With the HOMES Act, Massachusetts has the opportunity to be a leader in ensuring that housing is accessible for all.
Continue readingProtecting Civil Liberties in an Age of Facial Surveillance
Testimony submitted to the Commission on Facial Recognition on July 30, 2021
Senator Jamie Eldridge and Representative Michael S. Day, Co-Chairs
Public Comment
Government Use of Facial Recognition Technology
Dear Senator Eldridge, Representative Day, and members of the commission,
I am writing as the Issues Committee Chair of Progressive Massachusetts to provide some comments about the use of facial recognition technology in Massachusetts. We respectfully ask that the Commission recommend the legislature strengthen existing facial recognition law to ensure Massachusetts residents and visitors are shielded from discriminatory, dragnet surveillance and other harms.
Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did last session in passing police accountability legislation that created better standards for police professionalization as well as stronger limitations on the use of force. But there is more work to be done.
The law, codified in Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020, contains several provisions pertaining to government agencies’ use of facial recognition technology.
While we support some of those provisions, namely the creation of this Commission, the regulations governing police use of facial recognition fall far short of what we need.
We have the following key concerns about the current regulations:
- They only regulate facial recognition technology as used by law enforcement agencies, neither prohibiting nor regulating when this technology can or cannot be used by public agencies of different nature, for example schools or local parks departments.
- They do not establish any limitation regarding who can directly use and operate a facial recognition system and impose very weak standards governing police requests, court orders, and the use of the technology in criminal investigations.
- They fail to provide any due process protections for defendants who have been subject to the use of facial recognition systems.
- They lack any enforcement mechanism to ensure that public officials comply with the law.
Thankfully, lawmakers have addressed these and other concerns in legislation filed this session. H.135, An Act To Regulate Face Surveillance, sponsored by Representatives Rogers and Ramos, and S.47, An Act To Regulate Face Surveillance, sponsored by Senator Creem, provide for some useful policy solutions to the ones outlined above.
H.135 and S.47 would, among other steps, prohibit all public entities, including public schools, the department of transportation, and other public agencies in the Commonwealth, from using and possessing this technology; create a notice-and-disclosure framework that will let persons know when facial recognition was used to identify them; and establish an exclusionary rule that would apply when law enforcement uses facial recognition in a manner that does not conform with the law.
I encourage you to consider bills H.135 and S.47 when you decide on further regulations of the use of biometric surveillance technology by government entities. We need strong regulations to ensure it doesn’t infringe on our civil rights and civil liberties, and this legislation provides an excellent model.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
Why We Need to Invest in Community-Based Emergency Response
Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Chairman Timilty, Chairman González, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.
I am testifying today in support of S.1552 / H.2519: An Act to Create Alternatives for Community Emergency Services (ACES), filed by Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa.
We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did last session in passing police accountability legislation that created better standards for police professionalization as well as stronger limitations on the use of force. But there is more work to be done.
This bill recognizes two key points. First, the best way to reduce the incidence of police brutality is to limit police interactions (and, accordingly, the scope of policing). Second, we overwork police officers by asking them to do many tasks for which they are not trained to do. Police officers are not trained social workers or mental health professionals, and we neither serve the police or the community well by asking them to respond to situations in which a social worker or mental health professional — or even a member of the community — would be best fit to respond.
Acknowledging this fundamental, and sometimes tragic, mismatch, the bill would direct the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to establish and oversee the Alternatives for Community Emergency Services Grant Program (A.C.E.S.) to increase the availability of non-law-enforcement, unarmed community-based response options for calls to 911.
The ACES bill would encourage the creation of local systems for protecting the mental and physical well-being of residents, preventing violence, de-escalating volatile situations, ensuring access to human services, and reducing government use of force, in emergency and non-emergency situations that do not necessitate the presence of law enforcement personnel, or, where appropriate, the person requesting help requests a response from an alternative to law enforcement. And to ensure the appropriate use of funds, the bill requires timely evaluation to assess outcomes and costs, such as mental, physical, and behavioral health outcomes, impact on reduced demand for law enforcement response to 911 calls, and rate of successfully connecting residents with human services for which they present a need. Moreover, the bill recognizes that community-based organizations, rather than local law enforcement departments, are often the best-equipped to manage such work and do the work of building trust.
