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.

193rd Session: House Roll Call Votes in Review

Crafting a scorecard depends on recorded votes, and the House has simply not taken very many recorded votes in the 193rd legislative session (2023-2024) to date. 

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. 

Not every vote is worth scoring: we have generally avoided scoring votes that the Legislature must take (veto overrides line item budget vetoes, enactment of state loans, public land transfers), as well as the non-controversial unanimous or near-unanimous votes that occur on budgets and supplemental budgets. 

For the 193rd Session scorecard, visit here.

The Session Starts: Rules

Although the last two sessions had contentious debates on the House rules, 2023 started much quieter on the rules front. However, House Democrats showed again that basic transparency measures supported by the Senate remain anathema in their own chamber. A proposal to require one week notice for legislative hearings (as opposed to the current 72 hours) failed 24 to 129, with Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) the only Democrat to vote for it (RC#8). 

Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts 

Although the voters passed the Fair Share Amendment in 2022 to raise taxes on the rich so that we can invest more, the House made clear that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations by passing a tax cut package filled with giveaways to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Only three legislators–Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville)–voted against the bill (RC#16). 

Democrats did, however, vote against Republican proposals to make the bill even worse (RC#14, RC#15). 

During the budget, House Republicans continued that line of attack, but their attempt to divert Fair Share revenue to regressive tax cuts via the “tax cap” law failed on a party line vote (RC#17). 

Although the final tax package was less regressive than what the House passed originally — including some important provisions passed by the Senate to protect Fair Share revenue — it was still skewed too much toward the rich and large corporations and risked harming our ability to invest. It passed near unanimously, with only Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) voting no (RC#33). 

Gun Safety Bill 

In October, the House voted 120 to 38 for a comprehensive gun safety bill that strengthened the state’s assault weapons ban, prohibited machine gun conversion devices, cracked down on ghost guns, among other steps. During the debate, Democrats voted down on party line a Republican effort to stall consideration of the bill (RC#59) and on almost party line a Republican effort to expand pretrial detention (RC#61). 

No Cost Calls 

One of the most exciting wins of the session so far was the passage of No Cost Calls, i.e., guaranteeing free access to phone calls to incarcerated individuals and ending the predatory practice of price gouging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to stay connected.

The House and Senate both originally passed this through their FY 2024 budgets; however, Governor Healey’s desire for technical changes on the implementation date led to the need for a standalone vote in the fall (RC#63). House Republicans tried to deplete the fund for implementation of No Cost Calls during the FY 2025 budget debate, but the effort was soundly defeated (RC#92). 

Pay Equity 

To strengthen the pay equity law passed a few sessions ago, the House passed the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, which would require salary and wage range disclosures and improve statewide data collection (RC#88). 

Shelter Funding 

In light of the rise of migrants and refugees to Massachusetts, the state’s essential right to shelter law has come under attack given the cost of housing new arrivals. Massachusetts should be proud of our right to shelter and of the diversity of our immigrant communities. 

The efforts to restrict the shelter law pose difficulty for a scorecard, since they inspire principled progressive opposition and xenophobic conservative opposition. However, the votes on Republican amendments to restrict new arrivals’ access to emergency shelter are unambiguous. Republicans tried to do this in the supplemental budget in November (RC#65), in a supplemental budget in March (RC#75), and in the FY 2025 budget (RC#99). 

Republicans secured recorded votes on several other xenophobic messaging amendments during budget season: 

  • A xenophobic amendment to the supplemental budget that falsely implied that job training programs for new arrivals are taking resources away from working-class people when the state already has many existing programs to help (RC#17)
  • A xenophobic amendment to prioritize individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year in the emergency shelter waitlist (RC#100)
  • A xenophobic amendment to prioritize honorably discharged unhoused veterans in the emergency shelter waitlist—an attempt to falsely imply that new arrivals are taking housing away from veterans (RC#101) 

Prison & Jail Accountability

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 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, 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.

