Earlier this week, the House (Wednesday) and Senate (Thursday) voted by overwhelming margins to override Governor Charlie Baker’s veto of the Work & Family Mobility Act, which would allow any qualified driver—regardless of immigration status—to obtain a driver’s license.
The success was the testament to the hard work of the Driving Families Forward coalition, led by SEIU 32BJ and the Brazilian Workers Center (along with Field First), as well as bill sponsors Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield) and Christine Barber (D-Somerville) in the House and Brendan Crighton (D-Lynn) and Adam Gomez (D-Springfield).
Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico already allow residents the right to apply for driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status, including our neighbors New York, Vermont, and Connecticut. And Massachusetts is poised to be next.
The bill is a win-win all around. It recognizes the essential contributions of our immigrant brothers and sisters, who often depend on a car to get to work, to school, to the hospital, etc. Immigration status shouldn’t be a barrier to getting a license. The bill would help make the roads safer for all, lower insurance rates, bring in more revenue for the state (through license fees), and strengthen our economy.
On Wednesday, exactly five months before the November 8 general election, the House and Senate released their final agreement on language for the VOTES Act. Yesterday, the Senate voted 37 to 3 in support of the final version of the bill, and the House is expected to vote soon.
The negotiations around the VOTES Act have been going on for months. The Senate passed a bill back in October, and then the House passed one back in January. There has always been strong support from both chambers this session for making the widely popular vote-by-mail and expanded early voting reforms from 2020 permanent, but House leaders have remained fiercely opposed to Same Day Registration or even a narrower Election Day Registration despite ongoing Senate support. Rep. Mike Moran (D-Brighton), one of the most vociferous opponents of Same Day Registration in the House debate, was one of the House appointees to the Conference Committee negotiating the bill.
The opposition to Same Day Registration / Election Day Registration is revealing. Reforms like vote-by-mail and expanded early voting can give incumbents a clearer picture of who is voting and who has already voted. SDR/EDR means that new people with whom they may not have spoken could show up at the polls. That uncertainty terrifies many representatives, and rather than stepping up their work at engaging all residents of their districts, they would rather shut such prospective voters out of the process entirely.
The final version of the VOTES Act, to be clear, contains a number of wins, some big and some modest. Special credit to the Democracy Behind Bars coalition for elevating the issue of jail-based voting during the debate and the negotiations around the bill.
Here are the key provisions of the Conference bill:
Voter Registration
Reducing the voter registration deadline from 20 days before the election to 10 days. Unfortunately, the Conference bill left out Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration, which, as noted, had been a major point of contention in negotiations. The Senate has now voted to pass Same Day Registration three times, only to see it fail each time due to House intransigence. Same Day Registration is one of the simplest and most effective ways to increase turnout, and it is especially important for working-class voters, BIPOC voters, young voters, and renters, and it continues to be appalling that our Democratic supermajority in the House is too afraid of new people participating in the democratic process to embrace this reform.
Requiring the Secretary of State to make the online registration portal accessible in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and other languages deemed necessary or required by law
Reasserting that the Automatic Voter Registration law passed in 2018 is a back-end rather than front-end opt-out system. Secretary Bill Galvin has been refusing to implement the bill as passed, creating instead what is called a “front-end opt-out system” in which eligible registrants are given the opportunity to opt out during the initial transaction as opposed to afterwards. For more on this issue, read this.
Requiring the Secretary Galvin to enroll Massachusetts in theElectronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which helps states keep more accurate voting rolls, no later than July 1, 2022. This too was required in the 2018 AVR bill, and Galvin has refused to adhere to the law.
Vote By Mail
Permanent early voting by mail for all elections (unless municipalities vote to opt out in a public vote of the local legislative body for local elections)
Application deadline of the fifth business day before the election (the Tuesday before the election for all regularly scheduled Tuesday elections, and the Monday before the election when the primary falls on the week of Labor Day)
Special accommodations for those with disabilities seeking to vote by mail.
Creation of an online portal for VBM requests, as well as publication of the application on the Secretary website and the websites of each city and town
Mailing of VBM applications no later than 45 days before the election to all voters registered no later than 60 days before the election
VBM applications and ballots postage-paid, pre-addressed, and available in all languages as required by law.
Mailing of applications with the voter registration acknowledgement letters sent out after registering to vote or updating registration
Deadline of 5 pm on the third day after the election for receipt of VBM ballots mailed on or before Election Day
Unfortunately, there are no requirements around the number or accessibility of drop boxes for cities and towns to make available for return of VBM ballots.
Early Voting
Two weeks for biennial state elections (Saturday two weeks before GOTV Saturday through the Friday before the election)
One week for primary elections (Saturday before GOTV Saturday through the Friday before the election)
Posting of early voting sites at least two weeks prior
Local option for early voting in municipal elections (Majority of registrars must request, and then local legislative body must approve. The early voting period must exist within 17 days before the election and 2 business days prior. For Tuesday elections, this would mean between the Saturday two weeks before GOTV Saturday and the Friday before the election.)
See below for early voting requirements by city/town population
Staffing the Polls
Enabling cities and towns to appoint poll workers from outside the city/town if there is insufficient staffing
Granting the power to determine the staffing of police officers of the polls to the local legislative bodies, rather than the police departments
Jail-Based Voting Reforms
Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated who are currently eligible to vote are provided with voting information and materials to exercise their right to vote
Requires correctional facilities to display and distribute information about voting rights and procedures, as prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth
Requires facilities to assist individuals who are incarcerated in registering, applying for, and returning mail ballots
Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated are properly notified of their right to vote upon release and given the opportunity to fill out a voter registration form
Creates systems for data collection on jail-based voting, as well as the ability of incarcerated individuals to submit complaints
Unfortunately, the JBV language only applies to state/federal elections (and does not include municipal elections), but it is still a big win.