The American Rescue Plan authorized funding for alternative crisis programs. Massachusetts should embrace this opportunity to expand on police reform. De-escalation training and requirements are important. But some calls shouldn’t be going to the police at all.
Please give a favorable report to S.1552 / H.2519: An Act to Create Alternatives for Community Emergency Services (ACES).
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
“The COVID-19 pandemic has shined a light on the weaknesses of Massachusetts’s public health infrastructure.”
Monday, July 12, 2021
Chair Comerford, Chair Decker, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Health:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.
I am here today to testify in support of S.1517 / H.2271 (An Act promoting community immunity, or the Community Immunity Act) and S.1515 / H.2370 (An Act effectuating equity in COVID-19 vaccination, or the Vaccine Equity Bill).
The COVID-19 pandemic has shined a light on the weaknesses of Massachusetts’s public health infrastructure, and these bills are essential to both our short-term recovery and long-term stability and public health.
Although Massachusetts has vaccinated a greater share of our population than most other states, we still see wide regional discrepancies. As of last week, the percentage of eligible residents with at least one dose of the vaccine varied from a low of 62% in Hampden County to more than 100% in Dukes and Nantucket Counties, with sometimes wide gaps by race and ethnicity. [1] We see such gaps most strikingly in Hampden County, where there was a 20% gap between white and Latinx residents (with both numbers below the state average).
The Commonwealth’s Vaccine Equity Initiative is clearly not doing enough to close these gaps. Although parts of the Vaccine Equity Bill (S.1515/H.2370)’s goals may have been incorporated in part by now, its ambition and comprehensiveness have not, and we urge swift passage of the bill in order to strengthen our commitment toward public health, especially as new COVID-19 variants are on the rise.
As we work on the recovery to the current pandemic, it is vital for us to ensure a stronger and more stable public health infrastructure for the challenges to come. The Community Immunity Act will help us to do that.
We currently lack full and accurate reporting on vaccination rates among young people, relying instead on voluntary surveys of schools, summer camps, colleges, and daycares. The limited data available show alarming rates of under- and unimmunized children in communities across the Commonwealth.
We cannot fix a problem without an accurate read of it, and the Community Immunity Act’s data reporting requirements are a key first step. But the bill, as necessary, goes further, with targeted education and outreach about vaccine safety and efficacy and standardization and centralization of vaccination protocols.
Please give a favorable report to S.1517 / H.2271 (An Act promoting community immunity, or the Community Immunity Act) and S.1515 / H.2370 (An Act effectuating equity in COVID-19 vaccination, or the Vaccine Equity Bill).
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
[1] https://www.mass.gov/doc/weekly-covid-19-vaccination-report-july-8-2021/download
The Work & Family Mobility Act is Good for Safety and Good for Justice
Monday, June 21, 2021
Chairman Boncore, Chairman Straus, and members of the Joint Committee on Transportation:
Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on record in support of S.2289 / H. 3456: An Act relative to work and family mobility during and subsequent to the COVID-19 emergency.
Progressive Mass is a statewide, member-driven grassroots organization committed to fighting for a vision of shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government, and environmental sustainability in Massachusetts.
This bill (the Work and Family Mobility Act) would enable all qualified state residents to apply for a standard Massachusetts driver’s license, regardless of immigration status, to increase road and public safety and allow for greater mobility across our Commonwealth.
Immigrants are a core part of the fabric of our community, but regressive laws still on the books hinder their ability to fully participate. Notably, our state still prevents undocumented residents from obtaining driver’s licenses, hindering their ability to work and to engage in the community.
This is bad for our economy and bad for public safety. In 2016, undocumented immigrants contributed $8.8 billion to the Massachusetts economy, and not being able to obtain a driver’s license prevents their full participation in the economy, especially as our underfunded public transit system too often provides irregular hours and insufficient reach.