193rd Session: Senate Roll Call Votes in Review

For the 193rd Session scorecard, visit this page.

Starting the Session: Rules 

Whereas the House has been the home of contentious rules debates in recent sessions, the Senate began with more of a rules fight than the House, as Senate Leadership put forth an amendment to eliminate term limits for the Senate President (what had been a welcome check on the centralization of power, in contrast to the House). The repeal passed 32 to 6 (RC#7), with three Democrats—John Keenan (D-Quincy), Becca Rausch (D-Needham), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton)—joining Republicans. 

Tax Policy 

After last 2022’s victory for the Fair Share Amendment (i.e., the 4% surtax on income over $1 million, creating dedicated funding for public education and transportation), the business community and conservatives (of both parties) have been organizing to cut taxes. 

During the FY 2024 budget debate, the Senate defeated Republican amendments to reduce the amount of designated funds raised by the Fair Share Amendment: 

  • An attempt to enable wealthy individuals to reduce their taxable income subject to the Fair Share surtax, which failed 5 to 34 with Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans (RC#38) 
  • An attempt to eliminate language to prevent Fair Share revenue from being redirected to the rainy day fund rather than being used for constitutionally protected purposes, which failed 5 to 34 with Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans (RC#45) 

During the Senate debate on its tax package, Senate Democrats took another stand to protect Fair Share revenue by voting to ensure that couples who file jointly on their federal taxes do so in Massachusetts as well (RC#51), but with Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joining Republicans. 

Democrats also defeated several Republican efforts to make the tax package more regressive 

  • Reducing the tax rate for short-term capital gains, a tax cut that goes disproportionately to the top 1% (e.g., day traders, speculators), which failed 5 to 34 (again, Finegold and Timilty) (RC#52) 
  • Raising the estate tax threshold to $5 million (which would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to such multi-million-dollar estates), which failed 5 to 34, with Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joining Timilty and Republicans (RC#53) 
  • Applying cost of living increases to the estate tax threshold of $2 million (something the Legislature has always avoided doing for wage increases), which failed 6 to 33, with Collins, Timilty, and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans (RC#54) 

However, senators also voted down a progressive amendment from Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) to ensure that Housing Development Incentive Program funds support much needed mixed-income housing by requiring developments funded under the program to have at least 20% permanently affordable housing. Only 9 senators voted in support of it (RC#50): Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett), Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston), Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester), Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham). 

The Senate tax bill passed unanimously, and although opposed to the focus on tax cuts, we chose not to score it was better than the House’s package in ways that would be important for House-Senate negotiations: 

  • The Senate bill rejected the proposed $117 million tax cut for day traders and speculators proposed by Gov. Healey and passed by the MA House in April. Notably, both chambers rejected this idea last year when Governor Baker proposed it.
  • The Senate bill rejected a $79 million corporate tax giveaway that the House back in April with no public debate.
  • The Senate bill offered a less expensive and less regressive cut to the estate tax.

The bill was also significantly less costly than the House’s bill, and it included the important loophole-closing mentioned earlier. 

However, the final tax bill included those two regressive tax cuts and a more regressive estate tax cut than the Senate proposed, even though it did include the loophole-closing. Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) was the lone no vote (RC#62). 

Gun Safety 

In February, the Senate passed its gun safety package, which would crack down on ghost guns, codify the state’s assault weapons ban, ban machine gun conversion devices, and other steps  on a party line vote of 37 to 3 (RC#114). 

In the lead-up to doing so, Senate Democrats voted down a Republican effort to send the bill back to committee 31 to 9 (RC#109), with Mike Brady(D-Brockton), Paul Mark (D-Peru), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Walter Timilty (D-MIlton) joining Republicans. They also voted down a proposal to replace the bill with a narrower, Republican-drafted bill 33 to 6 (RC#111), with Pacheco and Timilty joining Republicans.  