Earlier today, the MA Senate joined the House in passing the Work & Family Mobility Act, which would allow any qualified driver—regardless of immigration status—to obtain a driver’s license, by an overwhelming, veto-proof margin of 32 to 8. Five Democrats—Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined the three Republicans—Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth), and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) in opposing it.
The success of the bill was the testament to the hard work of the Driving Families Forward coalition, led by SEIU 32BJ and the Brazilian Workers Center, and the sponsors Brendan Crighton (D-Lynn) and Adam Gomez (D-Springfield).
Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico already allow residents the right to apply for driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status, including our neighbors New York, Vermont, and Connecticut. And Massachusetts is poised to be next.
The bill is a win-win all around. It recognizes the essential contributions of our immigrant brothers and sisters, who often depend on a car to get to work, to school, to the hospital, etc. Immigration status shouldn’t be a barrier to getting a license. The bill would help make the roads safer for all, lower insurance rates, bring in more revenue for the state (through license fees), and strengthen our economy.
Before voting on passage, the Senate rejected five right-wing amendments.
The Senate voted 31-8 against an amendment from Bruce Tarr that would have required the RMV to issue licenses of a different color to immigrants without status, a move that would open the door to discrimination police entanglement with immigration enforcement. If you are driving and a police officer asks to see your license, there is no reason why that police officer needs to know whether or not you are a citizen; there is simply no bearing.
This vote was similar to the final vote on the bill, but with Michael Moore (D-Auburn) and Nick Collins (D-South Boston) flipping and Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) not casting a vote (which she only does on votes she deems especially important).
The Senate voted 32 to 7 against another amendment from Tarr requiring licenses to be marked “Not valid for identification” with bold text, again opening the door to stigma, discrimination, and entanglement with federal immigration enforcement. The only difference from the final vote was Nick Collins joining Democrats.
The Senate voted 29 to 10 against an amendment from Ryan Fattman requiring the RMV to pass on information on license-holders to city and town clerks, a pointless and costly exercise that is rooted merely in Republican myths around voter fraud. We already have non-citizen drivers (e.g., green card recipients) who have obtained a license but are not eligible to vote: earning a license has nothing to do with your ability to vote. Moreover, there is already a system in place at the RMV, MassHealth, and the Health Connector to account for this in the AVR system. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the bill’s opponents in voting for it.
The Senate voted 30 to 9 against another amendment from Tarr to require the RMV to provide information on the holder of a license in response to any request from any commonwealth agency pursuant to any criminal or civil investigation. Unnecessary information sharing would have a chilling impact and reduce the number of applicants, who would be afraid that their information could be passed on to ICE. John Keenan (D-Quincy) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the bill’s opponents, but Nick Collins voted with fellow Democrats.
The Senate finally voted 31 to 7 against another disingenuous amendment from Tarr to require that applicants attest that they will not use the license for identification or to register to vote, an amendment that serves no real purpose in a state where you don’t need an ID to vote other than to fear-monger about non-existent voter fraud. Collins joined fellow Democrats in voting against the amendment.
On Thursday, April 14, the MA Senate passed a new climate bill,S.2819: An Act Driving Climate Policy Forward, which focused on accelerating the clean energy transition and the shift to electric vehicles. Notably, the bill also creates a pilot program for municipalities to ban oil/gas hookups in new construction, solving the legal problem that municipalities like Brookline have faced in trying to do so.
Transportation advocates were very critical of the bill’s focus on electric vehicles as opposed to a “mode shift” focus, i.e., how we can shift people from cars (electric or not) to more sustainable forms of transportation (walking, biking, public transit). Indeed, although the bill had new targets for public transit electrification, there were no new investments made in it for our state’s public transit infrastructure (let alone biking or pedestrian infrastructure).
The bill passed 37 to 3, with the NO votes coming from the chamber’s 3 Republicans (Ryan Fattman of Sutton, Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth, Bruce Tarr of Gloucester).
The following overview of the bill combines information from the Senate summary provided to press and the write-up from the Massachusetts Sierra Club.
Clean Energy
Enables nuclear fusion, networked geothermal, and deep geothermal energy to be eligible for support from the Mass Clean Energy Center
Creates a $100 million Clean Energy Investment Fund
Updates the offshore wind procurement process by maintaining a price cap while allowing certain direct economic development costs to be excluded from the calculation, removing utilities from the role as selector of the winning procurement, and reducing the remuneration rate for utilities
Removes impediments to medium-sized solar developments and tees up a successor to the state’s SMART solar program (Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target) solar program that favors development in the built environment
Expands the ability for “dual use” solar and agriculture projects to receive incentives, and incentivizes pollinator-friendly measures in solar developments
Authorizes all public pensions, with the exception of the state employees retirement system, the state teachers retirement system, and the State Boston retirement system, to divest from any investment in fossil fuel companies
Electric Vehicles
Establishes a $100 million fund for the MOR-EV rebate program (Massachusetts Offers Rebates for Electric Vehicles) and provides a $3,500 point-of-sale rebate for the purchase of an electric car or light-duty trucks (with an additional $1000 for trading in a gas-powered vehicle), with $4,500 for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles; also allows used vehicles to qualify for the first time and establishes a $1,500 rebate at point of sale for low-income buyers
Creates a new outreach program for underserved and low-income communities, as well as communities with high proportions of high-emission vehicles
Codifies Governor Baker’s pledge for all vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035;
Requires the entire MBTA bus fleet to be electric by 2040, with no gas-powered purchases after 2028 (Note that environmental groups had advocated for a 2030 deadline for full electrification)
Requires emissions reduction targets for ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft
Creates a new interagency coordinating council to develop and implement a plan for deploying EV charging infrastructure in an equitable and accessible way, backed by a $50 million fund
Requires new developments to allocate 10 percent of parking spaces to electric vehicle charging
Requires utilities to offer reduced electricity rates for off-peak EV charging
Buildings
Creates a 10-municipality demonstration project allowing municipalities to restrict the use of fossil fuels in new construction projects
Limits ratepayer-funded efficiency programs from incentivizing fossil fuel equipment starting in 2025
Expands equity in the Mass Save program by requiring DPU to include equity data in its evaluation of efficiency investment plans and to invest to strategically to reduce racial disparities in outcomes
Other Measures
Prevents biomass facilities from receiving state clean energy incentives
Directs creation of a study into future energy storage needs
Bans competitive electricity suppliers, who often prey on the most vulnerable, from operating in Massachusetts
The Amendment Process: What Was Adopted, Rejected, or Withdrawn without a Vote
Most floor debate happens without discussion or a vote. Occasionally, a lead sponsor will make some remarks before an amendment is adopted by voice vote or before withdrawing the amendment to avoid seeing it rejected. Thursday was no different.