Moreover, this situation is bad for public safety. All drivers on the road should have the appropriate training that comes with a license: that makes everyone — fellow drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians — safer.
But a true definition of public safety is much broader. In the first two years of the Trump administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests of people with no criminal convictions more than tripled, fueled by a fivefold increase in arrests of immigrants who’ve been charged with an offense but not yet convicted. The most common charges were traffic offenses. Although the Trump administration has passed, we cannot wait for a slow-moving federal government to take action to overhaul its approach to immigration enforcement. We can and must act now.
Other states have realized that changing the law so that immigration status is no longer a barrier to obtaining a license is common-sense policy. More than a dozen states have already passed such laws, including our neighbors in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. It’s past time that we do too. We urge a prompt favorable report for S.2289 / H. 3456: An Act relative to work and family mobility during and subsequent to the COVID-19 emergency.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
Here’s How MA Can Strengthen Democracy for Our Local Elections
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Chairman Finegold, Chairman Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I chair the Issues Committee at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for progressive policy here in the Commonwealth. A core part of our platform is an electoral system that expands voting, the electorate, and its trust in candidates and elected officials.
Accordingly, we urge you to give a favorable report to S.485/H.825: An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections.
When voters get to the ballot box, they can face complicated choices. Our first-past-the-post system forces ordinary voters to weigh whether they can vote for their preferred candidate or whether doing so would lead to a “spoiler effect” that gives a candidate they like less a clearer path to victory. This same dynamic can lead candidates and their supporters to try to force similar candidates out of a race due to a fear of “vote splitting.”
Within the current system, the ultimate winner may command less than a majority support, a contradiction of a basic tenet of democracy and a far too common occurrence in Massachusetts elections. Ranked Choice Voting would eliminate these problems by enabling voters to rank the order of their preferences on the ballot and ensuring that whoever wins does so with majority support.
Although the ballot initiative to implement Ranked Choice Voting for state and county elections did not pass last year, the measure did pass in 78 municipalities in varying parts of the Commonwealth. If such municipalities wish to adopt Ranked Choice Voting for local elections, they should not have to face undue hurdles to doing so.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
Everyone Deserves Dignity at the Workplace
Monday, June 21, 2021
Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Cutler, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for social and economic justice.
Good-paying jobs with fair working conditions are a central part of our organization’s shared prosperity agenda. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of S.1185/H.3843 (An Act relative to dignity at work), known as the Dignity At Work Act.
Everyone deserves a safe and respectful workplace, and that means one that is free of inappropriate and harmful behaviors like bullying.
Massachusetts labor law currently provides no protections against workplace bullying unless such bullying is targeted at an individual because of their race, sex, or other protected identity. This excludes far too many cases, and even when individuals sue because of identity-based harassment and discrimination, courts can choose to deny them redress out of a disagreement on the motivation for the mistreatment, not the existence of the mistreatment itself.
Better training and model policies are good so far as they go, and that is not far. Accountability is what will change behavior. The Dignity At Work Act will offer that.
Countries like Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, and Sweden–as well as various provinces in Canada–have enacted protections against workplace bullying. It’s time for Massachusetts to join them.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
Coalition Testimony on the VOTES Act
Two coalitions of which Progressive Mass is a member submitted testimony for this week’s hearing on the VOTES Act.
Safe Elections Network
Testimony in Support of H.805 & S.459
An Act Fostering Voting Opportunities, Trust, Equity and Security
Joint Committee on Election Laws
May 19, 2021
Dear Chair Ryan, Chair Finegold, Vice Chair Vitolo, Vice Chair Gomez, and members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws,
The more than 100 undersigned organizations write jointly to make sure the committee knows that support for the VOTES Act is deep and broad.
Please accept this letter as testimony in support of H.805 and S.459, An Act Fostering Voting Opportunities, Trust, Equity, and Security, sponsored by Representative Lawn and Senator Creem.