Supporting Our Immigrant Neighbors 

Senate Democrats defeated several xenophobic amendments from Republicans throughout the session: 

  • Eliminating the language in the FY 2024 budget to extend in-state tuition to all Massachusetts high school graduates, regardless of immigration status (RC#6, party line) 
  • Excluding arriving families from access to emergency housing assistance funding (RC#92, party line) 
  • Barring resettlement agencies from doing their work if the emergency shelter could be at capacity at an undefined future point — solving a problem via exclusion that can be solved via funding (RC#119), with Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans 
  • Determining  eligibility for emergency shelter according to the duration of residence in the commonwealth (RC#120), with Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans 

Pay Equity 

To strengthen the pay equity law passed a few sessions ago, the Senate voted 38 to 1 to pass the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, which would require salary and wage range disclosures and improve statewide data collection (RC#88). The sole NO came from Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). 

Unanimity: It Can Be Good 

The Senate also passed several noteworthy bills unanimously, all of which it passed last session only to see the House take no action: 

  • Allowing for a non-binary option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses in the state (RC#57) 
  • Making it easier for unhoused individuals to obtain a state-issued ID (#58) 
  • Making disposable menstrual products such as sanitary napkins, tampons, and underwear liners available for free in public schools, homeless shelters, and prisons in Massachusetts. (RC#89) 
  • Expanding access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by allowing pharmacists to provide a 60-day supply for those facing barriers to care. (RC#90) 

We often shy away from scoring unanimous votes, but the Senate’s persistence amidst House intransigence is worth rewarding.

The Senate unanimously passed legislation based on the Common Start bill: the EARLY ED Act, which would make the state’s Commonwealth Cares for Children (C3) operational grant program permanent, expanding eligibility for the state’s subsidy program, and boosting compensation for educators by creating a career ladder and providing scholarships and loan forgiveness (RC#116). During the debate, the Senate also voted down a Republican amendment to require a Legislative commission in the bill to study the development of a tax credit for employer-supported early education and care, a policy that has proven ineffective and underutilized in other states that have adopted it. It failed 7 to 32, garnering the support of Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Nick Collins, and Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) along with the chamber’s now-four Republicans (RC#115). 

Prison and Jail Accountability

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 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, 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.

MA Senate Passes Gun Safety Bill 37 to 3. Here’s What’s in It.

thoughts and prayers sign

In October, the MA House passed a comprehensive gun bill 120 to 38 (read about it here). 

The Senate debated and passed its own gun safety bill, named the SAFER Act, yesterday. 

Among the key provisions of the bill were: 

  • Cracking down on ghost guns by bringing MA’s laws in line with national standards of  what counts as a firearm, prohibiting the 3D-printing of weapons unless the person owns a license to manufacture firearms, and requiring any kit-assembled guns by a licensed gun owner to be registered  
  • Codifying the state’s assault weapons ban as it is currently being interpreted by the Attorney General, thereby modernizing outdated language referring to the since-expired federal ban
    • NOT in the SENATE BILL: expanding the AWB to cover more firearms 
  • Prohibits machine gun conversion devices or devices that increase the rate of fire of firearms
  • Creates manufacturer accountability by banning the marketing of unlawful firearm sales to minors and allowing industry actors to be held civilly liable if such marketing practices lead to an individual being harmed. [SENATE ONLY]
  • Ensures that gun dealers are inspected annually and allows the Massachusetts State Police to conduct those inspections if a local licensing agency does not or cannot do so. 
  • Prohibits the carry of firearms in government administrative buildings, with exceptions for law enforcement officers and municipalities that choose to opt out.
    • NOT in SENATE Bill: Extension to polling places, educational institutions (including higher education); ban on carry on private property without express permission or signage
  • Expands the list of individuals eligible to file an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) to include licensed healthcare professionals
    • NOT in SENATE bill: Extension to include school administrators and employers
    • SENATE ONLY: Ability to file a pre-emptive ERPO, prohibiting someone who does not yet have a license for applying for one for a certain period of time
  • Protects survivors of harassment by requiring courts to compel the surrender of firearms by individuals who are subject to harassment protection orders who pose an immediate threat. 
  • Ensures that firearm licensing authorities have access to certain information about an applicant’s history of involuntary mental health hospitalizations due to posing a serious harm—with appropriate safeguards to guarantee privacy and due process [SENATE ONLY]
  • Establishes commissions to study the funding structure for community-based violence prevention services and to study emerging firearm technology 
  • Strengthens data collection on firearms and firearm crimes 