Moreover, many amendments that were adopted were redrafted before adoption. Curious to know how an amendment changed during redrafting? Well, so am I. The Senate does not show the original text, a striking lack of transparency.
Here’s a run-down of the fate of some key amendments advocated for by the Sierra Club or Mass Power Forward:
Adopted by Voice Vote
#5 Offshore Wind, redrated (Cyr): Increases the minimum required offshore wind target to 10,000 MW total by 2035 and ensures that local indigenous tribes are included in both the process and the opportunities that result
#7 Large Building Energy Reporting, redrafted (Rausch): Requires the owners of large buildings (such as offices, apartments, hospitals, and university campuses) to report their energy use to the state each year and allows municipalities to set stronger reporting standards
#13 Commuter Rail Electrification, redrafted (Crighton): Requires all commuter rail procurements to be electric by 2031 and requires the MBTA to establish short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans for each commuter rail line and how they fit into the state’s emissions reductions goals
#36 Monitoring & Reducing Air Pollution, redrafted (Jehlen): Creates a committee to identify air pollution hotspots and establish baseline pollution levels, and requires a 2024 report from the committee on how to reduce air pollution in identified locations by 50 percent by December 31, 2030
#65 Mass Save Equity, redrafted (Chang-Díaz): Adds increased valuation of equity, renter access, and data collection in Mass Save programs
#128 Green and Healthy School Buildings, redrafted (Comerford): Assesses and creates a plan to renovate k-12 schools to improve energy efficiency, air quality, temperature and light control and more, starting with the highest needs schools
Rejected by Voice Vote
#8 Large Building Energy Performance Standards (Rausch): Requires large buildings to meet minimum standards for energy efficiency, reducing their reliance on fossil fuels over time
#31 Prioritizing Project Labor Agreements in Offshore Wind Energy Generation Proposals (Feeney): Requires DOER to give preference to offshore wind proposals that demonstrate benefits from the greatest economic development and employment contributions and adds consideration of the use of project labor agreements for the life cycle of offshore wind projects
#55 Promoting Sustainable Development and Infrastructure (Collins): Integrates climate adaptation planning across various components of the economy, such as capital infrastructure projects, environmental impact reviews, utility infrastructure, and building codes and standards
#63 Expanding Electric New Construction (Eldridge): Increases the number of municipalities that can participate in the demonstration project allowing municipalities to restrict the use of fossil fuels in new construction projects by 30 to a total of 40
#82 Parking Spaces Wired for Charging Stations (Edwards): Requires at least 90% of all parking spaces in new residential and commercial construction be wired to be electric vehicle capable
#88 Fleet Electrification (Edwards): Sets interim targets and requires all public fleets including state, municipal, and school bus fleets to be electric by 2035. Also requires the DOER to design an incentive program to encourage the transition of private fleets to electric vehicles
#122 Methane emissions accounting (Comerford): Updates MA’s greenhouse gas reporting law to meet latest scientific understandings on methane emissions, ensuring more accurate and consistent accounting of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of methane
#148 Expanding the MassSave program (Chandler): Expands the range of energy efficiency applications and subsidies covered by the MassSave program to include insulation, upgrading electrical systems, heat pumps, and solar energy systems
Withdrawn
#24 Fare-Free Bus Pilot (Jehlen): Requires the MBTA and the RTA to implement a one-year fare-free bus pilot by March 31, 2023
#33 Hydrogen & Biomethane Gas Contracts (Jehlen): Prevents the department of public utilities from approving a contract for the so-called “decarbonized gases” of hydrogen, renewable natural gas, or any gas derived from hydrogen if it costs more than an average cost of fossil gas
#64 Food Justice with Jobs (Eldridge): Creates Community Land Trusts in food-insecure communities in order to grow more food and create food security jobs, and creates Garden Agriculture Program and Grants
#89 Restrict the use of fossil fuels in new construction projects (Friedman): Expands the number of municipalities that can participate in the demonstration project allowing municipalities to restrict the use of fossil fuels in new construction projects by greenlighting all gateway cities with over 50,000 residents and 20-30 additional towns.
#109 Equitable Siting in East Boston (Edwards): Prevents the building of an electrical substation in East Boston
#118 Electrification of New and Substantially Remodeled or Rehabilitated Buildings (Comerford): Requires all newly constructed, substantially remodeled, or rehabilitated buildings to use electricity or thermal solar instead of fossil fuels, with some exceptions; allows municipalities to impose reasonable penalties for violations
Notable Roll Call Votes
As noted earlier, the final bill was a party-line vote of 37-3. The Senate also rejected 36-3 the Republican caucus’s substitute version of the bill, a truncated version of the bill that allows the “future of gas” work of the Department of Public Utilities to conclude with the current governor and that removes the language ensuring that wood-burning electric power plants not be counted as clean energy.
