The 193rd session finished as the clock struck midnight and December 31 became January 1st. Rather than merely running out the clock against their usual July 31 legislative deadline, the MA House and Senate nearly went almost all the way up to the end of the year.

Blowing past deadlines is not a new phenomenon in the Massachusetts State House. But what was new this session was the record low number of recorded votes: 203 in the House and 252 in the Senate. By contrast, the average number of recorded votes for all the sessions from 2005 to 2022 (under both Democratic and Republican governors) was 522 in the House and 482 in the Senate; the House, in other words, was well over 50% below average and the Senate getting close. That makes the work of putting together a scorecard—a vital accountability tool—harder. 

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators. With fewer votes, there are fewer contrasts. 

When putting together a corecard, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps.

We also avoid giving credit where credit has already been given: if we score a bill at one stage of the legislative process, we shy away from scoring its final passage later on to avoid duplication. However, when bills or amendments run counter to progressive values, we may score their multiple appearances. 

See our full scorecard here or on https://scorecard.progressivemass.com.

In the session since our last scorecard, the Senate was more willing to pass standalone bills than the House (even if their standalone bills often combined multiple smaller bills too). That included a bill to ban third-party electric suppliers from enrolling new individual residential customers, protecting residents from unfair and deceptive practices that have led to higher energy bills for low-income families (25s, party-line), and a comprehensive bill to reduce plastic waste (30s). Although the Plastics Reduction Act garnered the support of two Republicans (Bruce Tarr of Gloucester and Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth) along with the full Democratic caucus, some efforts to weaken the bill were bipartisan. An amendment to make a proposed ten-cent fee for recycled paper carryout bags optional for retailers failed clearly 8 to 30, but with four Democrats joining Republicans: Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield). The House refused to take up either bill, with some controversy around the former.

The Senate’s Affordable Homes Act (i.e., housing bond bill) debate had even fewer recorded votes than the House’s. Despite being in session from 10 am to midnight to work through the bill (with frequent recesses therein), there were almost no recorded votes, and there was little debate.

In the age of the MBTA Communities Act, the new law requiring communities with MBTA service to establish a zoning district where multifamily housing can be built as of right, the Republican Party has become a NIMBY bastion, a bit of irony given that Charlie Baker was the law’s biggest champion. Accordingly, Senate Republicans made an—unsuccessful—effort to create an appeals process to allow communities to evade the law (31s). Two Democrats—Edward Kennedy of Lowell and Walter Timilty of Milton—joined Republicans to vote for it. Although the Senate’s bill included a number of important provisions, we decided not to score it due to the Senate’s exclusion of the real estate transfer fee local option, which Governor Healey had supported: the unanimous final vote on the housing bond bill hides more about the process than it reveals. 

The budget, as “must-pass” legislation, produced a comparatively large share of total recorded votes given the number of amendments filed: the Senate took 44 recorded votes during its budget debate. Most were, of course, unanimous. However, a few were not. The Senate voted 34 to 5 against a Republican amendment to extend the statutory two-day sales tax holiday (a costly gimmick that accomplishes nothing) to two weeks, with Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining the 4 Republicans (26s). The Senate voted 29 to 10 against a Republican amendment  to undermine the Fair Share Amendment by allowing high-income couples to evade the surtax by filing separate tax returns if they have filed a joint federal tax return (27s). Six Democrats joined the four Republicans: Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Joan Lovely (D-Salem), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield). Shockingly, Collins, Lovely, Timilty, and Velis voted the exact opposite way the year prior (3s). 

The Senate also voted 30 to 9 to create a new advisory commission to determine a new seal and motto of the commonwealth (to replace the current very racist flag and seal), as recommended by the last commission (29s). Six Democrats joined 3 out of the 4 Republicans in voting against it: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Ed Kennedy (D-Lowell), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield). Republican Bruce Tarr of Gloucester joined Democrats in voting yes. 

The Senate’s economic development bill in July became another source of non-unanimous votes despite the unanimity behind the final bill. Two votes were party line: one to strengthen our public health infrastructure by re-passing a bill that the Legislature had passed last session but too late to override Governor Baker’s veto and one to defeat a Republican amendment to reduce the tax rate for short-term capital gains, an attempted giveaway to the top 1 percent (33s; 34s). 

The Senate also used the economic development bill as a vehicle to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system, something they also voted for back in 2017 (32s). Voting against the measure were the chamber’s four Republicans as well as Democrats Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield). 

Several Democrats who opposed such a measure in 2017 have since come around: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), and Mike Rush (D-Westport). Rodrigues and Rush have both voted better than their ideology on certain legislation given their need to vote in line with the Senate President as part of the Leadership team. 

Despite our reservations around unanimous votes, we did include two of them because if we encourage legislators to vote for a bill, we believe that we should include that bill in our scorecard. On that front, both chambers voted to update Massachusetts’s forty-year-old parentage statutes to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction (36s) and pass comprehensive maternal health legislation that would expand equitable access to midwifery care, allow more birth centers to open, offer paid pregnancy loss leave, and more (37s).

When the Senate belatedly took up a bill to address the Steward crisis, the amendment votes often reflected lobbying coming from the Senate Leadership and the Mass Nurses Association in opposite directions, leading to strange bedfellows. An example in point: the Senate voted 25 to 14 against an amendment creating a moratorium on any hospital, provider, or provider organization entering into any financial agreement with a private equity firm, real estate investment trust, or management services organization until 180 days after the bill’s regulations go into effect (35s). Voting yes were two reliable progressives: Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) and Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), the chamber’s four Republicans, and then eight mostly more moderate-to-conservative Democrats (Michael Brady of Brockton, Nick Collins of South Boston, John Keenan of Quincy, Edward Kennedy of Lowell, Mark Montigny of New Bedford, Michael Moore of Auburn, Marc Pacheco of Taunton, and Walter Timilty of Milton). 