The final vote was 37 to 3. The only NO votes were Republicans Peter Durant (R-Spencer), Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), and Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth).

During the debate on the bill, Senator Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) tried to replace the bill with a narrower substitute bill. It received only 6 votes, the 3 NO votes plus Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), and Walter Timilty (R-Milton).

House, Senate Send No Cost Calls to Governor’s Desk

Right now, families are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones. The DOC charges 12 cents per minute, and most County Sheriffs charge 14 cents per minute: $2.40 and $2.80 for a 20-minute call, plus fees for putting money on an account. This is a regressive tax on the most marginalized families that also harms public safety by limiting communication and weakening community bonds. Families currently spend more than $14 million per year on service the State could get for around $3 million by negotiating a better contract.

As communities already struggle with the high cost of housing and health care, no one should be forced to choose between basic needs and maintaining contact with loved ones.

The campaign for No Cost Calls, which almost saw victory last session before last-minute legislative shenanigans, had a great week, as both the House and Senate took the final enactment votes needed to send an amended version of No Cost Calls to the Governor’s Desk.

Both the House and Senate had previously passed No Cost Calls language in their budget, but Governor Healey requested a change in the effective date to December 1, which advocates agreed to as long as there was a clear guarantee of no loss in access (i.e., preventing DOC from taking the extended runway as an opportunity to create a lower baseline of access to phone calls).

The House voted 132 to 26 on Wednesday to formally enact the amended language, and the Senate did so by voice vote on Thursday.

You can find the House vote below:

MA House and Senate Vote to Strengthen State’s Equal Pay Law

Massachusetts was the first state in the US to pass an equal pay law, all the way back in 1945, and the Legislature updated it in 2016 to prohibit employers from asking job applicants for salary history, prohibit employers from banning discussion of wage information, and require equal pay for comparable work.

But gender- and race-based pay gaps continue to exist in the workplace, and the House and Senate have taken action to strengthen the equal pay in response.

The Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, named after the first female Secretary of Labor in the US, would require employers with 25+ employees to disclose the salary or wage range for a position in all job postings, provide the salary range to employees offered promotions and transfers, and provide the pay range to employees for their current roles if requested.

It would also require covered employers with 100 or more employees to supply wage and demographic information to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. You can’t fix the inequities you do not see.

Earlier this month, on October 4, the House voted 148 to 8 to pass this bill.

The 8 NOs were all Republicans: Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer), Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), David DeCoste (R-Norwell), Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Kelly Pease (R-Westfield), Michael Soter (R-Bellingham), Alyson Sullivan-Almeida (R-Abington), and Steven Xiarhos (R-Barnstable).

Yesterday (October 19), the Senate voted 39 to 1 to pass the bill, with the sole NO being Republican Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

MA House Votes 120 to 38 to Strengthen State’s Gun Laws

Last year, the right-wing US Supreme Court weakened states’ ability to pass strong gun safety laws by blocking New York’s handgun licensing law. At the end of last session, the MA Legislature passed legislation to ensure that MA’s gun laws would be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling, protecting them from legal challenge, but the situation also showed that the moment was ripe for revisiting how to strengthen MA’s gun laws overall.