The Senate voted unanimously for amendments to allow local pension funds to divest from fossil fuels (#57, Pacheco) and to require MassDOT to assist Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) in transitioning to the use of electric buses (#123, Chandler).
The most interesting contested vote was that on Sen. Pacheco (D-Taunton)’s Amendment #4: Building Environmental Justice and Energy Efficiency With Jobs, which integrated critical pieces of the Building Justice with Jobs bill with funding sources. The amendment requested $1 billion from federal Covid-19 recovery funds be transferred to the Clean Energy Investment Fund for at least 1 million home retrofits, prioritizing people living in Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. The amendment was a key priority for the Mass Renews Alliance, MA Power Forward, 350 Mass, and the Mass Sierra Club.
There was a tense floor debate between Sen. Pacheco and Sen. Barrett (D-Lexington), the chairman of the Telecommunications, Utilities, and & Energy Committee. Barrett criticized the amendment for requesting too much of the remaining $2.5 billion in ARPA funds (although, given the urgency of climate action, effective equity and job-focused climate investment can never be too little) and for delegating the creation of a plan to a task force of state officials, policy experts, and community and nonprofit leaders rather than the Legislature itself (strikingly, this seemed to be a rare moment of legislators complaining about something being delegated to a commission…).
The amendment failed on an 11 to 28 vote, with strange coalitions on either side.
This is a companion to the 192nd Session midterm Senate scorecard. Note that it does not include every vote taken by the Legislature but those deemed worthy of inclusion in the scorecard.
Although debates about rules and transparency have proven contentious in the MA House, they have not in the MA Senate. When a vote came up at the start of the to extend the public notice period for legislative hearings from 72 hours to one week so that members of the public can better engage in the legislative process, it passed unanimously (1s).
Some of the early work this session was a continuation of efforts from last session. This includes a vote on theNext Generation Roadmap climate bill (2s), which the Legislature passed at the very end of last session. Governor Baker was able to defeat it with a pocket veto, and with the session having already ended, the Legislature couldn’t override him and had to re-file the bill in the new session. The Senate yet again passed the Healthy Youth Act, which would ensure that schools that teach sex education use a comprehensive and medically accurate curriculum, and the Gender X bill, which would provide a non-binary option to the gender question on state-issued IDs, both of which the House did not pass last session (10s, 11s). There were also attempts to push back against work from last session, with a conservative messaging amendment demanding a cost analysis of the police reform bill, a move intended to imply that police accountability will be a burden for cities and towns (8s).
The Senate also voted to advance the Fair Share Amendment to the 2022 ballot, holding the second constitutional convention required by law (7s). Massachusetts currently has a flat tax, meaning that secretaries and billionaires have the same income tax rate. The Fair Share Amendment would create an additional 4% tax on annual personal income in excess of $1 million, dedicating the revenue to public education and infrastructure needs.
Several other recorded votes also concerned tax policy. The Senate overrode the Governor’s veto of a one-year delay in the charitable deduction, which, if had been implemented, would have cost the state $300 million a year, mainly benefiting the wealthiest taxpayers; as well as his veto of the repeal of a set of corporate tax giveaways (i.e., harbor maintenance credit, medical device user fee credit) that have been proven to benefit only a small number of companies without broader economic impact. They also rejected a tax change from Governor Baker that would have cost the state $90 million each year and given all of the money to the wealthiest residents of the state (9s, 12s-13s).
The Senate defeated other wasteful tax proposals, such as creating a $5 million grant program that would divert public funds to corporate lobby groups (3s) and giving farmers a tax deduction if they donate food to nonprofit, draining money from the state budget that could be used for providing food directly (among other valuable uses) (6s).
The Senate also overrode Baker’s vetoes of the repeal of overly restrictive laws for accessing welfare programs. The asset limits of $250 for Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC) and $5,000 for Transitional Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) created unnecessary paperwork that jeopardized the eligibility of struggling individuals for these modest but critically important benefits (14s-15s). And they defeated a Republican messaging amendment to increase the penalty for unemployment fraud that would have done nothing to address the rise of high-tech, high-dollar fraud from foreign businesses and instead done more to harm people for clerical errors (4s).
The Senate also took action in the bill addressing the crisis and tragedy at the Holyoke Soldiers Home to ensure strong labor and procurement standards, requiring the new Holyoke Soldiers Home to be built with collective bargaining and creating a committee to set goals on hiring minority-, women-, and veteran-owned businesses for the project (5s).
Last year, the MA Senate also passed a robust version of the VOTES Act, an election reform bill to make COVID-era vote-by-mail and early voting reforms permanent and to go further by enacting Same Day Registration and strengthening protections for jail-based voting. Unfortunately, the Senate defeated several attempts to make this good bill better, including amendments to require at least one secure, accessible drop box location per 25,000 registered voters in a municipality; to enable voters to enroll in vote-by-mail on a permanent basis, rather than just election by election; and to require that all workers be able to take 2 hours of paid time off to vote, ensuring that a work schedule is not a barrier to participating in our democracy (16s-19s).
A significant share of the Legislature’s time last year was spent on redistricting, the decennial redrawing of lines of legislative and Congressional districts to reflect the results of the census. Most maps passed with overwhelming majority, but an interesting exception was the Senate vote on the Congressional maps. Advocates had criticized the proposed map for failing to unite the immigrant, working-class cities of New Bedford and Fall River in one district, namely the coastal 9th Congressional District. Progressives and South Coast senators organized against the proposal, yield a closer vote than expected (20s).
