That one voice vote illustrates the larger cultural problem on Beacon Hill. “There is a fundamental opacity in the legislative process in Massachusetts and a damning lack of transparency here,” Jonathan Cohn, the policy director of the grassroots organization, Progressive Mass, said after the vote. Senate President Karen Spilka’s response to such criticism — along with her refusal to say where she herselfstands on the legislation — does nothing to dispel it. Spilka told the State House News Service that an “exhaustive process” led up to the measure coming to the floor and that roll call votes were taken on some amendments to the bill.
…
The Massachusetts House of Representatives has a reputation for operating with less transparency than the Senate, said Cohn of Progressive Mass. But both legislative bodies, he said, embrace a style of consensus-building that “likes to pretend divisions don’t exist.” When they do, roll call votes are avoided. Lawmakers are counselled to withdraw amendments and a quick voice vote is called. He also said lawmakers who oppose a measure that is generally seen as popular seek the cover of a voice vote, rather than be recorded with a “nay.” Beacon Hill’s lack of transparency, said Cohn, “is striking, compared to other states. Massachusetts likes to view itself as a positive example, but this is one place where we can learn something from other states.”
