The House and Senate Passed a Final Version of the Affordable Homes Act. What’s in It?

On August 1, or, in Massachusetts State House time “still July 31,” the House and Senate passed a final version of the Affordable Homes Act, which Governor Healey first introduced all the way back in October.

The vote was 128 to 24 in the House, with Democrats Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) voting no and Republicans Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham), David Vieira (R-Falmouth), and Steven Xiarhos (R-Yarmouth) voting yes. The Senate vote was 38 to 2, with Peter Durant (R-Spencer) and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) voting no.

The Affordable Homes Act, also referred to as the housing bond bill, is a combination of bond authorizations and new housing policies.

First: what is a bond bill?

A bond bill is legislation that authorizes the state to issue and sell bonds to fund capital projects and programs. The bond bill contains capital authorizations, which identify programs that can be funded through revenue raised through said bonds. Importantly, a bond bill only authorizes the spending; it provides a menu, not a direct appropriation.

The final bill promises $5.16 billion in new investment in housing, but it is important to remember that this is not an exact budget appropriation. Indeed, Healey’s own capital spending plan dedicates only $2 billion for housing over the next five years, and $400 million in fiscal 2025. To be clear, this is a significant increase over recent years, but it indicates that all $5.16 billion in authorized expenditures are unlikely to be realized.

Among the bond authorizations, there were many important items, such as:

  • $2 billion authorization for public housing
  • $150 million for public housing decarbonization and $275 million for sustainable and green housing initiatives
  • $10 million authorization for a fund to help nonprofits acquire existing, non-subsidized housing units and keep them affordable for at least 30 years, protecting them from the speculative market

So next: what policies got included?

The final bill included such new policies as the following:

  • Legalizing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right (Governor’s, House, & Senate bills): The bill requires cities and towns to adopt by-right permitting in single-family zoned districts, caps parking mandates at 1 spot per unit for ADUs further than ½ mile from public transit, and bans owner occupancy requirements. Many cities and towns across the state have been fighting to pass zoning reforms to allow such ADUs (that is, small, independent residences built on the same lot as a single-family home) as a way to increase housing stock.
  • Eviction record sealing protections (Governor’s & Senate bills): The bill prohibits a consumer reporting agency from including in any report a sealed eviction record, and it gives tenants the ability to petition to seal eviction records in no-fault, non-payment, and fault cases over set time periods and the ability to seal any case that is dismissed or results in a final judgment in favor of the defendant. Unfortunately, none of this record sealing will be automatic; tenants will have to petition the court to get records sealed. Nonetheless, this is an important step because having an eviction record can create a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing and these records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many and disproportionately impacting women and people of color.
  • Foreclosure Prevention Pilot Program (Senate bill): The bill creates a pilot foreclosure prevention program in 5 communities with the highest foreclosure rates statewide. The program would allow homeowners facing foreclosure to request a mediation with their lender, together with a neutral third party, to pursue alternatives to foreclosure.
  • Creation of an Office of Fair Housing (Governor’s, House, & Senate bills): The bill establishes an office within the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities with explicit focus on fair housing and establishes a trust fund for enforcement initiatives, fair housing testing, education, and outreach. Strong fair housing laws and enforcement ensure that people are not discriminated against in buying or renting a home for reasons of race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc. 
  • Facilitating the Use of State Land for Housing (Governor’s, House, & Senate bills): The bill would help streamline the disposition of land under the control of a state agency or quasi for housing purposes. When the state owns the land, it can also lower the costs of building housing, making it easier to build affordable units.

What policies were excluded from the final bill?

  • Transfer Fee (Governor’s bill): This local option policy would have allowed cities and towns to apply a small fee to high-end real estate transactions in order to fund affordable housing. 
  • Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (House bill): TOPA is a local option policy in which tenants would be given the right of first refusal to band together to purchase their building when the owner puts it on the market.
  • Banning Broker’s Fees (Senate bill): This language would have required broker’s fees to be paid by the party who originally engaged with the broker — meaning, in almost all cases, the landlord rather than the tenant.
  • Inclusionary Zoning by Simple Majority (Governor’s bill, modified in the Senate bill): This would have allowed cities and towns to adopt inclusionary zoning policies with a simple majority vote of their City Council / Town Meeting / Select Board, rather than the  two-thirds vote that is currently required. Such ordinances require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units as a part of new construction.

