Wanted: Strong Climate Legislation Before the Year Is Over

Although the Legislature left formal session with much work undone on August 1st, the 193rd session of the Legislature is not over for a few more months.

Your legislators still need to hear from you about the bills still under negotiation. Read on for two actions to take over the next week.

Wanted: A Robust Climate Bill

When the Legislature left formal session two months ago, they left without consensus on climate legislation. Let’s be clear: it’s not acceptable for the Legislature to go this entire session without passing any new, robust legislation to address the climate crisis. We need legislation, and that legislation must meet the moment.

As 100+ climate organizations recently said in a letter, “We cannot accept a narrow siting and permitting bill that does not do enough for climate justice, reducing climate pollution, or protecting ratepayers as the outcome of 18 months of the legislative process.“

A robust climate bill MUST include the following:

  • Siting reform that centers environmental justice. Environmental justice communities have suffered the historic burden of pollution from our energy system, and we need to ensure that new facilities do not compound these inequities. The definition of cumulative impact analysis (i.e., the calculation of that historic burden of pollution) in the Governor’s H.5049 is the most accurate and complete definition introduced this session and should be the one used in a final bill that includes siting and permitting reform.
  • Measures to end large-scale gas pipeline expansion and increase the use of non-emitting thermal networks. The legislature must act immediately to ramp down the expansion of gas infrastructure and put gas companies on a path to provide clean, non-emitting renewable energy rather than fossil gas that leaks methane and air pollution into the atmosphere and into our homes and businesses, costing ratepayers significant sums of money.

Take a few minutes to write to your state legislators in support of coming back into formal session and passing a robust climate bill.

Call Your State Representative about Raise the Age

In July, the Senate voted, as part of their economic development bill, to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system.

The House did not include this important language, and a Conference Committee of three state senators and three state representatives have been negotiating the differences between the two bills.

Let’s keep up the drumbeat for critical juvenile justice reforms.

Tell your Representative that: (1) Raise the Age is an economic development policy and (2) urge the Economic Development Bill conferees to include Raise the Age in the final bill:

Step 1: Find your State Representative

Step 2: Call your legislator with this sample script:

My name is _________, and I am a constituent of Representative _______. I ask that the Representative reach out to the Economic Development bill conferees, Chair Parisella, Chair Michlewitz, and Rep. Muradian expressing the Representative’s support for including Raise the Age as passed in S.2869 in the final Economic Development bill.

Subjecting 18-year-olds to adult prosecution, CORI records and adult incarceration causes significant harm not only to the teens themselves but to our economy which is desperate for more – not less – young people to participate in the workforce.                  

Follow up with an email:  Find a template here.

The Legislative Session Isn’t Over Yet.

Although the formal period of the legislative session ended on July 31, the MA Legislature is still in session for 3.5 months. And their work isn’t done.

Let’s make sure that the Legislature and Governor Healey hear that.

Call Your State Representative about Raise the Age

In July, the Senate voted, as part of their economic development bill, to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system.

The House did not include this important language, and a Conference Committee of three state senators and three state representatives have been negotiating the differences between the two bills.

Let’s keep up the drumbeat for critical juvenile justice reforms.

Tell your Representative that: (1) Raise the Age is an economic development policy and (2) urge the Economic Development Bill conferees to include Raise the Age in the final bill:

Step 1: Find your State Representative

Step 2: Call your legislator with this sample script:

Subjecting 18-year-olds to adult prosecution, CORI records and adult incarceration causes significant harm not only to the teens themselves but to our economy which is desperate for more – not less – young people to engage in our economy.

My name is _, and I am a constituent of Representative _. I ask that the Representative reach out to the Economic Development bill conferees, Chair Parisella, Chair Michlewitz, and Rep. Muradian expressing the Representative’s support for including Raise the Age as passed in S.2869 in the final Economic Development bill.

Follow up with an email: Use the email tool at https://www.raisetheagema.org/take-action

Join Mass Power Forward to Tell Gov. Healey Not to Kick the Climate Can Down the Road!

Join Mass Power Forward at the State House to call on Governor Healey to not kick the climate can down the road. We must stop expanding the for-profit gas utility system, and right now Governor Healey is proposing a flimsy climate bill with no plan for ending the expansion.

WHAT: Press Conference and Action
WHERE: Meet at Nurse’s Hall, 2nd Floor of the Boston Statehouse
WHO: You and your friends
WHEN: Tuesday, Sept. 24th at 12pm

RSVP Here

The Best Day to Contact Your Legislator is Yesterday. The Next Best Is Today.