Happy Sunshine Week! ☀☀ Sunshine Week is an initiative from the News Leaders Association to educate the public about the importance of open government and the dangers of excessive and unnecessary secrecy. We know a thing about excessive and unnecessary secrecy in government here in MA.
But one piece of information we do have is recorded votes.
Each session, we create a scorecard based on a subset of key roll call votes related to our progressive platform. Scorecards provide a vital accountability tool, enabling constituents to see what the Legislature is doing, how their legislators are voting, and where there is room for pressure.
Congratulations to the five legislators who had perfect scores!
Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville)
Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain)
Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton)
Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham)
Other legislators who scored above 90% include Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Acton), Rep. Nika Elugardo (D-Jamaica Plain), Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), Sen. Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), Sen. Adam Hinds (D-Pittsfield), Sen. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), and Sen. Ed Kennedy (D-Lowell).
Compared to last session, fewer Democrats received Ds and Fs. Why? Because the Legislature last session took a number of votes on policing reform, which highlighted major ideological splits in the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate. There are still plenty of important pending bills that might raise similar ideological splits in the current session if the Legislature chooses bold action instead of inertia and avoidance.
That said, Democrats scoring a “D” or below include Rep. Patrick Kearney (D-Scituate), Rep. Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth), Rep. Angelo Puppolo (D-Springfield), Rep. Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Sen. Walter Timilty (D-Milton).
No Republican in the House scored above 30%; in the Senate, the highest was Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) at 45%.
Why a Scorecard?
We believe that Democracy functions best when there’s transparency. And, our Massachusetts Legislature functions best when citizens know what votes our elected officials are taking and when we can compare their actions to their rhetoric. But on Beacon Hill, that’s not such a straightforward proposition.
Finding your legislator’s voting record, and understanding it, can be very difficult and time-consuming. With our “progressive scorecards,” finalized at the end of every 2-year legislative session (but with mid-session updates), we aim to make it easier.
What a Score Means…and What It Doesn’t
As they do with letter grades, an A means excellent, a B means good, a C means average, a D means poor, and an F, well, you get the point.
It’s important to understand these scores from two perspectives: (1) how a legislator is doing compared to how we want them to be doing and (2) how a legislator is doing compared to his/her colleagues. A good scorecard is one that tells a story.
That being said, EVERY legislator can be doing better. And part of doing better is providing more recorded votes that truly capture the story of each chamber. We are only scoring the votes that are taken, and there are many bills and amendments that never receive the votes they deserve. A scorecard can’t account for what goes on behind the scenes and how legislators championed or fought bills or amendments before they came to that vote.
But recorded votes matter. They are how legislators provide receipts of their professed principles, and scorecards provide engaged citizens with an understanding of what’s happening at the Legislature—and how they (YOU) can change it.
Earlier today, the MA House passed the Work & Family Mobility Act, which would allow any qualified driver—regardless of immigration status—to obtain a driver’s license, by an overwhelming, veto-proof margin of 120 to 36.
The success was the testament to the hard work of the Driving Families Forward coalition, led by SEIU 32BJ and the Brazilian Workers Center, as well as bill sponsors Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield) and Christine Barber (D-Somerville).
Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico already allow residents the right to apply for driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status, including our neighbors New York, Vermont, and Connecticut. And Massachusetts is poised to be next.
The bill is a win-win all around. It recognizes the essential contributions of our immigrant brothers and sisters, who often depend on a car to get to work, to school, to the hospital, etc. Immigration status shouldn’t be a barrier to getting a license. The bill would help make the roads safer for all, lower insurance rates, bring in more revenue for the state (through license fees), and strengthen our economy.
Despite the clear case for the bill and the proven results in other states, every Republican voted against it, and they were joined by Democrats Mark Cusack (D-Braintree), Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Patrick Kearney (D-Scituate), Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth), Brian Murray (D-Milford), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), and Thomas Walsh (D-Peabody).
During the floor debate, the House rejected two amendments from Republican Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading): one (#5) that sought to fear-monger around the idea of undocumented immigrants voting because of being able to obtain a driver’s license (a dishonest misinterpretation of the Automatic Voter Registration policy and the Senate’s proposed Same Day Registration language) and a second (#6) that sought to give law enforcement unfettered access to RMV documents. Both failed on identical 31-125 votes, with Garry, Kearney, and Robertson joining Republicans in voting for them.
The House’s version of the bill (H.4359), as reported out of Ways & Means on Wednesday, dropped Same Day Registration from the VOTES Act, a basic voting reform that was in both the Senate bill and the original version as filed at the start of the legislative session. The House also left out the jail-based voting reforms that the Senate added during floor debate, but they added similar language back through an amendment (more on that later) .
The bill made permanent the pandemic-era expanded vote-by-mail and early voting reforms (which the House had allowed to lapse by taking so long to bring up a bill) and reinforced provisions in the 2018 Automatic Voter Registration bill that Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin has refused to implement (such as joining the Electronic Registration Information Center, an interstate compact that helps states keep up-to-date voting rolls).
That’s all good and important. But when 20 states and Washington, D.C., have Same Day Registration, allowing any qualified resident of the state to register to vote and cast a ballot at the same time, and we still have an arbitrary and exclusionary voter registration cutoff, it’s simply not good enough. When we see democracy under attack around the country, we shouldn’t be settling when it comes to strengthening it.
Maine has had Same Day Registration since the 1970s, and New Hampshire since the 1990s. So the technology is there. What has been lacking is the political will—in the MA House (the MA Senate passed Same Day Registration in 2014 and 2007 before).
Same Day Registration is one of the most proven voting reforms. A recent study from Demos found that, in states with Same Day Registration, Black and Latinx voter turnout was up to 17 percent higher than in states without. A Government Accountability Office report from 2016 showed that Same Day Registration tended to yield a 5 percent bump in turnout. Studies have also shown pronounced increases in youth turnout from Same Day Registration.