What’s the takeaway?

The bill contains a number of policy victories, but it only makes a dent in the overall affordable housing crisis. We need continued advocacy to make sure that promised spending actually happens, and we need our Legislature to give cities and towns the tools that they want (like a transfer fee, like TOPA, like rent stabilization) to best respond to the crisis locally. Where the Affordable Homes Act fell short, it did so due to heavy lobbying from the real estate industry: a sign of the need for greater organizing among progressives and tenant advocates in support of a housing justice agenda.

MA House and Senate Pass Final Version of Gun Safety Bills

Last October, the MA House voted on a gun safety bill, and then the MA Senate did in February. After many months in Conference Committee, the House and Senate finally came to a consensus on a bill.

The House and Senate voted last Thursday to pass it, 35 to 5 in the Senate and 124 to 33 in the House.

Governor Healey signed the bill yesterday.

Here’s what the bill does (credit to the Mass Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence for all their advocacy and for the write-up that part of the following is derived from):

Data Collection

  • Directs the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS)  to examine firearm purchasing patterns as they relate to guns used in connection with a crime, to understand the ways that bulk firearm purchasing impacts gun crime.
  • Directs the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) to create a publicly available and quarterly updated dashboard with anonymized data on firearm crimes, firearm licensing, and firearm purchasing patterns. The dashboard is to be updated quarterly.

Licensing

  • Consolidates and simplifies existing licensing statutes to be more consistent and streamlined.
  • Raises the age at which an individual can own a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO)

  • Adds school administrators and licensed healthcare providers, including mental health clinicians, to the list of individuals eligible to petition the court for these petitions to remove firearms from individuals deemed at risk of hurting themselves or others.
  • Allows for a pre-emptive ERPO to be filed against an individual who may not yet have a firearms license, preventing them from obtaining one for a set period of time.

Training Requirements

  • Requires the State Police to develop a new training curriculum and standardized test for applicants for a license to carry or a firearm identification card.

Ghost Guns

  • Modifies the definition of a firearm to include the key components of a firearm that are used to assemble a ghost gun, and requires that all firearms are serialized, including those that are homemade.
  • Establishes a process for serializing homemade firearms.

Semiautomatic/Automatic Weapons

  • Imposes strict penalties for the possession of machine gun conversion devices, such as Glock switches.
  • Expands the definition of “assault weapons” to include known assault weapons and other weapons that function like them.
  • Prohibits possession, transfer, or sale of “assault-style” firearms or large-capacity feeding devices.

Community Violence Prevention

  • Establishes a commission to examine the way community violence prevention services in the Commonwealth are funded.

Sensitive Spaces

  • Prohibits the possession of firearms by non-law-enforcement people at schools, polling locations, and government buildings

House, Senate Pass Final Version of Pay Range Disclosure Bills

Yesterday, the MA Senate voted 38 to 2 and the House 153 to 5 for the final language of legislation to require all employers with 25+ employees to post salary ranges for positions they are advertising.

Here’s what the bill would do (courtesy of WBUR):

  • All job postings by employers (businesses, nonprofits, government entities, etc) with 25 or more workers would be required to include the wage or salary range for the position being advertised. The requirement takes effect a year after the bill is signed. While the bill doesn’t set specific guidelines for the range, it must be a “good faith” reflection of what the employer plans to pay.
  • The bill would also require those same employers to share the pay range whenever an employee is getting promoted or transferred to a new position — and it gives workers the right to request info on their current job’s salary range at any point.
  • Finally, the bill would require employers with 100 or more workers to file (already federally required) employment data with the state, so officials can better track local wage gaps.

MA Senate Passes Raise the Age via Economic Development Bill

On Thursday, during the long debate on the MA Senate’s economic development bill, the chamber voted 31 to 9 to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system.

Although the Raise the Age bill would have gone all the way to 21, this is still a major win, and research has shown that allowing emerging adults to be tried as juveniles decreases crime, improves public safety, and is good for creating economic opportunity. In the juvenile system, there is better access to education and support resources, and there are also better mechanisms for record sealing.

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).

There were four other recorded votes during the debate.