The best time to contact your legislators is yesterday. The second best time is today.

That’s because time is short. The current legislative session will wrap up next Wednesday, and major decisions will be made between now and then.

As I noted in Monday’s update, this email will be longer than I’d like. That’s because our Legislature, despite being a full-time body, has the tendency to push off everything to the last month, last weeks, even last day of the legislative session. The public deserves a better process, and I’m sure most legislators would prefer one too.

But we wanted to keep you in the loop about what’s happening and what you can do. There will be an array of actions you can take: make a plan to choose at least one action step, and talk to friends about it.

Here’s what you can do:

  • Email your state rep in support of Raise the Age
  • Email the Affordable Homes Act Conference Committee
  • Email the Climate Bill Conference Committee
  • Email the Ways & Means chairs about the Prison Moratorium
  • Show up on Monday in support of families experiencing homelessness

Make sure to check out our blog for other updates, and stay tuned for action steps. Many bills move quickly at the end of the session (Example: We just learned that the Senate is taking up an important maternal health bill next Tuesday.) In solidarity,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Email to Your State Rep: Raise the Age

On July 11, during the debate on its economic development, the MA Senate voted 31 to 9 to keep 18-year-olds out of the adult prison system.

Shifting legal system-involved youth from the adult criminal legal system into the juvenile system improves young people’s access to education and skills training, even if they are never incarcerated. Young people’s prosecution as adults during their late adolescence derails their education, which can have serious effects on their ability to attain employment during these critical adolescent years, diminishing their lifetime earnings, and preventing them from contributing fully to the Massachusetts economy.

The economic development bill is now in Conference Committee, where three senators and three representatives will negotiate a final bill. Here’s what you can do:

Email the Affordable Homes Act Conference Committee

Last month, the MA House and MA Senate passed versions of Governor Maura Healey’s Affordable Homes Act.

WHAT HAPPENED: Like Healey’s original version of the bill, both bills established an Office of Fair Housing, legalized accessory dwelling units in single-family zoning districts without undue restrictions, streamlined the use of state-owned land for housing, and increased the bond authorizations for public housing, building decarbonization, and many more housing initiatives. Unfortunately, however, both chambers caved to the real estate lobby and axed the widely popular local option real estate transfer fee (which would have allowed cities and towns to raise extra money to invest in affordable housing).

But the two bills had a number of differences, and a Conference Committee of three senators and three representatives are negotiating final details.

WHAT IS AT STAKE: We have a displacement crisis in Massachusetts, and it is essential that the final version of the Affordable Homes Act contain policies to help renters and working-class homeowners.

  • Creating a process for sealing eviction records (Senate bill)
  • Banning brokers’ fees (Senate bill)
  • Establishing a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase local option (House bill)
  • Creating a Foreclosure Mediation Pilot Program (Senate bill)

A Conference Committee of three state senators and three state representatives are negotiating the final details of the bill.

Email the Conference Committee about these key priorities.

If we are to make a dent at addressing the affordable housing crisis, we need more investment, we need more housing production, and we need policies to prevent displacement. The Legislature shouldn’t leave out that critical final piece.

You can also email them directly and cc your own legislators, using the following emails:

Email the Climate Bill Conference Committee

Last week, the House took up its climate omnibus bill. While the bill contains a number of important reforms, it lacks the ambition of the Senate’s recent bill, which did far more to accelerate the transition away from gas. And the Senate’s bill still hadn’t gone far enough to meet the moment, especially around environmental justice.

Mass Power Forward, the coalition of climate justice advocacy groups, is asking people to email the six-person Conference Committee finalizing the details of this bill. Here is a template you can use:

TO: Jeffrey.Roy@mahouse.gov, Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov, Cynthia.Creem@masenate.gov, richard.haggerty@mahouse.gov, Bruce.Tarr@masenate.gov, Bradley.Jones@mahouse.gov

CC: YOUR LEGISLATORS Find their email here.

SUBJECT: We Need a Strong and Just Climate Bill

Dear Conferees:

I am writing to you regarding the Climate Omnibus bill. Both the Senate and the House bills are missing critical pieces. In particular, we need a robust cumulative impact analysis in line with current practice and a halt on new gas expansion. Please see this letter for further details.

This is important to me because

Best,

NAME

Email the Ways & Means Chairs about the Prison Moratorium

Last session, the MA Legislature passed a moratorium on new prison and jail construction, only for then Republican governor Charlie Baker to veto it.