Temporary voter access expansions passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, like mail-in voting and early voting in-person, were not just a win for public health, but for our democracy overall. We saw a significant increase in voter turnout that went beyond just the marquis names on the ballot. With such success in public engagement, it is important to make these reforms permanent. However, we must rise to the times and do even more.
With all eyes on voter suppression bills in other states, now is not the time to sit on the sideline. Massachusetts still has work to do to ensure that every eligible voter has access to a ballot.
The VOTES Act seeks to make the COVID-19 expansions permanent and strengthen our election infrastructure with key provisions like a back-end Automatic Voter Registration system, enrolling in ERIC, and enhancing our post-election audits.
Perhaps most important, it seeks to remove barriers to eligible voters by establishing Same-Day Registration and codifying jail-based voting practices for incarcerated eligible voters. Without these reforms, Massachusetts cannot say that we have done all that is necessary to ensure that every eligible voter can actually exercise the right to vote.
We must take a comprehensive and systemic approach to improve elections in Massachusetts and the VOTES Act does just that. This bill is not a laundry list of ideal policies, but a delicately woven tapestry of best-practices that will help Massachusetts move towards a more inclusive, welcoming Commonwealth.
We respectfully urge you to report H.805 & S.459 favorably out of committee in its entirety as quickly as
possible.
Sincerely,
ACLU MA
Action for Equity
ADL New England
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts
American Promise
Amplify Latinx
Arise for Social Justice
Black Boston COVID19 Coalition
Black Economic Justice Institute
Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, Inc.
Boston Ten Point Coalition
Boston Ujima Project
Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association
College Bound Dorchester
Common Cause MA
City Life / Vida Urbana
City Mission, Inc.
Coalition for a Better Acre
Coalition for Social Justice
Codman Square NDC
College Bound Dorchester
Community Action Works Campaigns
Conservation Law Foundation
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative
Edgartown Democratic Town Committee
Environmental League of Massachusetts
Equal Citizens
ForwardMA
Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution
Freedom House
Garrison Trotter Neighborhood Association
Generation Citizen
Greater Boston Nazarene Compassionate Center Inc.
Greater Boston Section-National Council of Negro Women
GSM Labor Council
Immigrants’ Assistance Center, Inc. (IAC)
Indivisible Martha’s Vineyard
Indivisible Massachusetts Coalition
Indivisible Outer Cape
iVOTE
JCRC
Jetpac Resource Center
Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
La Colaborativa
La Comunidad, Inc.
Lawrence Partnership
Lawyers for Civil Rights
Lift Every Vote
League of Women Voters MA
Lowell Votes
Madison Park Development Corporation
MAPS-Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers
Mass Alliance of HUD Tenants
Mass Equality
Mass NOW
Mass. Assoc. of Community Development Corporations
Massachusetts AFL-CIO
Massachusetts Against Solitary Confinement
Massachusetts Communities Action Network
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
Massachusetts Peace Action
Massachusetts Women of Color Coalition
MASSCreative
MASSPIRG
MASSPIRG Students
MassVOTE
Massachusetts Voter Table
MITvote
More Than Words
NAACP-Boston Branch
Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts
Next Leadership Development Corporation
Nonprofit Vote
Planned Parenthood MA
Pleasant Hill Baptist Church
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts
Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts
Progressive Massachusetts
Progressives for Democracy in America
Project R.I.G.H.T.
Providers’ Council- CareVote
Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts
Quincy Geneva New Vision CDC
Racial Justice Rising
Reclaim Our Democracy
Roca Inc.
Rosie’s Place
1199 SEIU
Shana Bryant Consulting Services
Small Planet Institute
Sunrise Boston
The Good Governance Project – BC Law
The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization
The Real Cost of Prisons Project
The Women’s Pipeline for Change
Transformative Culture Project
Union of Minority Neighborhoods
Unitarian Universalist Mass Action
UTEC Inc.