  • A party line 35 to 4 vote to enhance local public health infrastructure and service delivery.
  • A 6-33 vote on an amendment from Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to expand corporate tax exemptions. Joan Lovely (D-Salem) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joined the chamber’s four Republicans.
  • A 5-34 vote to lower the capital gains tax and drain much-needed revenue. Timilty again joined the chamber’s four Republicans.

The Senate Just Voted 40 to 0 for Its Housing Bill. What’s In It — And What’s Not?

Green affordable housing

Last night, the MA Senate voted unanimously (40 to 0) for its redraft of the Affordable Homes Act.

The Senate’s bill contains a $5.4 billion bond authorization, which — as it is important to acknowledge — is more than the $2 billion that the Governor actually plans to spend over the next five years. Not all of the spending authorized will materialize: the authorizations create potential, not hard reality.

But the policy components of bond bills are different: they are laws like any other laws. Their impact is not just potential, but reality.

Like Healey’s original version of the bill, the Senate bill would establish an Office of Fair Housing and legalize accessory dwelling units in single-family zoning districts without undue restrictions.

The Senate’s bill, like Healey’s, allows cities and towns to pass inclusionary zoning ordinances (i.e., requirements that a certain percentage of new construction be affordable units) by simple majority, but only allows it for requirements up to 13 percent.

The Senate’s bill, like Healey’s, creates a process for the sealing of eviction records and, importantly, allows this for cases that are dismissed or where tenants win (omissions in Healey’s original language), although the Senate did not streamline the process to make some of the sealing automatic to remove administrative burdens on tenants.

In a further win for tenants, the Senate bill bans brokers’ fees, requiring that real estate brokers’ fees be paid solely by the party that contracted with them and not born by renters for whom such fees can come as a costly and prohibitive surprise.

That all being said, the Senate’s exclusion of a local option real estate transfer fee was shameful and indefensible, a cowardly capitulation to the real estate industry, condescending a dismissal of cities and towns that want to take action, and sign that they simply do not take the housing crisis seriously. We can’t take tools off the table.

Recorded Votes from the Senate Session

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. Indeed, the third item that the Senate did was bundle 64 amendments — 1/5 of the total filed — and reject them en bloc on a voice vote (“All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay, the nays have it, and the amendments are rejected.” It lasts as long as it took you to read that.) The amendment to restore the local option transfer fee was among them.

They then adopted 71 amendments en bloc via voice vote. Later in the day, they rejected a bundle of 14 amendments and adopted a bundle of 30.

In other words, a total of 78 amendments were rejected via a bundled voice vote, and 101 were adopted via a bundled voice vote. Our deliberative body in action.

The remaining amendments did not get meaningful back-and-forth debate and deliberation either. Only three received recorded votes, and two of those were unanimous: the creation of a Crumbling Concrete Assistance Fund and the creation of First Time Home Buyers Savings Accounts. That those two received recorded votes is just a sign that their lead sponsors wanted to issue a press release or otherwise get public credit: the votes offer nothing in the way of transparency or accountability.

The only non-unanimous vote was on an amendment from Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to enable cities and towns to evade compliance with MBTA Communities Act zoning requirements. It failed 6 to 34, with two Democrats — Edward Kennedy of Lowell and Walter Timilty of Milton — joining Republicans.

Status of Amendments We Supported

  • #119, Air Quality for Homes: Withdrawn
  • #141, HOMES Judiciary Committee Bill: Adopted
  • #150, Establishing local-option rent stabilization: Withdrawn
  • #214, Foreclosure Prevention Program: Adopted but redrafted
  • #235, Encouraging homeownership: Withdrawn
  • #242, Local Option Transfer Fee: Rejected en bloc via voice vote

Status of Amendments We Supported

The House and Senate now have until July 31 to conference their two bills and vote upon consensus language.

MA Senate Passes Climate Omnibus Bill 38 to 2. Here’s What’s in It.

On Tuesday, the MA Senate voted 38 to 2 to pass its climate omnibus bill (An Act upgrading the grid and protecting ratepayers). The 2 NO votes coming from Republicans Peter Durant of Spencer and Ryan Fattman of Sutton. 

Here are some of the key parts of it.