New session, new opportunity. But time is running short.

The Prison Moratorium bill (S2821), which would put a five-year pause on the construction of new prisons and jails, was reported favorably out of the State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee. It needs to get a vote on the floor by next Wednesday.

Families for Justice as Healing is asking that people contact the two Ways & Means chairs in support of this critical bill:

✩ House Chair Aaron Michlewitz

(617) 722-2990

Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov

✩ Senate Chair Michael Rodrigues

(617) 722-1114

Michael.Rodrigues@masenate.gov

Email/call script: “Hello, my name is _______ and I am calling to ask the Chairman to please bring the Prison Moratorium bill S.2821 of Ways and Means to the floor for a vote. Both chambers of the legislature already passed the Prison Moratorium last session, and the State Admin Committee worked hard to clarify the language so it’s even more clear that repairs can still be made for the wellbeing of incarcerated people. Passing the Prison Moratorium is a top priority for me, and this bill is supported by incarcerated people, formerly incarcerated people, community members from all over the state, clergy and faith leaders, public health experts, social workers, and medical providers. Please Pass the Prison Moratorium before the end of the session. Thank you.”

Support families experiencing homelessness and the right to shelter!

On July 23rd, Governor Healey announced changes to the Emergency Assistance (EA) family shelter system that will force children and their families out with no safe place to sleep at night. Families who are deemed eligible for shelter will now be forced to choose: wait in an unsafe place for a shelter placement or stay for 5 nights in a state-run overflow site but then wait at least 6 months to access EA shelter. This policy change will disproportionately impact immigrant families, both new arrivals and long-term Massachusetts residents.

Join our allies from the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute and the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless in front of the State House on Monday, July 29th, 11 a.m.–12 p.m. to call on the Governor and Legislature to uphold access to shelter for children and families.

Letter to the Economic Development Conference Committee

July 25, 2024

To the Conferees:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

Thank you for your work in negotiating a final version of the economic development bill.

I am writing today to express our strong support for sections 4, 6, 101, 102, 114, 165-169, 179-218, 254, and 257-280 of S.2869. These sections would raise the age of criminal responsibility to 19, thereby ensuring that 18-year-olds are kept out of the adult prison system.

This reform is good for public safety, good for the economy, and good for advancing racial equality in the commonwealth.

Public Safety: An overly punitive approach towards young people increases recidivism by taking away access to education and other supports that are vital to rehabilitation and smooth re-entry. 18-year-olds are, let’s remember, largely high school seniors. We want everyone to be able to finish high school, and we can best achieve educational outcomes by ensuring that young people are in an environment set up for that. Education and supportive services are essential for young people to become stable, contributing adults, and that is essential to community stability.

Economy:  Involvement with the adult legal system creates significant barriers for young people in obtaining education, skill-building, and career development opportunities. Keeping 18-year-olds out of the adult system will help them to better achieve their full economic potential, and when that happens, we all benefit.


Racial Equity: Legal system involvement is concentrated in particular communities — especially low-income, Black, and brown communities. When we cut off economic opportunity from Black and Brown youth, both as teenagers and—as a result—as adults, we are exacerbating the racial wealth gap in Massachusetts and compounding deeply rooted inequalities.

Massachusetts has the opportunity to make our communities safer, our economy stronger, and our commonwealth more equitable. We urge you to take it.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

End of Session Letter on Criminal Justice Reform

July 15, 2024

Via Electronic Mail

Senator Karen Spilka

President of the Senate

Karen.Spilka@masenate.gov

Representative Ronald Mariano

Speaker of the House

Ronald.Mariano@mahouse.gov

Representative Aaron Michlewitz

Chairperson, House Committee on Ways and Means

Chairperson, Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov

Senator Michael Rodrigues

Chairperson, Senate Committee on Ways and Means

Chairperson, Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Michael.Rodrigues@masenate.gov

Representative John Lawn, Jr. 