VOTE New Bedford
Voter Choice Massachusetts
Worcester Interfaith
Yes – Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance
Young Demcorats of Massachusetts
YWCA Malden
Democracy Behind Bars Coalition
Testimony on H.805 and S. 459
An Act Fostering Voting Opportunities, Trust, Equity, and Security (The VOTES Act)
Joint Committee on Election Laws
May 19, 2020
Dear Chairman Finegold, Chairman Ryan, and members of the Election Laws Committee,
We, the Democracy Behind Bars Coalition, are writing in support of H. 805 and S. 459, known as the VOTES Act. Over the past year, we have witnessed rampant, renewed attempts to silence the voices of Black voters and voters of color, attacks on the capitol to overturn the 2020 election results, and we have been reminded again and again of the impunity with which police are able to take Black lives. The need to build a democracy that is more racially equitable and truly accountable to all of our communities could not be more clear. The provisions of the VOTES Act — universal mail-in voting, same day registration, and the first steps towards building election infrastructure to serve eligible incarcerated citizens — are critical to that end and, especially in 2021, absolutely necessary.
It is also long past time that Massachusetts end the de-facto disenfranchisement of eligible incarcerated voters. Although individuals serving misdemeanor convictions or incarcerated pre-trial (nearly half of incarcerated people in the Commonwealth) maintain the right to vote, virtually none of these eligible voters cast a counted ballot. This is because the realities of incarceration make casting a ballot difficult or impossible, and Massachusetts has yet to create an elections infrastructure that allows these eligible voters to overcome the myriad barriers they face. This is not only a fundamental democracy issue, but it’s a racial justice issue as hyper-policing and incarceration of Black and POC communities means that Black voters and POC voters are disproportionately those who lose their political voice to incarceration.
As a coalition that is working specifically to end the disenfranchisement of eligible incarcerated people and lift up the political voices of hyper-policed and over-incarcerated communities, we understand today’s hearing to be monumental: for the first time in Massachusetts history, the issue of jail-based disenfranchisement and the particular needs of incarcerated voters are being considered by this body as part of a larger conversation about the project of protecting democracy for all Massachusetts voters. That is a clear step forward.
We appreciate that this hearing begins to consider the question of how to ensure that all eligible incarcerated voters are able to actually cast their ballots in practice. Though we know it will be the subject of a future hearing, we also want to draw your attention to H.836 and S.474, “An Act to protect the voting rights of eligible incarcerated people,” which was informed, drafted, and supported by our coalition with the leadership of directly-impacted people. As our testimony will make clear, ending jail-based disenfranchisement requires system-wide reform. We urge you to consider H. 836 and S. 474 for that reason, and also out of concern that there may be only one bite at the apple for election reform this session, so we cannot miss the opportunity to promote the more comprehensive provisions in that legislation. We hope the committee will advance a voting rights bill that addresses the needs of people behind bars in the most robust way
H. 836 and S. 474 provide comprehensive solutions that will expand Massachusetts’ election infrastructure to meet the specific needs of eligible incarcerated voters. These bills were informed by experience, designed by directly impacted people, organizers, and local election officials to address real barriers they have encountered with common-sense solutions.
In asking this Committee to not only support the VOTES Act but also support H. 835, we are urging it to recognize that the de-facto disenfranchisement of those 7-9,000 eligible voters in Massachusetts jails — voters who are disproportionately Black and POC — is a profound and too-often overlooked democractic failure that needs to be addressed now. For many, the fact that thousands of eligible incarcerated voters are unable to participate comes as a revelation. A budding, broader awareness of jail-based disenfranchisement is the direct result of organizing and advocacy by directly impacted people who have been disenfranchised and seen the disenfranchising effects of mass incarceration.
Jail-based disenfranchisement is a system-wide problem that requires a system-wide solution:
- Sheriffs are not required to maintain data that would allow us to know the true numbers of impacted people, or even allow volunteers to reach voters incarcerated on misdemeanors (several sheriffs told our coalition that beyond posting know-your-rights signs, no proactive measure could be taken to ensure that eligible voters serving misdemeanors could cast a counted ballot).
- There is no legal burden on sheriffs to do anything to provide eligible voters access to the ballot, short of providing eligible voters who request a ballot application with one — and we have no way of ensuring accountability even then.
- Sheriffs statewide have no consistent processes and procedures for ensuring eligible incarcerated people can vote — in some counties, sheriffs told us that eligible voters could receive an absentee ballot application if they “write” to the sheriff requesting one, in counties with ‘active’ jail-based voting programs, a jail librarian kept absentee ballot applications and relied on outside volunteers to mail completed applications, and in the majority of counties, sheriffs do not respond to our inquiries and eligible voters simply have no recourse to vote.
- Those few eligible voters who do access ballot applications overwhelmingly have those ballot applications rejected — in many cases, ballot applications are held for up to 3 weeks and rejected only days before Election Day, making it impossible for eligible incarcerated voters to resolve issues with their applications.
- Until 2020, we do not know of the Secretary of Commonwealth issuing regulations to elections officials on procedures for processing absentee ballot applications — as a result, elections officials including town clerks with jails in their town thought that the law of who was eligible/not eligible had changed. In short, elections officials, office-holders, and others who are responsible for ensuring full participation do not know that there are eligible voters incarcerated, and as a result we have failed to implement systems to ensure incarcerated people can cast counted ballots.
- Jail-Based Disenfranchisement extends far beyond jail walls — eligible voters who have returned to community often do not participate because they believe they lost the right to vote permanently while incarcerated. That is why provisions of H. 836 and S. 474 that make jails and houses of corrections automatic voter registration agencies, and that require returning citizens be notified of their voting rights, are so critical. But as we know, voting is a habit: the best way to ensure eligible voters participate when they return to community is to ensure they participate while incarcerated in the first place.
The list of problems that encompass jail-based disenfranchisement goes on. It is a systemic issue that requires a systemic solution, and one that is best understood by those who have been disenfranchised, including members of the Democracy Behind Bars Coalition who drafted and support the Jail-Based Voting Bill. We respectfully urge the Joint Committee on Election Laws to thoughtfully review the provisions of the Jail-Based Voting Bill (H. 836 and S. 474) in addition to those strong steps forward in the VOTES Act.
We fully support the provisions of the VOTES Act, especially those like same day registration that research shows both bolsters participation and helps reduce political inequality. We note, however, that those critical provisions of the VOTES Act which were in place as temporary measures for the 2020 elections did not help incarcerated voters who were de-facto disenfranchised from exercising their voting rights. Now is a moment to not only make permanent those reforms that helped voters on the outside participate safely, but to identify and dismantle those barriers that keep disproportionately Black and POC incarcerated voters from participating at all. We support the jail-based voting provisions that are included in the VOTES Act, and we urge the committee to consider these provisions not in isolation, but along with legislation crafted and supported by directly-impacted communities in Massachusetts like S. 474 and H. 836.
Last, as this committee considers critical issues of democracy, voter access, and racial equity in our voting systems, we also urge you to think about the impact that our current system of felony disenfranchisement has on our democratic system. Although people who are incarcerated on misdemeanors, those who are civilly committed, and those who are awaiting trial retain their voting rights, thousands of people who are serving state prison sentences, also disproportionately Black people and people of color, do not have access to the ballot. They were stripped of their voting rights in 2001. Through felony disenfranchisement, combined with targeted policing and criminalization, we perpetuate racial inequity and our continued failure to reinstate voting rights for incarcerated people reinscribes these inequities each legislative session.The right to vote is fundamental and the Commonwealth must return to universal enfranchisement.
We hope the committee sends strong ballot-access language out of committee.