Siting Reform

  • Establishes a fund to support individuals, local governments, and community organizations seeking to intervene in the siting regulatory process (formally known as “intervenors”), a Division of Public Participation within the Department of Public Utilities, and an Office of Environmental Justice and Equity
  • Creates a consolidated permitting process under the Energy Facilities Siting Board (as opposed to a series of permits across local, regional, and state levels) for various clean energy projects and limits the review process to one year for smaller projects and 15 months for larger projects
  • Requires any electric company, distribution company, generation company, transmission company or natural gas pipeline company to petition the Energy Facilities Siting Board when it seeks to take land via eminent domain
  • Requires the facility siting division within the Department of Public Utilities to maintain a clean energy infrastructure dashboard

Moving Beyond Gas 

  • Allows gas companies to provide networked geothermal energy 
  • Requires the Department of Utilities to consider the public interest (such as achieving greenhouse gas reduction goals) and the availability of non-gas alternatives when evaluating proposals from gas companies to expand territory and petitions from individuals for gas service. 
  • Requires gas companies to file plans with the Department of Public Utilities on  decommissioning gas infrastructure and remedying leak-prone infrastructure
  • Repeals the gas system expansion mandate at the DPU (i.e., the requirement that gas companies design programs “which increase the availability, affordability and feasibility of natural gas service for new customers” 

Electrification of Transportation 

  • Makes it easier for cities and towns to procure electric school buses and EV charging equipment for their municipalities
  • Authorizes $27M from the RGGI Auction Trust Fund to be made available for the Electric Vehicle Adoption Incentive Trust Fund for the next three fiscal years
  • Prohibits a historic district commission, board of a neighborhood conservation district, or condo association from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting an individual unit owner from installing electric vehicle supply equipment.
  • Requires the MBTA to develop short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans to electrify the commuter rail (Amendment #31) 

Building Decarbonization 

  • Directs the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance to evaluate the potential of increasing energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all buildings owned or leased by the Commonwealth
  • Expands the mission of the Board of Building Regulations to include energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reductions in embodied carbon

Consumer Protection

  • Prohibits competitive electric suppliers, which frequently engage in predatory business practices, from signing up new residential customers,
  • Requires the Department of Public Utilities to establish discounted rates for moderate-income consumers with distribution companies

Defining Clean Energy 

  • Positive: Removes the designation of biomass as clean energy for Municipal Light Plant clean energy standards (Amendment #34) 
  • Negative: Expands the definition of “clean energy” to include nuclear, carbon dioxide removal, hydrogen, renewable natural gas and includes carbon capture & sequestration in clean energy research

Just Transition

  • Creates a commission to examine ways to increase access to employment, training, and workforce opportunities in clean energy industries and related fields for gas workers (Amendment #120) 

Other Measures

  • Updates the state’s bottle bill to expand the types of beverage containers that have a deposit, to cover water bottles, iced teas, fruit juices, and more (Amendment #67)

Unfortunately, several of the amendments we supported to strengthen the bill were withdrawn:

  • #14 Protecting the Commonwealth from Gas Expansion (Gomez), which would halt large gas infrastructure expansion projects from being approved by the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB).
  • #15 Halting the Expansion of Large Gas Pipes (Gomez), which would stop the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) from approving gas companies to expand into new towns & cities not already served by gas.
  • #16 Protecting the Climate and Ratepayers from Gas Expansion (Gomez), which would halt both large gas infrastructure expansions approvals by the EFSB (Amendment 14) and gas territory expansions by the DPU (Amendment 15).
  • #100 Improving Outdoor Air Quality (Jehlen), which would create a technical advisory committee for air quality, direct the DEP to identify at least 8 pollution hot spots, install air monitors, and reduce the air pollution by 50% by 2030.
  • #106 Stemming the Expansion of RNG and Hydrogen (Eldridge), which would stop RNG and Hydrogen as being defined as clean energy.
  • #119 Prevailing Wage (Feeney), which would bring natural gas, electrical, and renewable energy utility workers under the Commonwealth’s prevailing wage statute to make it harder for work to be outsourced to low-road employers.