Chairperson, Joint Committee on Healthcare Financing

John.Lawn@mahouse.gov

Senator Cindy Friedman

Chairperson, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Ways and Means

Vice Chair, Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Cindy.Friedman@masenate.gov

RE: 36 Organizations Urge Support of Criminal Legal System Reform

Dear Senate President Spilka, Speaker Mariano, Chair Michlewitz, Chair Rodrigues, Chair Lawn, and Chair Friedman:

We are a coalition of 36 advocacy organizations focused on improving public health and safety through corrections system reform. We are heartened that several important and broadly supported criminal legal reform policies were advanced out of committee, reflecting the legislature’s commitment to the well-being of incarcerated people and our communities. We believe that now is the time to move these bills to the floor, all of which would affirm the human rights of incarcerated individuals, prepare them for successful re-entry, reduce racial inequity, and promote the health and safety of our communities. Passing these bills is especially important in this moment of transition at the Department of Correction — we have an opportunity to reshape correctional culture in a way that is more conducive to rehabilitation, prioritizes continuing to safely reduce the prison population, and improves transitions back to the community. We urge you to bring the following bills to floor votes with enough time before the end of the session to ensure that if there is a veto, there is time to override.

Currently in the Joint Committee for Health Care Finance

  • An Act to ensure appropriate access to medical parole,  H.2319 (reported favorably from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security): This bill would carry forward the promise of medical parole, which was established by the 2018 Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA). It clarifies language to ensure that people with cognitive incapacitations have access to the process, reduces delays, and provides for appropriate parole supervision and judicial review. 

Currently in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means

Currently in the House Committee on Ways and Means

  • An Act related to rehabilitation, re-entry, and human rights for incarcerated persons, H.2325 (reported favorably from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security): This bill would establish universal baseline standards for conditions of confinement for everyone incarcerated in Massachusetts state prisons, county jails, and houses of correction. The standards would actualize reforms to restrictive housing enshrined in the CJRA, reduce the harm incarcerated people experience and help support successful re-entry into the community. 
  • An Act to strengthen family and community connection with incarcerated people, H.2314 (reported favorably from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security): This bill rolls back unnecessary restrictions on prison and jail visitation, which is a critical system for maintaining community connections and supporting successful re-entry.
  • An Act establishing parole review for aging incarcerated people, H.2397 (reported favorably from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security): While the prison population overall is decreasing, the percentage of the population who are elderly is increasing. This bill would provide an opportunity for parole for all incarcerated people over the age of 55 who have already served half of their sentence or at least 15 years. 
  • An Act ensuring access to addiction services, H.1966/S.1247 (reported favorably from the committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery): This bill would end the practice of incarcerating men who have not been convicted of any crime but who have been civilly committed for involuntary treatment for alcohol and substance use disorders under M.G.L. chapter 123, section 35 (also known as “Section 35”). 

Currently in the Budget Conference Committee

  • Ensuring full implementation of No Cost Calls: Last year, Massachusetts passed legislation to guarantee free communication between incarcerated individuals and their loved ones (“No Cost Calls”). This policy has already improved vital community connections for incarcerated people and their families. To continue this progress and ensure effective implementation, we need both dedicated funding and robust reporting by the Department of Correction and County Sheriffs. We ask the budget conference committee to dedicate $35M in the Communications Access Trust Fund for No Cost Calls in prisons and jails (item 1595-6153 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal) and to make technical fixes to the reporting requirements, so that policymakers have the information they need to effectively monitor the No Cost Calls law (Section 29 A&B of the Senate FY 2025 budget proposal).

Together, the above bills will create effective implementation of existing law, advance human rights,  improve conditions of confinement, promote successful re-entry, provide meaningful pathways to safe release for elderly people and those who are very sick or incapacitated, and help to ensure that we invest commonwealth resources in our communities. 

As the formal session enters its last weeks, we strongly believe that there is still time to meaningfully reform our corrections system to further public health and safety, reduce racial inequity, and support commonwealth communities. Indeed, we believe it is urgent to do so.

Thank you for your time and attention to these important issues. 

Sincerely,

Abolitionist Mail Project

ACLU of Massachusetts

Actual Criminal Justice Roundtable of the Southern New England United Church of Christ

Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network (BIJAN) 

Bristol County for Correctional Justice

Campaign to End Life Without Parole (CELWOP)

Coalition for Effective Public Safety (CEPS) Steering Committee

Coalition for Social Justice Action

Coalition for Social Justice Education Fund

Color Of Change

Committee for Public Counsel Services

CORI Initiative, Center for Law & Social Responsibility at New England Law | Boston

Decarcerate Western MA Bailout Project

DeeperThanWater Coalition

Disability Law Center

Drop LWOP New England

F8 Foundation

Families for Justice as Healing

First Parish Brookline, Unitarian Universalist

First Parish Concord, Unitarian Universalist 

First Parish in Bedford, Unitarian Universalist

Greater Boston Legal Services CORI & Re-entry Project

Human Rights at Home Clinic, UMass Law School

Jane Doe Inc., The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence

Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee

Massachusetts Against Solitary Confinement (MASC)

Massachusetts Association for Mental Health

Massachusetts Parole Preparation Partnership

Massachusetts Peace Action

Prison Policy Initiative

Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts

Progressive Massachusetts 

Real Cost of Prisons Project

Showing Up for Racial Justice Boston

T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights

Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

Women and Incarceration Project

MA Senate Passes Raise the Age via Economic Development Bill

On Thursday, during the long debate on the MA Senate’s economic development bill, the chamber voted 31 to 9 to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system.