People in this country move a lot. And that is especially true for young people and Black and Latinx people who are disproportionately renters. And when our state primary falls right after the major September 1st move-in day, that’s a recipe for disenfranchisement.
That’s why Democrats nationally have been strong champions of Same Day Registration. It was included in the Freedom to Vote Act, which had the support of both of MA’s two senators (Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren), all 9 of our US Representatives, and President Joe Biden. When West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema joined Republicans in opposing a change to the filibuster to pass this voting reform package, they did so because of a misplaced regard for the filibuster, not any stated opposition to the underlying bill.
But back to Massachusetts. Three relevant amendments were filed: Rep. Carmine Gentile (D-Sudbury)’s amendment #5 (Election Day Registration), Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D-Northampton)’s amendment #11 (Same Day Voter Registration), and Rep. Nika Elugardo (D-Jamaica Plain)’s amendment #40 (An Act To Promote Same-Day Voter Registration). Elugardo’s amendment, with the strong backing of the Black & Latino Legislative Caucus, was intended as a compromise by focusing on Election Day Registration in particular–namely, allowing voters to register or update their registration on Election Day but not during the early voting period.
Gentile’s amendment was withdrawn early on Thursday, but after voting down several right-wing Republican amendments and passing one good jail-based voting amendment (more on all that later), Assistant Majority Leader Mike Moran (D-Brighton), a longstanding opponent of Same Day Registration (his district is home to Boston University and Boston College, full of students who could benefit from such a law), pulled a dirty procedural trick to block consideration of Election Day Registration. Specifically, he filed a “further amendment” to Sabadosa’s amendment #11, replacing its content with a study commission on Same Day Registration. When our neighbors in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut already have such a law, we do not need to “study” it more. It’s long overdue for us to just implement it.
In at times rambling speeches, Moran, Rep. Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough), Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy), Rep. Kip Diggs (D-Barnstable), Rep. Dan Hunt (D-Dorchester), Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham), Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), and Rep. Joan Meschino (D-Hull) argued that our towns are too technologically backwards, our voters too stupid, and our laws too perfect to pass Same Day Registration of any kinds.
Rep. Nika Elugardo gave a passionate speech about the importance of Election Day Registration to racial justice, referencing the aforementioned study on its impact on Black and Latinx voters, and spoke of her own experiences with disenfranchisement due to past housing instability. As she pointed out, the amendment would block any consideration of her own amendment #40, as the Clerk would deem the two amendments “too similar” even though—as she noted—the town clerks who have opposed a full Same Day Registration law have supported Election Day Registration. The procedural step from Moran was, in other words, a cowardly attempt to avoid debate and discussion.
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville), Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Acton), and Rep. Jamie Belsito (D-Topsfield) also spoke eloquently on the floor in support of Election Day Registration. Rep. Uyterhoeven traced the history of restrictive voting laws to the Jim Crow era, emphasizing the importance of strong voting reforms that center communities of color. She moreover noted that EDR is in the state Democratic Party platform and that living up to the party’s own platform is essential to combating voter cynicism. Rep. Gouveia spoke about how so many legislators have no idea how chaotic the daily lives of their constituents are, and how those facing housing instability or juggling multiple jobs (as well as families) could miss such a voter registration deadline. And Rep. Belsito spoke of how, on the recent campaign trail, strengthening our democracy was one of the top demands of her constituents.
The ultimate vote was closer than most votes in the House tend to be: 93 to 64—the 93 voting to block consideration of Election Day Registration and the 64 voting for it to have a chance at debate and a vote. It is, in many ways, a proxy for the vote on EDR itself, although the three Republicans voting NO likely did so because they thought even a study was too much. You can see the vote below. The 61 Democrats who bucked House Leadership deserve your thanks.
In a demonstration of the power of House Democratic Leadership to determine outcomes, 32 Democratic state reps who voted to block Election Day Registration were co-sponsors of the original VOTES Act…which included Election Day Registration…..
Rep. Jim Arciero (D-Westford) Rep. John Barrett (D-North Adams) Rep. Natalie Blais (D-Sunderland) Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford) Rep. Dan Cahill (D-Lynn) Rep. Dan Carey (D-Easthampton) Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy) Rep. Ed Coppinger (D-West Roxbury) Rep. Josh Cutler (D-Duxbury) Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham) Rep. Marcos Devers (D-Lawrence) Rep. Kip Diggs (D-Barnstable) Rep. Michelle DuBois (D-Brockton) Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D-Gloucester) Rep. Bill Galvin (D-Canton) Rep. Tom Golden (D-Lowell) Rep. Ken Gordon (D-Bedford) Rep. Rich Haggerty (D-Woburn) Rep. Liz Malia (D-Jamaica Plain) Rep. Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham) Rep. Rady Mom (D-Lowell) Rep. Frank Moran (D-Lawrence) Rep. Brian Murray (D-Milford) Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley) Rep. Angelo Puppolo (D-Springfield) Rep. Jeff Roy (D-Franklin) Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) Rep. Adam Scanlon (D-North Attleborough) Rep. Alan Silvia (D-Fall River) Rep. Tom Stanley (D-Waltham) Rep. Bill Straus (D-Mattapoisett) Rep. Thomas Walsh (D-Peabody)
Quick note: If every single woman of color in the MA House votes one way on a voting rights amendment, and you vote the other way…maybe check yourself before saying “MA isn’t like Georgia.”
Other Amendments of Note
The House vote down six right-wing amendments from members of the Republican caucus:
Obstructing the Implementation of Mail-In Voting: The House voted 128-30 against an amendment (#6) from Republican Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) to require an opinion from the MA Supreme Judicial Court on whether the mail-in voting provisions of the bill are constitutional. The vote was mostly partly line, with “Democrat” Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) joining Republicans and unaffiliated Susannah Whipps (U-Athol) joining Democrats.
Increasing Penalties for Non-Existent Voter Fraud: The House voted 126 to 32 against another amendment from Jones (#8) to double the penalties for voter fraud, a thing that does not happen. The vote looked like the one above, but with “Democrats” Dave Robertson (D-Wilmington) and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joining Garry and Republicans.
Ending the Mailing of VBM Applications: The House voted 129 to 29 against an amendment (#17) from Rep. Jim Kelcourse (R-Amesbury) to strike the language of the bill requiring the Secretary of the Commonwealth to mail all registered voters an application to vote by mail. It was party line, with Whipps joining Democrats.
Undermining Vaccination Requirements: The House voted 127 to 31 against an amendment (#9) from Rep. Peter Durant (R-Spencer) to block any location that ever serves as a polling location or ever offers voter registration paperwork from requiring vaccination for entry. Garry and Robertson joined Republicans, and Whipps joined Democrats.
Requiring Proof of Residence Vote: The House voted 130 to 28 against an amendment (#10) from Rep. Durant to require any voter registration location that also requires proof of vaccination for entry to require proof of residency, which is only ever asked in Massachusetts for first-time voters and not for regular voters. The amendment was seeking to create unnecessary administrative work on Election Day and serve as a protest against vaccination requirements. Rep. Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick) inexplicably joined Democrats in voting NO, as did Whipps.
Bloating Police Budgets: The House voted 128 to 29 against an amendment (#34) from Rep. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk) to require excessive police detail for dropboxes, out of a desire to fear-monger around the security of vote-by-mail. The vote was party line, with Whipps joining Democrats.
Requiring a Photo ID to Vote: The House voted 126 to 32 against an amendment (#7) from Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls, a common tactic by Republicans to pose roadblocks for low-income voters, especially Black and Latinx ones. Garry, Robertson, and Turco joined Republicans in voting for it, and Whipps joined Democrats in voting against.
And the House passed one progressive amendment: Rep. Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury) and Chynah Tyler (D-Roxbury)’s amendment on Jail Based Voting. Both underscored that we can’t talk about voter suppression or disenfrachisement without acknowledging the most marginalized communities, the disproportionately Black and Latinx individuals currently incarcerated. Individuals incarcerated with non-felony convictions maintain the right to vote in theory, but the vote often doesn’t exist in practice.
The redrafted amendment that received a vote largely adhered to the original, which itself sought to harmonize language with what the Senate passed and what Miranda and Tyler filed as a bill earlier in the session: ensuring that individuals who are incarcerated and currently eligible to vote are provided with the necessary information and materials to do so, creating reporting requirements for houses of corrections, and building voter registration into the re-entry process. It passed overwhelmingly 153 to 5, with five Republicans voting NO (Rep. Donnie Berthiaume of Spencer, Rep. Nicholas Boldgya of Southwick, Rep. Shawn Dooley of Norfolk, Rep. Peter Durant of Spencer, and Rep. Marc Lombardo of Billerica).
The House’s weakened version of the VOTES Act ultimately passed 124 to 34, a mostly party line vote with Reps. Nika Elugardo (D-Jamaica Plain), Tami Gouveia (D-Acton), Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan), and Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voting no from the left in protest of the elimination of EDR and Rep. Colleen Garry (“D”-Dracut) joining Republicans in voting no. Unaffiliated Susannah Whipps (U-Athol) joined Democrats in voting yes.
This Wednesday, the MA House and Senate passed new district lines for Massachusetts’s 9 Congressional districts.
After every decennial US census, states have to redraw the lines for their legislative and Congressional districts. Massachusetts, fortunately, did not lose any Congressional districts, but population shifts meant that some districts — like the 1st Congressional (Richard Neal) and 2nd Congressional (Jim McGovern) — would need to gain more territory and others — like the 7th Congressional (Ayanna Pressley) and 8th Congressional (Stephen Lynch) — would need to lose territory.
The main point of contention with the Congressional maps concerned Fall River and New Bedford. The Drawing Democracy Coalition, which consists of community groups and civil rights advocates from across the Commonwealth (we’re a member), had been advocating for keeping Fall River whole and uniting it with New Bedford in the 9th Congressional district (Bill Keating) given that Fall River and New Bedford share many concerns as gateway cities with large immigrant populations. Moreover, as coastal cities, they share a clear interest with the Cape communities in the 9th.
The Legislature’s map unites Fall River, but does so by putting all of it in the 4th Congressional district (Jake Auchincloss), a strangely designed district that extends from Brookline and Newton down to Fall River.
The House passed the new map 151 to 8. The 8 dissenting votes came from Democrats Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth) and Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), who heeded the objections from South Coast advocates, and Republicans Donald Berthiaume (R-Spencer), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Joseph McKenna (R-Webster), Lenny Mirra (R-West Newbury), and David Vieira (R-Falmouth). Frost had put forth an amendment about keeping all of Oxford and Webster in the 2nd Congressional district as opposed to moving them to the 1st Congressional, as the new map does, and it’s likely that he and the other Central Mass dissenters voted against the map because of that amendment’s failure.
The debate was far more contentious in the Senate. State Senator Becca Rausch (D-Needham) criticized the map for its scrambling of the lines in MetroWest (“I live in and have the honor of representing parts of Metrowest and this map would slash Metrowest into bits and pieces, divided into five different congressional districts…The Metrowest region has the highest concentration of Brazilian immigrants in the United States.) and separation of Fall River and New Bedford (“We should not divide the two anchor communities of the South Coast. Indeed all of the equity-focused and strong democracy advocates and the strong majority of people who live in Fall River who testified before the committee asked for Fall River and New Bedford to be untied in the ninth district.”) State Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) echoed such criticism (“It continues to send the message to Southeastern Massachusetts that we in the metropolitan area of Boston, we will continue to do what we want with you and we will use you when we need to but otherwise we will just continue to do what we want when we want to.”)
The vote was much closer in the Senate, with the map only passing 26 to 13, with most of the opposition coming from either stalwart progressives or Southeastern senators.
Earlier this evening, the MA Senate voted 36 to 3 to pass the VOTES Act (S.2545: An Act fostering voter opportunities, trust, equity and security), a vital election reform bill that would create a permanent option for vote-by-mail, expand early voting opportunities, and enact Same Day Registration and jail-based voting reforms. The 3 NO votes came from the chamber’s 3 Republicans.
Here’s a deeper dive on what the bill does:
Permanent No-Excuse Mail-In Voting
Requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth to send out mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters on July 15 of every even-numbered year.
Guarantees postage for mail-in ballot applications and ballots.
Ensures the counting of any ballots received by 5PM on the third day after the biennial state election.
Gives municipalities the option to set up secure drop boxes for mail-in ballots.
Allows election officials to pre-process mail-in and early voting ballots in advance of Election Day.
Same Day Registration
Enables individuals to register to vote during early voting periods and on Election Day.
Expanded Early Voting
Requires two weeks (including two weekends) of early voting in-person for biennial state elections and any municipal elections held on the same day.
Requires one week (including one weekend) of early voting in-person for a presidential or state primary and any municipal elections held on the same day.
Allows municipalities to opt-in to early voting in-person for all other municipal elections.
Jail-Based Voting Reforms
Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated who are currently eligible to vote are provided with voting information and materials to exercise their right to vote.
Requires correctional facilities to display and distribute information about voting rights and procedures, as prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Requires facilities to assist individuals who are incarcerated in registering, applying for, and returning mail ballots.
Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated are properly notified of their right to vote upon release and given the opportunity fill out a voter registration form.
The bill would also allow a voter with disabilities to request accommodations from the Secretary of the Commonwealth to vote by mail (including electronic and accessible instructions, ballot application, ballot, and a voter affidavit that can be submitted electronically) and requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth to enroll Massachusetts in the the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which helps states keep more accurate voting rolls, no later than July 1, 2022. States in ERIC received regular, securely generated reports on that show voters who have moved within their state, voters who have moved out of state, voters who have died, duplicate registrations in the same state, and individuals who are potentially eligible to vote but are not yet registered. Galvin was required to join this by the Automatic Voter Registration bill passed in 2018 but has not yet done so.
Good Amendments That Passed
During floor debate, the Senate passed several amendments to strengthen the bill.
Amendment #1, filed by Adam Hinds (D-Hinds) and backed by the Democracy Behind Bars Coalition, strengthened the Jail-Based Voting language in the bill by being more clearly directive in instructions for houses of corrections (e.g., requiring that incarcerated individuals be provided access to sufficient writing instruments to fill out applications or ballots), prohibiting the opening of ballots or delaying of mailing them by correctional staff, requiring that incarcerated individuals be provided information about their voting rights and a (postage-paid) voter registration form upon release, and requiring quarterly reports from houses of correction to the Secretary of the Commonwealth about newly incarcerated individuals who would be eligible to vote and newly released individuals who had been incarcerated with felony convictions and would be now eligible to vote again.
Amendment #13, filed by Julian Cyr (D-Truro), which extended the deadline for submitting vote-by-mail applications from 7 business days before the election to 7 days before.
Amendments #18 & 19, filed by Becca Rausch (D-Needham), which clarified language in the underlying bill to ensure that vote-by-mail and Same Day Registration provisions apply to municipal elections as well.
Amendment #33, filed by Becca Rausch (D-Needham), which made police presence at the polls on Election Day optional as opposed to required for municipalities, reflecting a change made in the bill for early voting sites.
Amendment #35, filed by Becca Rausch (D-Needham), which would require a robust, multi-language public awareness campaign about the reforms in the bill.
Good Amendments That Were Voted Down
Unfortunately, the Senate voted down many other good amendments, often by voice vote, such as amendments from Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Jamaica Plain) about transliteration of ballots and pre-registration in houses of corrections; an amendment from Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) on automatic registration at houses of corrections; and amendments from Becca Rausch (D-Needham) to provide for enforcement of the language around ERIC, require polling locations near college campuses, move the state primary to June, and allow voters to return mail ballots at their regular polling place.
Three of Rausch’s amendments received recorded votes.
Paid Time Off for Voting: Amendment #4, filed by Rausch, would have required that all workers be able to take 2 hours of paid time off to vote, ensuring that a work schedule is not a barrier to participating in our democracy. The amendment failed 12 to 26. Barry Finegold (D-Andover) spoke for Senate Leadership against the amendment but did not make any substantive arguments against it.
Drop Box Accessibility: Amendment #17, filed by Rausch, would have required at least one secure, accessible drop box location per 25,000 registered voters in a municipality. It failed 13 to 25. Cindy Creem (D-Newton) argued for Senate Leadership against it, claiming that it would be too costly for cities and towns; if that was a real concern, then Senate Leadership could have decided to include the funds for it.
Permanent Vote-By-Mail Enrollment: Amendment #21, filed by Rausch, would have enabled voters to enroll in vote-by-mail on a permanent basis, rather than just election by election. It failed 7 to 31. Sen. Barry Finegold (D-Andover) argued against it for Senate Leadership, noting that people’s addresses change; however, the state’s enrollment in ERIC would address that issue.