The Senate passed their chamber’s siting reform and clean energy climate package in June. The final bill passed in November had stronger language around environmental justice but narrower language around a transition away from gas. The two votes were the same: 38 to 2, with Republicans Peter Durant of Spencer and Ryan Fattman of Sutton voting no. Since the roll calls were identical, we chose to score the latter (38s). 

With the dearth of recorded votes this session, we have sought other opportunities to show contrast between legislators. Starting in our mid-session scorecard, we tracked whether legislators used their oversight powers over prisons and jails (they can enter any DOC facility unannounced, but we did not restrict this data point to unannounced visits). For the final session scorecard, we added data points around co-sponsorship (39s, 40s) because if we ask legislators to do something, we should give credit if they do it, as well as accessibility (41s), measured via whether they hold office hours, town halls, or other events in district to actually hear from their constituents.

The 193rd session finished as the clock struck midnight and December 31 became January 1st. Rather than merely running out the clock against their usual July 31 legislative deadline, the MA House and Senate nearly went almost all the way up to the end of the year.

Blowing past deadlines is not a new phenomenon in the Massachusetts State House. But what was new this session was the record low number of recorded votes: 203 in the House and 252 in the Senate. By contrast, the average number of recorded votes for all the sessions from 2005 to 2022 (under both Democratic and Republican governors) was 522 in the House and 482 in the Senate; the House, in other words, was well over 50% below average and the Senate getting close. That makes the work of putting together a scorecard—a vital accountability tool—harder. 

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators. With fewer votes, there are fewer contrasts. 

When putting together a corecard, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps. 

We also avoid giving credit where credit has already been given: if we score a bill at one stage of the legislative process, we shy away from scoring its final passage later on to avoid duplication. However, when bills or amendments run counter to progressive values, we may score their multiple appearances. 

See our full scorecard here or on https://scorecard.progressivemass.com.

Since our mid-session scorecard, the biggest source of votes was the Affordable Homes Act, also known as the housing bond bill. The House did not take any recorded votes on individual progressive Democratic amendments to improve the bill, preferring to voice vote most of them down if they were not yet withdrawn. 

In the age of the MBTA Communities Act, the new law requiring communities with MBTA service to establish a zoning district where multifamily housing can be built as of right), the Republican Party has become a NIMBY bastion, a bit of irony given that Charlie Baker was the law’s biggest champion. House Republicans tried and rightly failed in their attempts to weaken the enforcement of the MBTA Communities Act, such as waiving compliance if a town meets the 40B threshold (i.e., at least 10 percent of housing units are low- or moderate-income) and creating an appeals process to allow communities to evade the law with spurious arguments (20h, 21h). House Republicans also tried to get mobile homes automatically counted toward a 40B threshold as a way of denying the need to actually build more affordable housing (22h). 

But the debate was not just about blocking bad amendments to the bill. The House did improve their base bill during the floor debate, such as by adopting a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase local option, which would enable cities and towns to choose to pass ordinances giving tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building if it goes up for sale (23h). However, the welcome embrace of a TOPA local option did not suffice for their refusal to include a real estate transfer fee local option; with such a critical piece of the Healey’s own proposed bill missing, we did not see fit to score the final bill itself. Those who voted against the bill (two Democrats—Rep. Bill Driscoll of Milton and Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewksbury—and eleven Republicans) should be criticized for their NIMBYism, but the yes votes hide more than they reveal given the jockeying around what should be in the final bill. 

Despite our reservations around unanimous votes, we did include two of them because if we encourage legislators to vote for a bill, we believe that we should include that bill in our scorecard. On that front, both chambers voted to update Massachusetts’s forty-year-old parentage statutes to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction (24h) and pass comprehensive maternal health legislation that would expand equitable access to midwifery care, allow more birth centers to open, offer paid pregnancy loss leave, and more (25h). 

Because the House’s own climate bill, passed in July, excluded any provisions around transitioning the state away from gas, we did not believe it to be worth scoring. As with the Affordable Homes Act, the NO votes (i.e., the Republican caucus) deserve criticism, but the YES votes hide more than they reveal. That said, the final climate bill passed in November was a solidly comprehensive bill with important language around environmental justice and the gas transition; Democrats were unanimously in support, and Republicans were split nearly down the middle (27h). 

In Massachusetts, we are aghast when Republican legislatures in other states try to block their liberal capital cities from passing their own laws. But that’s common practice here already given our restrictive home rule system. Fortunately, the House voted to approve (26h) a home rule petition from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to soften a looming residential property tax increase (with Proposition 2 ½, which has wreaked havoc on municipal finances for decades, residential and commercial real estate taxes are linked, and given a set of formulas, commercial real estate taxes are dropping while residential ones rising). If only the Senate would have obliged. 

With the dearth of recorded votes this session, we have sought other opportunities to show contrast between legislators. Starting in our mid-session scorecard, we tracked whether legislators used their oversight powers over prisons and jails (they can enter any DOC facility unannounced, but we did not restrict this data point to unannounced visits). For the final session scorecard, we added data points around co-sponsorship (28h, 29h) because if we ask legislators to do something, we should give credit if they do it, as well as accessibility (30h), measured via whether they hold office hours, town halls, or other events in district to actually hear from their constituents.