Although the Raise the Age bill would have gone all the way to 21, this is still a major win, and research has shown that allowing emerging adults to be tried as juveniles decreases crime, improves public safety, and is good for creating economic opportunity. In the juvenile system, there is better access to education and support resources, and there are also better mechanisms for record sealing.

Voting against the measure were the chamber’s four Republicans as well as Democrats Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

There were four other recorded votes during the debate.

  • A party line 35 to 4 vote to enhance local public health infrastructure and service delivery.
  • A 6-33 vote on an amendment from Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to expand corporate tax exemptions. Joan Lovely (D-Salem) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joined the chamber’s four Republicans.
  • A 5-34 vote to lower the capital gains tax and drain much-needed revenue. Timilty again joined the chamber’s four Republicans.

Letter: Sealing of erroneously denied youthful offender sealing petitions

March 5, 2024
Pamerson O. Ifill
Commissioner of Probation
One Ashburton Place # 405
Boston, MA 02108
Re: Sealing of erroneously denied youthful offender sealing petitions

Dear Commissioner:

We are writing on behalf of youth, community, legal services, and other organizations to request that you direct the Sealing Unit in your office to comply with the law and seal the youthful offender records of petitioners who were previously denied sealing due to the Sealing Unit incorrectly applying the adult sealing statute (G.L c. 276, § 100A) rather than the juvenile
sealing statute (G.L. c. 276, § 100B) to youthful offender offenses. On February 14, 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that the delinquency sealing statute (G.L. c. 276, § 100B) “is the proper statute for the sealing of records of youthful offenders.” Matter of Impounded Case, No. SJC-13465, 2024 WL 590605, at 1 (2024). However, our understanding from General Counsel Nina Pomponio is that, except for the petitioner in this particular SJC case, the Sealing Unit will take no action to seal the records of individuals who were previously denied sealing of their youthful offender records based on the erroneous application of the adult sealing statute unless they file a new petition. We respectfully submit that this position is flatly inconsistent with the Court’s decision, a dereliction of the Sealing Unit’s basic responsibility as a government agency, profoundly unjust, and unnecessary based on the Sealing Unit’s practice of treating youthful offender records as sealable under the juvenile statute less than a decade ago.


This position is particularly disappointing when compared to the laudable steps your office is taking to seal adult offenses ending in a not guilty finding to implement the SJC’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. J.F.1 The number of sealing requests related to youthful offender offenses is almost certainly much smaller than the number of adult offenses that ended in a not
guilty finding which your office is now sealing.

The failure to seal these records is legally unsupportable. The SJC’s unanimous decision last week is unambiguous: “We conclude that § 100B, the juvenile delinquency statute, is proper statute for the sealing of records of youthful offenders.” Slip op. at 2 (emphasis supplied). Nothing in the opinion remotely suggests that its holding was limited to the individual youthful offender who brought the petition. To the contrary, its language is not restricted to the case before it. “After review of the text of §§ 100A and 100B and an analysis of legislative intent as to youthful offender adjudications as revealed in §§ 53 and 60A and more broadly, we conclude that the Legislature intended that, in the context of record sealing, youthful offender adjudications be treated more like delinquency adjudications than adult criminal adjudications.” Slip op. at 13 (emphasis supplied). Any reading other than that youthful offender records are to be treated for sealing purposes as juvenile records is baseless.

The failure to seal these records disregards the agency’s basic responsibility to do its job. The refusal to seal these records effectively deprives persons eligible for sealing of its benefits because the sealing unit misled them. Before this decision, the Sealing Unit sent letters to individuals who requested sealing of all juvenile offenses that erroneously instructed them in some instances that they could never seal their youthful offender offenses and in other instances that the longer seven-year waiting periods applied to any felony offense. Sealing is a non-discretionary duty under section 100B if a person has filed a petition to seal and the offenses are eligible for sealing. See G.L c. 276, § 100B (the commissioner “shall” seal eligible
offenses after filing of a petition). The Sealing Unit has a responsibility to correct its errors.