Governor Deval Patrick signed a gun control omnibus package back in 2014, and an extreme risk protection order (ERPO), or “red flag,” bill was passed in 2018, allowing family members, housemates, and law enforcement officials to file temporary firearms restrictions in civil court. But there is more work to do.

As a result of impressive advocacy from the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, and other groups, and the commitment of House Judiciary Chair Mike Day, the House passed a comprehensive gun violence prevention bill this Wednesday that continues MA’s leadership on this issue.

Among other steps, the bill does the following:

  • Strengthens MA’s assault weapons ban by expanding it to cover more firearms
  • Raises the age for possession of a semi-automatic long gun (rifle or shotgun) to 21
  • Prohibits all machine gun conversion devices or devices that increase the rate of fire of firearms
  • Cracks down on ghost guns by requiring that all firearms manufactured, assembled, possessed, purchased, or transferred into MA be serialized
  • Prohibits firearms in government buildings, polling places, and educational institutions, including higher education, and prohibits firearms on private property without express permission or signage
  • Expands the list of individuals eligible to file an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) to include licensed healthcare providers, school administrators, and employers
  • Strengthens data collection on firearms and firearm crimes
  • Establishes commissions to study the funding structure for community-based violence prevention services and the feasibility of microstamping (which imprints a unique identifier on bullet casings to help identify the gun used in specific incident) and smart gun technology (which includes various measures to ensure that only the rightful owner is using a gun, e.g., a thumb screen)

The final vote was 120 to 38.

Joining Republicans in voting against it were Democrats Shirley Arriaga (D-Chicopee), Brian Ashe (D-Longmeadow), Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Pat Haddad (D-Somerset), Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth), Rady Mom (D-Lowell), David Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Aaron Saunders (D-Belchertown), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), and Jonathan Zlotnik (D-Gardner).

Democrats Pat Kearney (D-Scituate) and John Rogers (D-Norwood) were not present.

Here’s How Your State Senator Voted in the Tax Reform Debate

Sunlight - Beacon Hill

Earlier tonight, the MA Senate passed a $586 million tax reform package. As I noted earlier today, the MA Senate’s tax reform package was a much better proposal than the House’s:

  • The Senate bill rejects the proposed $117 million tax cut for day traders and speculators proposed by Gov. Healey and passed by the MA House in April. Notably, both chambers rejected this idea last year when Governor Baker proposed it.
  • The Senate bill rejected a $79 million corporate tax giveaway that the House back in April with no public debate.
  • The Senate bill offers a less expensive and less regressive cut to the estate tax than either Governor Healey or the MA House. Unfortunately, every estate tax proposal includes tax cuts for the largest estates rather than limiting them to more modest estates subject to the tax.

During the debate, the Senate voted to protect the Fair Share victory from last year by closing tax loopholes and defeating attempts to give more tax cuts to the rich; however, the Senate unfortunately also rejected an attempt to improve our state’s response to the affordable housing crisis.

THE GOOD

The Senate voted 33 to 5 for an amendment from Sen. Jason Lewis to close a joint filing loophole that could have led to the loss of $200 million of Fair Share revenue each year. It would have required couples that jointly file their federal taxes to do so in Massachusetts as well. Without this technical change, Massachusetts would remain the only state with an additional tax code for higher incomes without either an incentive for couples to file jointly or a prohibition against their filing separately. Such a loophole would encourage tax avoidance through the illegal misattribution of income.

Two Democrats–Sen. Barry Finegold of Andover and Sen. Michael Moore of Millbury–joined the 3 Republicans in voting no.

The Senate defeated, by a vote of 32 to 5, a proposed Republican tax giveaway to day traders and speculators. Only Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and the three Republicans voted for it.

The Senate defeated, by a vote of 33 to 5, a regressive and fiscally irresponsible Republican attempt to raise the estate tax threshold to $5 million, which would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to such multi-million-dollar estates. Only Nick Collins (D-South Boston) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and the three Republicans voted for it.