Signed,
The African American Coalition Committee (AACC)
The Democracy Behind Bars Coalition, including:
Criminal Justice Police Coalition (CJPC)
Decarcerate Western Massachusetts
Families for Justice as Healing
Kathleen Talbot, Holyoke Organizer for Neighbor to Neighbor
Emancipation Initiative
The F8 Foundation
The Massachusetts Voter Table
Massachusetts Prisoners and Organizers Working for Enfranchisement and Restoration (Mass POWER)
MOCHA Springfield (Men of Color Health Awareness)
The National Council for Incarcerated & Formerly Incarcerated Women & Girls
Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts
Progressive Massachusetts
The Sentencing Project
Dignity Should Not Be a District-by-District Decision (Redux)
The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Education on May 20, 2021, adapted from earlier testimony submitted the prior session on June 25, 2019.
Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and members of the Joint Education Committee:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy organization fighting for progressive policy.
One of the planks in our organization’s platform is an “All means all” agenda of racial and social justice. That means ensuring that underrepresented communities are treated with dignity and respect.
The reduction of Native American identity to “mascot” status is the opposite of that. We would like to go on record in support of Bill S.294/H.581 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth).
Such mascots have serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes.
Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
It’s time we listen.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts
We Need to Strengthen Democracy Here at Home in MA.
The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee of Election Laws in support of the VOTES Act.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Chairman Finegold, Chairman Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.
Last year, the Legislature provided voters with greater options for how to cast their ballot. We had more days available to vote early and an expanded possibility to vote by mail. It worked, it was popular, and it shouldn’t become a one-off due to COVID-19.
We need to make the electoral reforms from last year permanent as well as to build on them in order to make Massachusetts a leader in voting rights. I urge you to give a favorable report to the VOTES Act (S.459 / H.805), filed by Sen. Cindy Creem and Rep. John Lawn, which would make that happen.
The VOTES Act is a critical and comprehensive package of election reforms that will make our democracy more equitable, accessible, and secure. It includes the popular and successful reforms from last year, such as expanded early voting and vote-by-mail, as well as time-tested reforms like Same Day Registration, which would allow citizens to update their registration or register anew when they go to vote—something 20 states already allow. The VOTES Act, importantly, has reforms geared towards equity, like those aimed at ensuring eligible incarcerated citizens can actually vote, as well as election security, such as risk-limiting audits.
We would like to underscore the importance of Same Day Registration as a part of this package. In Massachusetts elections, an unnecessary and arbitrary 20-day registration cutoff disenfranchises more than 100,000 voters from participating in our elections. Given that the average American moves more than 11 times over the course of their lives, moving near Election Day could lead to disenfranchisement under the current system. Likewise, given the stress of work, family, and myriad other commitments, many voters may first start to learn about an election after the registration window has already passed. Indeed, this is the period when media coverage of elections—and thus voter information—is the strongest. But when voters seek to update their registration or register anew, they are shut out of the process.
When there are errors in voters’ registration, they are typically asked to fill out a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are cumbersome for election workers and leave voters feeling as though their votes didn’t count. And our first experiences at the polls–indeed, all of our experiences at the polls–have an impact on our voting habits throughout our lives.
Our neighboring states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut have already realized the problems with such a cutoff and adopted Election Day Registration (EDR). Maine has had EDR since the 1970s, and New Hampshire since the 1990s. EDR creates more positive experiences at the polls and, indeed, higher turnout, with studies showing an increase in turnout of approximately 5 percent. That is what a strong democracy looks like.
We would also urge the Legislature to go beyond the provisions in the VOTES Act to fully guarantee the right to vote for eligible incarcerated voters. Individuals serving misdemeanor convictions or incarcerated pre-trial maintain the right to vote but suffer from de facto disenfranchisement due to the myriad barriers they face in exercising that right. Although the Jail-Based Voting Bill (S.474 / H. 836) is not on the agenda for today’s hearing, its comprehensive measures to address this issue are essential and should be included in an omnibus voting reform package.
Over the past few months, we have seen a growing number of states unfortunately take unfounded steps to restrict voter access. In a time when democracy is increasingly under threat, we need to show our commitment to a robust democracy—and positive voting experience for all—here in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Chair, Issues Committee
Progressive Massachusetts