This inaction by the Sealing Unit is profoundly unjust. It deprives Black, Latinx and LGBT+ individuals the opportunity to mitigate the racism and collateral consequences related to the disproportionate involvement of these young adults in the juvenile court system. It also places an undue burden on the public to follow SJC slip opinions. Those with youthful offender records also are a vulnerable population because so many children in the juvenile court are from poor and low-income communities and have families that are, or were, involved with the Department of Children and Families.

This inaction is also utterly unnecessary and simply cruel. Less than a decade ago the Sealing Unit routinely (and correctly) treated youthful offender records as akin to delinquency records for sealing purposes. Attorneys from Greater Boston Legal Services and Northeast Legal Aid recall having past clients who sealed their youthful offender records under G.L c. 276, § 100B after a three-year juvenile waiting period in 2018 or 2019. Moreover, a 2013 chapter in an MCLE publication authored by your office’s then-deputy legal counsel stated that delinquency and youthful offender offenses can be sealed after the same three-year waiting period without any exclusions. 2

Thus treating youthful offender records like juvenile records for sealing purposes is well within the Sealing Unit’s ability, and the relatively short period of its erroneous application of the law suggests there are a small number of persons affected.
Individuals with juvenile court records are as deserving of second chances as adults, and as the SJC has held, less culpable for their past offenses given what is known about brain development. See Diatchenko v. Dist. Att’y for Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655, 660 (2013).

In sum, we urge you to instruct your office’s Sealing Unit to approve all the prior requests for sealing which were denied because of the misapplication of the adult sealing law to youthful offender records without requiring individuals to file new petitions. This is the only way to prevent continuing stigma and harm in the form of collateral consequences related to wrongful denial of these petitions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Sincerely,

Pauline Quirion, Director, CORI & Re-entry Project, Greater Boston Legal Services
Mia Alvarado, Executive Director, Roxbury Youthworks, Inc.
Virginia Benzan, Director of Racial Justice Advocacy, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
Hon. Jay Blitzman (Ret.)
Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders
Stacey Borden, Director, New Beginnings Reentry Services, Inc.
Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director, Progressive Massachusetts
Jessica Collins, Executive Director, Public Health Institute of Western Massachusetts
Professor Margaret Drew, UMass School of Law Human Rights at Home Clinic
Ryan Dominguez, Executive Director, Mass CultivatED
Daniel French, Board President, Citizens for Public Schools
Ed Gaskin, Executive Director, Greater Grove Hall Main Streets
Lauren Gibbs, End Mass Incarceration Together (EMIT)
Alyssa Golden, Senior Supervising Attorney, CORI/ Re-entry, Community Legal Aid
Rahsaan Hall, Executive Director, Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts
Sophia Hall, Deputy Litigation Director, Lawyers for Civil Rights
Phillip Kassel, Executive Director, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee

Paul Kominers and Kristen Gagalis, Anderson & Kreiger
Susan Malouin, Senior Attorney, Criminal Record Sealing Unit, Northeast Legal Aid
Julie McCormack, Director, Safety Net Project, Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School
Dave McMahon, Co-Executive Director, Dismas House
Rev. Jo Murphy, Executive Director, Unitarian Universalist Mass Action (UU Mass Action)
Kayla Hamlett Murray, Executive Director, Bethel Institute for Community Development
Ariel Nelson, Criminal Justice Debt & Reintegration Project, National Consumer Law Center
Matthew Parker, Director, Union of Minority Neighborhoods
Marlene Pollock, Coalition for Social Justice Action
Nichelle Sadler, Executive Director, UTEC Training Center for Excellence
Professor David Siegel, New England Law | Boston CORI Initiative
Leon Smith, Executive Director, Citizens for Juvenile Justice
Rev. Chris Sumner, Boston Reentry Collaborative
Jessica Tang, President, Boston Teachers Union
Lisa H. Thurau, Executive Director, Strategies for Youth, Inc.
Vincent Ware, Greater Boston Reentry Taskforce

cc: Nina Pomponio, General Counsel, Office of Commissioner of Probation

1 J.F. overruled a 1995 decision prohibiting immediate sealing of any offenses ending in not guilty dispositions. See Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142 (1995), overruled by Commonwealth v. J.F., 491 Mass. 824, 831, (2023).