The Senate defeated, by a vote of 32 to 6, a second Republican effort to erode the revenue raised by the estate tax. Only Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), John Velis (D-Westfield), and the three Republicans voted for it.

THE BAD

The Senate’s tax package expands the Housing Development Incentive Program, which provides millions in state tax credits and local tax breaks for developers of market-rate housing in Gateway cities. However, the units built through these incentives can be shockingly expensive, and incentives often go to areas that are already attractive to developers.

According to an analysis from the Mass Law Reform Institute, more than half of HDIP funds go to only five of the 26 Gateway cities, only 2% of HDIP units are affordable, and rents routinely exceed prevailing wages and prices. We need to build more housing, but our public dollars should be going toward affordable housing if we want to meaningfully address our housing crisis.

In response, Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) offered an amendment to create basic affordability standards for HDIP projects: a requirement that at least 20% of the units created in any HDIP-funded project be permanently affordable.

Despite our large Democratic supermajority, the commonsense amendment was defeated 30 to 9.

If your senator was one of the 9 who stood up to Senate Leadership to vote yes, make sure to thank them.

MA House Votes 150-3 for Regressive Tax Package

Last November, voters sent a message by voting for the Fair Share Amendment: the rich should pay their fair share so that we can invest in public education and infrastructure. For years, the Legislature has used the line “We don’t have the money” to justify inaction and underinvestment; we got them the money.

But on Thursday, the MA House made clear that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations by passing a tax cut package filled with giveaways to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Last year, many representatives were quite clear that they intended for the new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment to be fully additive, rather than backfilling cuts. Even though the House laid out promising and important uses for the constitutionally dedicated funds, voters should wonder how much legislators believe their own pledges given the permanent tax cuts they just passed.

The vote was 150 to 3, with only Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voting no.

Almost half of the cost of their tax proposal comes from the three regressive tax cuts:

  • A $231 million cut to the estate tax designed to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest estates
  • A $130 million cut for day traders and speculators by cutting the short-term capital gains tax
  • A $79 million tax cut for the state’s largest corporations through what is called “single sales factor apportionment”

Think of all that we could do with $440 million if instead we invested it in our public transit systems, in education, in child care, in climate resilience, in affordable housing, or in health care. Indeed, tackling our housing crisis should be the #1 priority if legislators actually cared about the goals of “affordability” and “competitiveness.” By passing such regressive tax cuts, the House is disrespecting the will of the voters, and they are setting Massachusetts up for brutal cuts when the next recession hits.

Even the less regressive parts of the tax package could go further if invested in robust social programs. The House bill would spend $40 million on an increase in the Renters Deduction from $3,000 to $4,000. However, this in reality, only yields to a tax credit of up to $50 for eligible renters. An extra $50 in the pocket of renters ultimately won’t go very far, given escalating rents and costs in general. As Rep. Mike Connolly pointed out, the state could have used the same money to guarantee all renters access to legal counsel in eviction cases, a measure with far lasting benefits.

The largest part of the tax package is the child and family tax credit, which would amount to $600 per child under 13 or dependent adult and cost $487 million. As I noted before, it is unclear why parents of teenagers should not get the same benefit: any parent of a teenager will tell you how much it costs to feed a teenager. Families with low and middle incomes will certainly benefit from extra money in their pocket, but $600 will not last long given that two weeks of child care costs more than that. The credit thus does little to address the real drivers of the cost of living in Massachusetts, even if it can help around the edges.

A more progressive part of the House’s tax package that was not in the Governor’s proposal was the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which would benefit about 396,000 taxpayers with incomes under $57,000, and would cost $91 million. However, it is important to remember that the EITC was originally a conservative proposal, born of opposition to a strong minimum wage and a robust safety net.

According to Mass Budget, we could make all public colleges and universities in the state tuition-free — or make all community colleges debt-free — for approximately $1 billion. State legislators would demand that such a proposal be funded. So why shouldn’t their tax expenditures have to be funded as well?