And several were voted down in quick, perfunctory voice votes with no accountability:

  • #28 Zero Carbon Renovation Fund (Gomez), which would provide funding for the decarbonization measures we need across sectors to meet Massachusetts’ ambitious climate goals.
  • #35 Limiting Biomass (Gomez), which would remove subsidies for burning biomass.
  • #57 Clean Energy Siting and Permitting, Local Option Amendment (Mark), which would make the consolidated permit a local option (like stretch code).
  • #116 Accurately Assessing Community Impacts (DiDomenico), which would strike a clause from the definition of cumulative impact analyses that would limit the analysis to only assessing the risks and exposures attributable to the proposed new pollution source 
  • #119 Prevailing Wage (Feeney), which would bring natural gas, electrical, and renewable energy utility workers under the Commonwealth’s prevailing wage statute to make it harder for work to be outsourced to low-road employers.

MA Senate Votes 38 to 2 to Reduce Plastic Waste

Yesterday, the MA Senate passed the Plastics Reduction Act, a comprehensive bill to reduce plastic waste, by a wide margin of 38 to 2. The only NO votes were from Republican Senators Peter Durant (R-Spencer) and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

The bill would prohibit carry-out plastic bags at retail stores statewide and require stores to charge 10 cents for recycled paper bags, five cents of which will be allocated to environmental protection measures (including making reusable bags widely available in low- and moderate-income communities). As of last year, more than 160 cities and towns, constituting nearly 70 per cent of the state’s population, already regulated single-use plastic bags.

The bill also takes additional steps, such as the following:

  • Preventing plastic utensils and straws from automatically being given to consumers
  • Prohibiting single-use plastic bottle purchases by state agencies
  • Creating a statewide program for recycling large plastic objects such as car seats
  • Requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to submit a report on how to expand access to composting
  • Establishing a commission on extended producer responsibility

During the floor debate, conservatives of both parties, led by Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), sought to make the bag fee optional for retailers. That amendment failed 8 to 30, with Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining the chamber’s four Republicans.

The House Passed Its Version of the Affordable Homes Act. Here Are the Votes.

On Wednesday, the House voted 145 to 13 to pass its redraft of Governor Healey’s Affordable Homes Act. The bill contains many important provisions, such as authorizing increased investment in housing (including rehabilitating public housing stock and decarbonizing our housing stock), allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right, making it easier to convert unused commercial space into housing, creating an Office of Fair Housing, and creating a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) local option. Unfortunately, the bill left out important parts of the Governor’s bill as well, such as a local option real estate transfer fee, eviction sealing protections, and reducing the threshold for passing inclusionary zoning ordinances. It now goes on to the Senate.

The 13 NO votes came from two Democrats — Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton) and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) — and 11 Republicans — Rep. F. Jay Barrows (Mansfield), Rep. Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), Rep. Angelo D’Emilia (R-Bridgewater), Rep. David DeCoste (R-Norwell), Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Rep. Steve Howitt (R-Seekonk), Rep. Susan Gifford (R-Wareham), Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Rep. Norman Orrall (R-Lakeville), Rep. David Soter (R-Bellingham), and Rep. Alyson Sullivan-Almeida (R-Whitman).

The House voted 131 to 27 against an amendment from Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) to exempt communities from MBTA Communities Act requirements if at least 10 percent of the housing units in the city or town are low or moderate-income (the “40B” threshold).

Two Democrats — Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) — joined Republicans in supporting the amendment.

The House voted 126 to 32 against an amendment from Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) to make it easier for communities opposed to building more housing to evade compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.

Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton), Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Pat Kearney (D-Scituate), Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The House voted 130 to 28 in favor of an amendment to preserve language allowing for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right without any of the unnecessary obstacles and poison pills conservative representatives tried to add to the language. The amendment made one modification that was acceptable to advocates: requiring a special permit process for building more than 1 ADU on a property.

Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) voted against it with Republicans, and Rep. Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer) joined Democrats in support.

The House voted 127 to 30 against an amendment from Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) to automatically count all mobile homes toward a community’s 40B threshold (i.e., that 10% of all housing units need to be for low or moderate incomes). The amendment was driven by NIMBY opposition to building affordable housing and would make it harder to achieve affordability goals.

Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Sally Kerans (D-Danvers), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Thomas Walsh (D-Peabody) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The House voted 133 to 25 for a consolidated amendment that, among other positive measures, added a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) local option to the bill. Under this, cities and towns could choose to pass ordinances giving tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building if it goes up for sale.

The House unanimously passed an amendment to add a veterans preference for housing and 153 to 5 to add a series of earmarks.

MA Senate Finishes Up Its Budget Debate. Let’s Talk about the Recorded Votes.

Yesterday, late at night, the MA Senate passed its FY 2025 budget. I’ll defer discussion on the specific funding levels to another time and instead highlight some policy victories in the amendment process and the recorded votes.

On the first hand, two amendments that Progressive Mass had advocated for passed, in modified form:

  • Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #100: Improving Voting Access, which would decouple the municipal census and voter registration status. Currently, cities and towns are required to mark registered voters as “inactive” if they don’t fill out the annual municipal census, a document many easily forget to fill out. When voters are inactive, they have to go through extra hoops at their polling location to vote.
  • Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #938: No Cost Calls Reporting Requirements, which would strengthen the oversight and data collection for No Cost Calls (i.e., the recently passed law that guarantees free access to phone calls and other communication to incarcerated individuals)

But now to the recorded votes. The Senate took recorded votes on 41 amendments, 37 of which were unanimous votes.

At Progressive Mass, we love recorded votes: they are a vital tool for accountability and transparency. But when it comes to unanimous votes like these, their main purpose is for senators to be able to publicly take credit for the addition of a specific program or funding increase rather than highlighting meaningful contrasts between legislators.

So what were those 4 non-unanimous votes?

Senator Bruce Tarr’s Amendment (#118) to prevent the diversion of a fraction of excess capital gains tax revenue to the general budget instead of the rainy day fund failed 4 to 35 on a party line vote.

Senator Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment (#810) to create a two-week sales tax holiday failed 5 to 34. Sales tax holidays drain vital revenue and don’t actually achieve goals of tax progressivity or economic stimulus. The 5 YES votes were the chamber’s 4 Republicans plus Walter Timilty (D-Milton).

Senator Bruce Tarr’s amendment to undermine the Fair Share Amendment by allowing high-income couples to evade the surtax failed 10 to 29. The Senate voted to close this loophole last year in order to prevent couples from being “married in DC, but single in Massachusetts” (i.e., filing their taxes together in DC but separately in MA to avoid the surtax on income over $1 million). The 10 YES votes consisted of the chamber’s four Republicans and six Democrats: 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).

Senator Jason Lewis’s amendment (#125) to create a new advisory commission to determine a new seal and motto of the commonwealth (in case you’ve forgotten, our state seal is very racist), as recommended by the last commission, passed 30 to 9. Voting NO were 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Bruce Tarr bucked his fellow Republicans by voting YES). The 6 Democrats were 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).

10 Weeks Left in the Legislative Session. How Has Your Legislator Been Voting?

Did you know that there are only 10 weeks left in the formal legislative session? That’s right: all the major decisions being made and votes being cast on Beacon Hill will be happening in the next 70 days.

But that’s all still to come. Let’s take a moment to talk about the session so far with our Legislator Scorecard.

Our 2023-2024 Scorecard

Fewer Recorded Votes: As of today, the House has only taken 107 recorded votes. By this date in 2022, the House had taken 187 votes, and in 2020, 174. The same problem exists in the Senate, where there have only been 148 recorded votes so far as opposed to 166 by this point in 2022 (and 14 of those 148 have happened just this week with unanimous votes on budget amendments).

Follow the Leader: We have been talking for years about the culture in the Legislature in which legislators defer to the will of the respective chamber’s Leadership, and that shows up even more starkly this year. Fewer votes that are not just party line are making it to the floor. Votes that show clear divides in the Democratic caucus are rare in the Senate and even rarer in the House. Whey such votes do happen, they are typically on roll call votes requested by Republicans which show which handful of Democrats are the most conservative in the caucus but little beyond that.

New Additions to the Scorecard: Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in (also important) scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent and overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit. Feel free to reach out to your own legislator as well.

Missed Votes: It’s the job of a legislator to show up, so our Scorecard has always counted missed votes against legislators. However, if a percentage of missed votes gets too high, a legislator’s score becomes more a story about attendance than about votes. That’s why you’ll see a number of legislators with no score at all: they missed too many of the scored votes. However, every legislator has the ability to submit on record to the House or Senate clerk how they would have voted had they been present, and we will count those.

What’s Coming:

Our scorecard won’t be finalized until the end of the legislative session, and so there might be many more votes to come — and many opportunities for your legislators to show that they stand for the progressive values you care about.