2 See Nicola J. Pangonis, Criminal Records: Sealing and Expungement, § 18.4.4, CRIME AND CONSEQUENCE-THE
COLLATERAL EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT (MCLE 2013 ed.).

A Clean Slate and a Second Chance Shouldn’t Be a Bureaucratic Nightmare.

Testimony for H. 1598/ S.979. & H.1493/S.998

Right now in our state, numerous people have made mistakes in their lives, served their time, and returned to society only to find they are unable to fully reintegrate into our community because, even though they are eligible to clear their records, they have been unable to do so. We tell people they have the right to a clean record after 7 (felony) or 3 (misdemeanor) years but then we make them jump through complicated hoops in order to actually receive a clean CORI. Requiring people to go through a complicated procedure in order to clear their name is unnecessary and hurts not just them but the people of our state. It is time to implement an automatic sealing process.

When our forefathers founded the United States, they embedded the concept of due process in our Constitution which states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Due process requires that our government develops fair and just procedures. Yet in Massachusetts we seem to have forgotten this fundamental right. How can our state consider instituting a system that constantly punishes someone long after they have served their sentence (and sometimes when they have never been convicted of any crime) to be a fair and just process? Yet, we use CORIs to deprive people of being able to live their lives fully all the time. 

While this is unduly harsh to the people and families who suffer from the never ending punishment they receive long after having served time for a crime, the negative impact ripples through our entire society. By preventing someone from accessing work, housing, training and other vital services, it is not just tragic for that person and their family, but our society is deprived of their work and contribution to our community as well. And, worse, if they end up homeless and without income, the state often ends up paying for their care. The consequences of creating a class of unemployable people isn’t just unjust to them, it’s unfair to the rest of society as well. 

Our founders understood that we need to allow everyone to have access to a fair process. They also understood that once people have served their time, we need to allow them to reintegrate into society instead of creating permanent pariahs, which is what these CORIs do.  We need to return to our foundational principles – not only because it is due process for someone who has violated the law, but because it is also better for our society as a whole. Sealing these CORIs automatically will result in helping to create Justice for All.

Caroline Bays

Progressive Massachusetts

Over-criminalizing Our Youth: How MA’s Own “Crime Bill” Harms the Most Vulnerable Among Us

Prison

By Zoraida Fernandez

Over the past few years, there has been an important and growing societal reckoning with the damage done by the 1994 federal crime bill and the racist legacy of mass incarceration.

However, as a new report from Citizens for Juvenile Justice reminds us, the federal crime bill did not exist in isolation: it inspired a wave of misguided “tough-on-crime” bills in the states, including Massachusetts’s Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA” — Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 269 § 10G), with lasting harm on Massachusetts communities of color, particularly youth of color.

ACCA imposes harsher penalties on people convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm who previously had been convicted of at least one “violent crime” or “serious drug offense.” As this report demonstrates, however, ACCA has imposed unwarranted and draconian punishments on people, especially some of the most vulnerable in our community, including young people of color. And its effects have had devastating and long-lasting consequences not just for those incarcerated, but the communities who bear the burden of losing families to incarceration for extended periods.

How ACCA works to punish people more severely and curtail their rights

When the government convicts a person of unlawfully possessing a weapon, the conviction may trigger consideration of harsher punishment if the person has prior convictions for certain crimes (“predicate offenses”). When there is even one such prior conviction, including ones from someone’s youth (“juvenile adjudication”), ACCA imposes harsher punishments that must be served in state prison. One such prior conviction would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years, two such prior conventions would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, and three such prior convictions would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years.

Strikingly, the report’s authors found that nearly half of all defendants charged under ACCA were charged under its most punitive provision, mandating a minimum of 15 years of incarceration.

  • ACCA imposes harsh punishment regardless of an individual’s circumstances

In non-ACCA criminal cases, judges consider not just the circumstances of the offense and the person’s criminal history, but also the person as an individual, when imposing a sentence. The defendant is entitled to present contextual information to explain why they committed the offense, information related to the impact of incarceration on their family or community, or any other information that would assist a judge in imposing a fair sentence. ACCA eliminates all contextual information. It also eliminates all opportunities for the criminal legal system to address the root causes of an individual’s repeat offending; it requires judges to simply impose at least the minimum term of years prescribed, no questions asked.  

  • Offenses committed by children can count as ACCA predicate offenses

Alarmingly, even juvenile adjudications—offenses that a person committed as a child—can count as predicate offenses for ACCA. There is a wealth of research indicating the immaturity of children’s developing brains and how this can affect decision-making. Given all this evidence, continuing to consider these offenses to justify enhanced punishments is deeply unjust. 

