Testimony

Rooftop Solar Can Help Power Our Climate Future

Monday, December 6, 2021

Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the political director for Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue advocacy group focused on fighting for a more equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

Earlier this session, the Legislature helped the Commonwealth take a big leap forward in climate action by passing the Next-Generation Roadmap bill, which codified a roadmap plan for achieving net zero emission by 2050 and set stronger emissions reduction goals (such as requiring statewide emissions reductions of 50% from 1990 levels by 2030). If we are to achieve these goals, then we need to put in place the policies, programs, and practices to make it happen.

Accordingly, we urge you to give a favorable report to the Solar Neighborhoods Act: An Act establishing solar neighborhoods (H.3278) and An Act increasing solar rooftop energy (S.2165).

Buildings consume more than 50% of the primary energy used annually in Massachusetts. Achieving our climate goals will require making our buildings more efficient in their use of energy and greener in the energy they use. Some of that work will require adaptations and upgrades to existing housing stock, but we should be working to ensure that all future construction is built with our climate goals (as well as the goal of cleaner air) in mind.

The Solar Neighborhoods Act does just that by requiring that all new buildings be built “solar-ready,” i.e., able to accommodate rooftop solar panels and that solar rooftop solar panels are installed on new buildings (including single-family homes, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings) at the time of construction.

Our municipalities are already leading the way. Watertown recently passed an ordinance requiring new commercial and multi-family residential buildings to have rooftop solar. We’ve also seen action in other states, as California in 2018 became the first state to require all new homes to be built with solar panels.

We are all in an all-hands-on-deck moment for climate change. Let’s get to work.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

climate

The Safe Communities Act Makes Us All Safer

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Chairman Timilty, Chairman González, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Central to our mission and platform is the idea that we all do better when we all do better. When everyone feels safe and welcome in our community, we all benefit. That is why we urge you to give a favorable report to H.2418/S.1579: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents—the Safe Communities Act.

The holidays are a season when we think about spending time with family. But our immigration system too often focuses on tearing families apart. Across the country and here in Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts), immigrant families have been separated and detained indefinitely or deported by ICE for any reason or no reason, without due process.

Massachusetts may not be able to stop deportations, but we can stop being complicit. Massachusetts law enforcement officers have, in many cases, voluntarily cooperated with federal immigration enforcement efforts—at Massachusetts taxpayer expense. If immigrants fear that interacting with state officials could get them or family members deported, they will cease to report crimes or emergencies. When immigrants fear state officials, we are all less safe.

Moreover, when local law enforcement is involved with enforcing immigration law, racial profiling is likely. This harms not only the undocumented, but all people of color, who become potential targets for arrest, because they might “look” undocumented.

Lastly, Massachusetts law enforcement is not being paid to act as ICE agents. Cooperating with federal immigration orders costs the Commonwealth money, both from the extra duties and expensive lawsuits over violation of due process.

All of this makes a simple fact clear: the status quo is not keeping people safe. The Safe Communities Act, by contrast, would—by preventing police from inquiring about immigration status, guaranteeing due process rights, limiting notifications to ICE, and ending collaboration agreements that enable state and county officials with ICE.

Although the new administration in Washington has fortunately shown interest in reforming our immigration system, we don’t need to wait to act, especially when we should have acted years ago.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

immigrants rights

Finish the Work of Last Year’s Police Reform Bill by Banning Facial Surveillance

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Dear Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. 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. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.135/S.47: An Act to Regulate Face Surveillance.

Last year, the House and Senate adopted a strong framework for government use of face surveillance in the Commonwealth, but the legislation was significantly weakened by Governor Baker before ultimate passage. H.135 and S.47 are nearly identical to the original language passed by the House and Senate. They would allow controlled use of this technology for legitimate police investigations while strengthening protections for our privacy, freedom of speech, racial justice, and civil rights.

From last year’s debate, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety).

The current regulations on facial surveillance are deficient in several key ways:

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, H.135 and S.47provide for useful policy solutions to these problems. They 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.

We encourage you to give a favorable report to H.135 and S.47. 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

police reform

Lifting up MA’s Families with the Common Start Bill

Today, the Joint Committee on Education held its hearing on the Common Start bill. Read our testimony below — and find out how to take action at progressivemass.com/common-start-2021.

Testimony of Progressive Massachusetts in support of H.605 and S.2362: An Act providing affordable and accessible high quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth

October 23, 2021

Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education:

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 a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Massachusetts. We are urging you to give a favorable report to H.605 and S.362: An Act providing affordable and accessible high quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth, jointly known as the Common Start bill.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the weakness of our child care infrastructure, but families were already struggling before. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Massachusetts has the most expensive infant care in the country, after the District of Columbia, with the annual cost for infant care or child care of a four-year-old higher than that of college tuition. [1] The $20,913 average annual cost of child care and $15,095 average annual cost for care for a four-year-old is more than half what a minimum wage worker would earn in a year. These costs are prohibitively expensive for low- and middle-income families, who are forced to choose between making ends meet and saving for the future on one hand or affording child care on the other.

The Common Start bill will lift up Massachusetts families by providing child care and early education that is affordable for everyone. It is most essential to lower-income families, but it will also aid middle-income families who must cope with the highest cost child care in the nation. We need the quarter million workers who have left the workforce to return to their jobs so they can have income stability and we need them employed for our economy to prosper.

Investments in child care and early education are not only good for the economic security of parents: they are also highly beneficial for children. High-quality early education programs get results. Children benefit with enhanced resiliency and employment opportunities over their lifetimes. Providing children with high-quality early education and child care is one of the most effective ways to further a child’s success in grades K-12 and beyond.

With resources coming in from the federal government through the American Recovery Plan, we have an opportunity to build a child care and early education infrastructure worthy of our Commonwealth. We urge you to take it and to pass the Common Start legislation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] https://www.epi.org/child-care-costs-in-the-united-states/#/MA

Common Start

Medicare for All: Treating Health Care as a Human Right

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Chairwoman Friedman, Chairman Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

Thank you for holding this hearing today. 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 devoted to shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and environmental protection and sustainable infrastructure.

Progressive Massachusetts urges a favorable report for S.766/H.1267: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the flaws of our current system clear. As we recognize the central public health message that our health is intertwined, we must build that recognition into health care delivery and ensure everyone can access the best-quality care possible. When anyone is too afraid of medical bills or debt to seek the care they need, we are all worse off.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

health care

Ending the Inhumanity of Our Carceral System

Curbing Solitary Confinement (H.2504)

No Cost Calls (S.1559)

Visitation Rights (H.2440)

Thursday, October 21st, 2021

Testimony to the Joint Committee on Public Safety

My name is Caroline Bays. I am board president of Progressive Massachusetts, Thank you to the chairs, Sen. Timilty and Rep. Gonzalez and the other members of this committee for hearing my testimony. As I said I am testifying as board President of PM for these three bills we are supporting (H.2504 on solitary confinement, S.1559 no cost calls, and H.2440 on visitation rights), but more importantly, I am also testifying as a person who has a dear friend currently experiencing the horrors of our prison system as it is currently run.

I have been visiting my friend since November of 2016 when I received a call from a mutual friend asking me to go visit this…well…kid who was suicidal and had been put in 10 Block. That has led me on a journey that was impossible to imagine prior to meeting him. I have listened to him cry about being tortured himself and cry even harder about witnessing the torture of others over the four years he spent in solitary confinement. I have watched the DOC get around the solitary provisions of the CJRA by changing names of units and allowing fifteen extra minutes out of cell time so they don’t have to follow the law. I have been a victim of the DOC’s concerted efforts to limit visitations – to the point now that after visiting him on a weekly basis, I have only been able to visit him three times since October of 2020 when he was moved from DDU to Souza-Baranowski. I have received the frantic emails asking for money so he can call family – and phones are the only link to us he has left to him since Souza has reduced the visiting schedule to virtually non-existent. But the most horrific thing I have witnessed over the last five ½ years has been the torture that he experienced while in solitary confinement. And if you think I am using the term torture flippantly or I’m exagerating – then please, please, please read the DOJ report which found the DOC guilty of torture and in violation of the 8th amendment. I read the report and as graphic and horrific as the stories were to me – they could have been taken from any of the letters from my friend. I beg you to address the egregious and inexcusable overuse of solitary confinement in the DOC. In fact – to give you an exampleof it’s overuse – My friend was recently put back in solitary confinement. What did he do wrong? He received mail that tested positive for drugs – from his lawyers.

In summation – these three bills are all necessary to address the concerted effort DOC has made to limit contact between people inside and their loved ones, despite everything we know about how important maintaining relationships to loved ones is for successful re-entry. I have witnessed first hand how the DOC has tried to get around the solitary confinement provisions in the CJRA of 2018. I have watched loved ones sent away because they weren’t on the approved visitation list. And I have experienced the frantic emails begging for money just so he can call a loved one who was in crisis.

As board President of PM I ask you to report these three bills out favorably – but as a citizen of Massachusetts who has someone I care about inside, I beg you – – please – please help those of us who are suffering by passing these important bills enabling us to keep in contact with our loved ones. Thank you for hearing my testimony.

Caroline Bays

decarceration

MA Needs to End Poverty Wages

Tuesday, October 19, 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 shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.

Central to our agenda of shared prosperity is good-paying jobs with fair working conditions. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of H.1971/S.1213 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage).

The tipped minimum wage in Massachusetts stands at a mere $5.55. In 2023, when the recently passed minimum wage increase takes full effect, it will stand at only $6.75. This is not a living wage. [1]

Although employers are supposed to guarantee that workers get the full minimum wage with tips, this has never been common practice, and wage theft is rampant in the industry. The tiered wage system allows this to happen.

Moreover, sexual harassment remains widespread in the restaurant industry. [2] As our country is slowly but surely starting to grapple with the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault across industries, we must face up to the fact that unequal wage systems create the breeding ground for such inappropriate and predatory behaviors.

Massachusetts is both one of the wealthiest and one of the most unequal states in this country. Giving a favorable report to H.1971/S.1213 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage) will take us one step further in ensuring that our Commonwealth’s prosperity is shared by all.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/25

[2] http://rocunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TakeUsOffTheMenu_Report_2.pdf

inequality

“Young adults, especially young adults of color, are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. “

October 13, 2021

Chairman Eldridge, Chairman Day, members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting to make Massachusetts a leader on progressive policy.

Our platform demands justice for all, wherein underrepresented and/or vulnerable communities are protected under the law and treated with dignity and respect and tools for economic mobility. Criminal justice reform is an essential part of that, especially creating a system that ensures public safety, strong communities, and effective use of public funds.

The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed in 2018 took many important steps in such a direction, born out of a recognition of the social and economic costs of mass incarceration. However, the fact that the law was comprehensive does not mean that it was complete, and many vital reforms were left on the table.

One example is raising the age of criminal majority. That is why we are submitting testimony today in support of H.1826/S.920: An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Young Adults.

This bill will gradually raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18, then 19, and then 20-year-olds over a five-year period. The recidivism rate of teens in the juvenile system is less than half of that of young people automatically prosecuted as adults. In the juvenile system, such emerging adults have access to the educational and counseling services that are so vital when they are still developing.

Young adults, especially young adults of color, are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. Reducing the number of young people who experience a system that is not designed for their developmental needs will have a positive impact on such young people, helping them to better be productive, engaged citizens and whole people upon release. And that means stronger, more resilient communities.

We urge you to build on the progress from last session and give a favorable report to H.826/S.920.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

decarceration

Ending the De Facto Disenfranchisement in Our Carceral System

October 6, 2021

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:

I am submitting testimony in my capacity as Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. We urge a favorable report for S.474 / H.836: An Act to Protect the Voting Rights of Eligible Incarcerated People.

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots organization devoted to advancing policies that would make Massachusetts more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We believe that our democracy is strongest when all are able to participate, but many prospective voters face near insurmountable barriers in seeking to do so.

Take, for example, those who are incarcerated. In Massachusetts, individuals who are incarcerated without felony convictions maintain their right to vote, but too often they are unable to exercise that vote in practice. If individuals do not have timely access to the materials and information they need to vote, then that right does not exist.

It is important to remember that many of these incarcerated individuals are in pre-trial detention: in other words, they have not yet been convicted of any crime, but they are, in practice, losing their right to vote.

When incarceration leads to a loss of voting rights, it is clear that mass incarceration is a form of racist voter suppression. Indeed, while only 21 percent of the state’s population is Black or Latinx, more than 54 percent of the people incarcerated in the Department of Corrections are. Mass incarceration is systematically reducing Black and Brown voters from the electorate.

It is not lost on us that the only two states in the US that have full voter enfranchisement, including for those incarcerated with felony convictions, are Maine and Vermont, the two whitest states. Indeed, we can see the clear connections to the history of racist voter suppression in this country that we routinely call out when it happens elsewhere and need to call out when it happens here.

The practices and procedures around voting within our correctional system have an impact on incarcerated individuals even beyond their time there. When individuals are confused about whether or not they maintain their right to vote, they can be led to believe that they have lost it, even when they return to the community. Even though we have no laws disenfranchising individuals post-incarceration, I have—in my experience volunteering around the commonwealth—encountered individuals who believed they could not vote because of a past conviction. Confusion is a hallmark of voter suppression.

These bills would help us end such disenfranchisement by requiring sheriffs to provide all eligible voters ballot applications, voting materials, and a private place to vote, and to ensure timely return of applications and ballots, among other steps; and by improving registration rates for returning citizens. It also strengthens data and reporting because you can’t fix what you can’t measure.

Studies have shown that voting and civic participation are conducive to successful re-entry by giving returning citizens a stake in the future of their community. When we vote, we are voting for the world we want, or at least prefer, to live in, and we are strengthening the social fabric.

We urge you to vote in support of this bill to make the right to vote meaningful for all.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

decarceration voting rights

Mass Incarceration Is Bad for MA. These Bills Can Make a Difference.

October 5, 2021

Chairman Eldridge, Chairman Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony in my capacity as Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. We urge a favorable report for the following bills:

H.1868: An Act regarding decarceration and COVID-19 (Sabadosa)
H.1900: An Act relative to telephone service for inmates in all correctional and other penal institutions in the Commonwealth (Tyler)
H.1905: An Act establishing a jail and prison construction moratorium (Tyler)
H.1797: An Act to reduce mass incarceration (Miranda/Livingstone)
H.1910/S.977: An Act to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to drug offenses (Uyterhoeven – Creem)

H.1868: An Act Regarding Decarceration and COVID-19

Incarceration is always harmful, but during a deadly pandemic—and at a time when many correctional officers have resisted vaccination, it is truly a matter of life or death.

Those who are not fed appropriately or allowed appropriate exercise, are more likely than most to have comorbidities, a fact which increases the likelihood that they will die from this disease. Whatever reason they might be in prison for, nobody was sentenced to illness or death. When the state incarcerates someone, the state becomes responsible for ensuring their well-being. That means releasing as many people as possible in order to ensure that these tragic deaths do not continue and spiral out of control.

H.1900: An Act relative to telephone service for inmates in all correctional and other penal institutions in the Commonwealth

Families across Massachusetts are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones. This is a regressive tax on the most vulnerable populations, and the MA Legislature can end it.

As communities already struggle with the high cost of housing, health care, and transportation, no one should be forced to choose between paying rent or buying groceries and maintaining contact with loved ones. Moreover, punitive policies targeted at the families of incarcerated individuals leave us all worse off: numerous studies have shown that contact with loved ones promotes public safety by supporting successful reentry.

H.1905: An Act establishing a jail and prison construction moratorium

Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of incarceration in the country, yet we spend more on jails and prisons than most other states. Indeed, while the incarcerated population in MA decreased 21% from 2011-19, spending on incarceration has increased 25% over the same period. According to the Department of Corrections, the cost of keeping one woman incarcerated at MCI-Framingham is $162,260 — money that could be better spent on social supports that help women get back on their feet.

Conditions inside many MA prisons and jails are toxic and inhumane, despite the millions of dollars already poured into them. We cannot put more money in them and expect a different outcome than the one we see today, one that exacerbates racial inequity and trauma.

A five-year moratorium on new prison construction and the expansion of existing prisons and jails will give the Commonwealth the chance to shift spending priorities, especially as we recover from COVID, and the inequalities COVID revealed. We need to give communities the opportunity to create and sustain solutions that address the root causes of incarceration.

Sentencing Reforms: H.1797: An Act to reduce mass incarceration & H.1910/S.977: An Act to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to drug offenses

In 2018, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a sweeping criminal justice reform bill. Recognizing that mandatory minimum sentences were a part of a failed “tough on crime” model that fueled mass incarceration, the Legislature eliminated many of them. However, the bill also created new mandatory minimums, continuing this problematic legacy of tying the hands of judges and failing to either deter or address the root causes of offenses.

Similarly ineffective is the sentence of life without parole. Studies have shown that severe sentences are not a deterrent to crime, and the sentence of life without parole forecloses on any possibility of rehabilitation, increases the size of our prison population, and saddles the prison system with the burden of elder care it is not equipped to provide. Enabling individuals who have served for twenty-five years to have a parole hearing is a common-sense reform.

We urge you to give these bills a favorable report and to contribute to our state’s re-evaluation of public safety in line with public health and racial equity.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

decarceration