashing of that crucial spending was, unfortunately, a predictable byproduct of the Legislature’s refusal to implement new taxes or fees in fiscal 2017.

Even with those cuts, this year’s state budget is again facing a potential deficit. The government was forced to rely on temporary revenues and the underfunding of essential programs – like MassHealth, services for homeless families, and snow and ice removal – all while hoping there will somehow be an end-of-the-year surplus. No wonder US News and World Report ranks Massachusetts 48th for balancing its budget.

Budgets are supposed to reflect priorities, but instead of thinking big and investing in our future, we are stuck playing catch-up from previous shortages. The Commonwealth has a variety of complex problems requiring investment. Our transit system malfunctions regularly (even when it’s warm outside), schools grapple with overcrowding, affordable housing remains woefully insufficient, and the opioid crisis continues to devastate our communities.

But we also want to do more than put a band-aid on wounds that require surgery. We want to expand MBTA service, strengthen our schools, provide shelter for struggling families, and move towards universal health care. The last thing we need to do is shut the door on sources of much-needed revenue.

As we look to improve upon state services and protect the laws that make Massachusetts feel like home, we should look for creative opportunities to increase spending capabilities. Whether it be from pollutant fees or new corporate taxes, marijuana sales or tax-deductible donations to government institutions, there are innovative ways to generate sufficient revenue for a responsible budget that won’t hurt the people’s pockets. It would be irresponsible not to even consider, let alone refuse to explore new potential sources of revenue or raising existing ones.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo should work on a game plan rather than punt the ball on first down. Tax increases should definitely be on the table as we look to fix our broken budget.