  • Prosecutors threaten defendants with ACCA enhancements to secure guilty pleas

Federal and state prosecutors routinely use the threat of charging defendants under ACCA as a cudgel to secure quick guilty pleas. When criminal defendants are faced with an enhanced 15-year sentence, the best of bad options for them may be to plead guilty to the charged offense—whether they committed the crime or not—rather than go to trial and risk spending decades in prison. Likewise, the report notes that criminal defense attorneys have had to forego filing motions to dismiss on behalf of their clients because prosecutors threaten ACCA enhancements. Neither the Legislature nor District Attorneys, whose mission is supposed to be the pursuit of justice, should stand for this systemic denial of people’s constitutional rights to their defense and to trial.

How ACCA disproportionately harms residents of color

The report notes that Black and Latine defendants make up over 75% of Massachusetts ACCA cases, despite making up less than 20% of the population. Moreover, ACCA cases are overwhelmingly charged in urban areas, with the Boston Police and State Police alone charging nearly half of ACCA cases during the time period analyzed, with the overwhelming majority of cases involving Black and Latine individuals.

More specifically, ACCA’s predicate drug offenses mean that people of color are disproportionately affected because, as noted in the report, laws criminalizing possession and distribution of drugs disproportionately target people of color. Police and prosecutors are more likely to charge residents of color with serious drug offenses because of overpolicing in their neighborhoods and prosecutorial discretion, respectively. ACCA exacerbates these inequities by using these charges to justify overly harsh punishments.

Similarly, stop-and-frisk policies and so-called hot-spot policing practices have meant that police disproportionately charge residents of color with gun possession charges that trigger ACCA.

And this disproportionality in charging residents of color with gun crimes as compared to white residents is even wider than that involving drug crimes.

Finally, the report notes that documented discrepancies also exist in charging decisions between white defendants and Black and Latine defendants. Prosecutors tend to charge Black and Latine individuals with more severe crimes than their white counterparts for the same or similar conduct, which leads to harsher punishment, including possible ACCA enhancements. The answer, however, is not to increase punishments for white individuals, but rather to decrease unwarranted and severe punishments for all criminal defendants.

Recommendations for action

Given the documented harm caused by ACCA punishment enhancements, the report details several recommendations for action. A few that stand out are:

  • The Legislature should eliminate ACCA. At the very least, it should start by modifying ACCA to enhance punishment only for individuals with three predicate offenses and removing drug offenses and charges of simple weapon possession as qualifying offenses.
  • The Legislature should prevent juvenile adjudications from counting as ACCA predicates.
  • Prosecutors should stop widespread use of ACCA charges and instate policies for its use only under limited circumstances.

The Legislature and District Attorneys’ offices should act expeditiously to ameliorate the harm that ACCA punishments have caused to entire communities.

Making Our Criminal *Justice* System More Just

Figure of Justice holding the scales of justice

Tuesday, September 26, 2023

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

Five years ago, the Legislature took significant strides toward curbing mass incarceration by passing a comprehensive criminal legal reform package. But there is more work to be done to make our criminal justice system more deserving of the word “justice.”  

We urge you to give a favorable report to the following bills:

  • H.1710/S.942: An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Young Adults.
  • H.1495/S.940: An Act promoting diversion of juveniles to community supervision and services
  • H.1802/S.931: An Act Improving Juvenile Justice Data Collection
  • H.1650: An Act Protecting Youth During Custodial Interrogations
  • H.1756/S.954: An Act Ensuring Integrity in Juvenile Interrogations
  • H.1494/S.993: An Act Updating Bail Procedures for Justice-Involved Youth
  • S.1049: An Act relative to diversion for primary caretakers

Our testimony will focus on the first and the last.

Raise the Age (H.1710/S.942)

These bills would 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.

Primary Caretakers Diversion (S.1049)

We are grateful for the work the Legislature did to advance racial and gender justice by including Primary Caretakers alternative community-based sentencing as part of the Criminal Justice Reform Act in 2018.

Whenever a parent or other primary caregiver is incarcerated, the children suffer. A criminal record puts up barriers between caretakers and housing, employment, education, and other resources that are essential to allow them to take care of their families.

Passing the Primary Caretakers Diversion bill would build on recent progress and provide more opportunities for healing, recovery, treatment, and resources, rather than punishment.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts