MA legislators just voted again to disenfranchise people in prison. And the vote wasn’t even public.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 3, 2019 Joint statement from Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts, and the Emancipation Initiative

Mass. legislature rejects voting rights for the incarcerated

As the national discourse around the question of restoring voting rights for those incarcerated heated up, the Massachusetts legislature also quietly took up the issue.  The Joint Committee on Election Laws voted on Thursday April 25th to reject a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights for the incarcerated.

Incarcerated people in Massachusetts weren’t always disenfranchised, and the 1974 Supreme Judicial Court case Evers v. Davoren ruled that citizens incarcerated in Massachusetts must be given equal access to absentee ballots to vote.  It wasn’t until 2001 that Massachusetts disenfranchised those incarcerated for felonies, after the Massachusetts legislature initiated a process to amend the State Constitution to take away their voting rights while in prison. The process required two votes of the legislature before it could advance to a ballot question. A Republican filed the original bill, but Democrats were more than happy to go along with it judging by the overwhelming vote counts in favor: the first vote in 1998 was 155-34, and the second vote in 2000 was 144-45.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley pointed out that it wasn’t until prisoners at MCI Norfolk started to organize a political action committee in 1997 to organize for better conditions through electoral pressure, that our State government leapt into action to disenfranchise them.  “People who are incarcerated are closest to the problem and therefore closest to the solution. In order to have meaningful criminal justice reform in this state, we must ensure that those most impacted have a seat at the table. Returning the right to vote to people who are incarcerated on felony convictions is that first foundational step,” said Rachel Corey, an organizer with the Emancipation Initiative. 

Certain elected officials have publicly stated they voted against this action, including Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa of Northampton and Senator Jamie Eldridge of Acton.  But no roll call vote for the 17-person committee was available at time of this release. Act On Mass has reached out to every committee member inquiring how they voted and will provide updates as they learn more. 

“The committee doubled down on the legislature’s decision to disenfranchise the incarcerated last week. And we don’t know how our elected officials voted, or even how close the vote was.  Democracy can’t function if voters don’t know how their representatives vote, and advocates can’t even make progress on lobbying the members of the committee if they don’t know who agrees with them and who disagrees with them,” said Matthew Miller, co-founder of Act on Mass, a group that advocates for progressive policies and transparency on Beacon Hill.

The legislature considered a proposal earlier this year to change its rules so that all committee votes are published online, but the proposal did not make it into the joint rules of the legislature.

“We are very disappointed that the Joint Election Laws Committee chose not to take this important step in strengthening our democracy and the hold of mass incarceration on our policymaking. In last year’s criminal justice reform bill, the Legislature expressed an interest in focusing on rehabilitation. Allowing prisoners to participate in elections would strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release,” said Jonathan Cohn, Chair of the Issues Committee at Progressive Massachusetts. “Let’s be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters.” ########################

Act on Mass has contacted every member of the Joint Committee on Election Laws to ask them to share their vote on this issue. As of this writing, the following legislators have responded:

  • Senator Barry Finegold (voted AGAINST amendment to re-enfranchise the incarcerated)
  • Senator Jamie Eldridge (voted FOR amendment)
  • Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz (voted FOR amendment)
  • Representative Russell Holmes (voted FOR amendment)
  • Representative Lindsay Sábados (voted FOR amendment)
  • Senator Ryan Fattman (voted AGAINST) amendmen

We are awaiting a response from:

  • Senator Brendan Crighton (Lynn)
  • Senator Edward Kennedy (Lowell)
  • Representative John Lawn (Watertown)
  • Representative Bill Driscoll (Milton)
  • Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier (Pittsfield)
  • Representative Alan Silvia (Fall River)
  • Representative Steven Ultrino (Malden)
  • Representative Dan Carey (Easthampton)
  • Representative Kathleen LaNatra (Kingston)
  • Representative Nicholas Boldyga (Southwick)
  • Representative Marc Lombardo (Billerica)

The Appeal: Felony Disenfranchisement across States

“Debate on Felony Disenfranchisement Is Already Here in State Legislatures Around the Country” — Daniel Nichanian, The Appeal, 5/2/2019

The committee vote was not public. Only four of its 17 members answered my multiple requests for comment about how they voted.

All those who replied told me that they voted to advance the reform. They are state Representatives Russell Holmes and Lindsay Sabadosa, and state Senators Sonia Chang-Díaz and James Eldridge. All four are Democrats, but so are 14 of the committee’s 17 members. “It’s very easy for prisoners to lose hope and their connection to society, and restoring the right to vote would provide an enhanced capacity to stay connected,” Elridge told me. State organizers have taken issue with the secrecy of this process. “When legislators vote behind closed doors to continue to a racist history of disenfranchisement, with no public record of how they voted for their constituents, that’s a fundamental failure of democracy,” Jonathan Cohn, an organizer with Progressive Mass, an advocacy group that supported the proposal, told me in a written message. He added that the lack of public votes is “a systemic problem for activists in Massachusetts because bills can be killed with everyone having ‘clean hands.’

Time to End a Shameful History of Disenfranchisement

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Election Laws Committee.

*************************************************************

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Lawn, and Members of the Joint Election Laws Committee,

As an organization committed to strengthening our democracy and promoting racial and social justice in our Commonwealth, Progressive Massachusetts strongly supports S.12, a proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights and urges swift action.

In recent years, states around the US have started to realize that the decades-long phenomenon of mass incarceration was a moral, economic, and public safety failure. It destroyed communities, strained budgets, and made us no safer.

The omnibus criminal justice reform legislation passed last session to widespread public support shows that the MA House and Senate understand this. But there is more work to do.

The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy. However, our neighbors in Maine and Vermont are the only states in the US to grant incarcerated individuals this right.

Massachusetts once did. However, in the late 1990s, Governor Paul Cellucci and other state politicians pushed to restrict this right, putting forth a constitutional amendment to prevent those convicted of a felony from voting while incarcerated.

Let us be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters. Although our state is only 7% Black, our prison population is 26% Black, and although our state is only 10% Latinx, our prison population is 24%. [1]

Moreover, the Supreme Court and US Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. They have rights of religious freedom and a right to hold and express political opinions. As Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren once said, “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Studies have repeatedly shown that maintaining a connection to the outside world is conducive to rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. [2] Allowing prisoners to participate in elections will strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release.

We urge the committee to give this bill a favorable report.

[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/MA.html

[2] See, e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237298166_Inmate_Social_Ties_and_the_Transition_to_Society_Does_Visitation_Reduce_Recidivism.

Taking Stock of the 190th Legislative Session

In January of 2017, Progressive Massachusetts unveiled our legislative agenda for the 190th legislative session — 17 items for 2017 (and 2018). As we near the end of the year — and the start of the next legislative session, it’s the perfect time to take stock of how the various bills fared.

Clear Victories

Reproductive Rights

The ACCESS bill, which updates MA’s contraceptive coverage equity law to require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay, passed overwhelmingly in the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.

Democracy

Massachusetts became the 13th state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration. In this reform pioneered by Oregon in 2015, eligible voters who interface with select government agencies (here, the RMV or MassHealth) are automatically registered to vote unless they decline. With more than 700,000 eligible citizens in MA unregistered, AVR will increase the accuracy, security, and comprehensiveness of voter rolls.

The bill also enrolls Massachusetts in Electronic Registration Information Center, a coalition of states founded by the Pew Research Center that enable states to synchronize their voter rolls. ERIC has increased the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the voter rolls in participating states.

[Note: The original bill included smaller social services government agencies as well. The final bill allows for their later inclusion but focuses on the two largest sources of possible new registrants.]

Steps Forward

Criminal Justice Reform

The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed by the Legislature in April incorporated some elements from our priority bills (Read our write-up here):

  • Eliminating most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limiting mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. [Note: PM and advocates had sought the elimination of all mandatory minimums. The bill, however, left in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin), expanded this definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, and created a new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, an overused charge wielded as a threat against protesters.]
  • Raising the felony-larceny threshold from $250 to $1,200 [Note: PM and other advocates had sought $1,500.]
  • Reducing fines and fees [Note: PM and other advocates wanted probation and parole fees fully eliminated.]
  • Establishing a process for expunging records, especially for juveniles convicted of minor offenses

There is still work to be done–from raising the age of criminal majority to severely curtailing (or outright abolishing) solitary confinement. That said, the bill, despite its shortcomings, was a step in the right direction.

Fight for $15

At the start of the session, we supported legislation to raise the minimum wage from $11 to to $15 by 2021, raise the tipped minimum wage from $3.75 to $15.75 by 2025, and require the minimum wage to increase with inflation starting in 2022.

The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition’s ballot initiative was slightly more modest in its ambition, extending the full phase-in date one year (due to a later start) and raising the minimum wage for tipped employees to only $9 (60% of the minimum wage) by 2022.

What passed in the ultimate “Grand Bargain,” an effort of the Legislature and the Governor to avoid three ballot initiatives ($15 minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, sales tax reduction) was more modest still. It raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2023, raised the tipped minimum wage to only $6.75, and dropped indexing. Unfortunately, the Legislature included a further concession to the business lobby, agreeing to phase-out time-and-a-half on Sundays and holidays. Although the bill is a net win for workers in Massachusetts, it’s possible that, due to the phase-out of time-and-a-half, some workers will be left worse off.

Fight for 15 Original Bill vs Ballot Initiative vs Final Grand Bargain Text

Paid Family and Medical Leave

The version of paid family and medical leave passed in the aforementioned “Grand Bargain” was less robust than the original legislation and the ballot initiative text, but still more robust than the programs that exist in other states.

PFML Senate Bill vs Ballot Initiative vs Final Grand Bargain Text

Senate Victory, House Opposition

Several of our priority bills succeeded, or made partial progress, in the Senate, only to flounder in the House amidst fierce opposition from the conservative House leadership.

Fully Funding Our Schools

Massachusetts’s 25-year-old education funding formula is short-changing our schools $1-2 billion per year due to outdated assumptions about the costs of health care, special education, ELL (English Language Learners) education, and closing racial and economic achievement gaps.

The 2015 Foundation Budget Review Commission recommended a path forward for fixing it. The Senate unanimously adopted a bill to implement them. The House, however, insisted on leaving English Language Learners, Black and Brown students, and poor students (not mutually exclusive categories) behind.

Protecting Our Immigrant Friends and Neighbors

Despite Massachusetts’s liberal reputation, our Legislature has been historically hostile to strengthening protections for our immigrant community.

The Senate included four provisions from the Safe Communities Act, a bill that our members fought strongly for, in its FY 2019 budget: (1) a prohibition on police inquiries about immigration status, a prohibition on certain collaboration agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, (3) a guarantee of basic due process protections, and (4) a prohibition on participation in a Muslim registry. The amendment was a win-win for both rights and safety, but House Leadership opposed its inclusion in the final budget.

Bold Action on Climate Change

Many elements from our priority environmental legislation were incorporated in the Senate’s impressive omnibus bill:

  • Building on the Global Warming Solutions Act by setting intermediate emissions targets for 2030 and 2040
  • Establishing a 3% annual increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to accelerate our commitment to renewable energy
  • Prohibiting a “pipeline tax” on energy consumers
  • Instructing the governor’s office to develop carbon pricing for the transportation sector by the end of 2020, for commercial buildings and industrial processes by 2021, and for residential buildings by the end of 2022 (not as strong as a revenue-positive carbon pricing scheme, but still in the right direction)

However, the House proved a roadblock yet again. The ultimate compromise energy legislation included only a 2% increase from 2020 to 2030, after which it would fall back to the current 1%. This would take us to only 56% renewable energy by 2050 instead of 100%.

Loss…But a Battle Not Over

Revenue & Reinvestment

Progressive Mass members played a major role in the signature collection for the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaires tax”), which would have created a 4% surtax on income above $1 million (inflation-adjusted) to fund education and transportation investment.

As a citizen-originated ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment, the Fair Share amendment had to receive the support of at least 25% of the Legislature in two constitutional conventions. It secured well more than double this amount, but the Supreme Judicial Court struck it from the ballot this June.

Inaction

Medicare for All

Although the Senate took modest steps in the direction of single payer, passing legislation to create a public option (a MassHealth buy-in) and require a study of whether a single payer system would save money relative to the current system, the House took no such action.

Housing Production

Although the Senate passed a comprehensive zoning reform bill to increase housing production in the suburbs last session, no such action was taken in either house this session.

Debt/tuition-free Higher Education

The cost of higher education has grown a lot in Massachusetts, and the Legislature continues to punt.

In Conclusion: We won some, we lost some, and we’ll keep on fighting.

Take Action: Call Your Senator in Support of These Key Budget Amendments

The State Senate will be voting on amendments to its FY 2019 budget next week. The budget makes some modest improvements to education and transit funding, but without new revenue sources, it remains in the same paradigm of underinvestment that has dominated for the past decade and a half.

Passing the Fair Share amendment on the ballot this fall will be a first step toward changing that.

But back to the budget…..

If you have only five minutes this week:

Call your state senator, as well as Senate President Harriette Chandler (617-722-1500) and Senate Ways & Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka (617-722-1640), in support of Amendment 1147 (Eldridge): Civil Rights and Safety.

The Legislature has so far punted and stalled when it comes to their responsibility to protect MA’s immigrant families from Trump’s xenophobic mass deportation agenda. The Safe Communities Act, which Progressive Mass and allies around the state have been fighting for over the past year, has remained stuck in committee.

This amendment contains key provisions of the Safe Communities Act:

  1. No Police Inquiries about Immigration Status
  2. Stop Collaborating with ICE
  3. Provide Basic Due Process Protections

Let your senator know that you support taking action now in support of MA’s immigrant families.

And if you have a few more….

The amendment process is an opportunity to further the important causes of…

  • Housing for All
  • Quality Education for All
  • A Clean Environment for All
  • Justice for All

The following amendments will help Massachusetts tackle our affordable housing crisis:

  • Amendment 3 (Creem): Community Preservation Act, which creates a surcharge for documentation at the Registries of Deeds to create a stronger and more stable funding source for the Community Preservation Act
  • Amendment 683 (Eldridge): Alternative Housing Voucher Program, which increases the line item by $2.7m to $7.7m
  • Amendment 686 (Eldridge): Homeless Individuals Assistance, which increases the line item from $46.18 million to $50 million


The following amendments will help Massachusetts deliver on the promise of quality education for all:

  • Amendment 176 (Eldridge): Adult Basic Education, which increases the line item for adult basic education, which is of great importance to new citizens, by $3.5m to $34.5m
  • Amendment 205 & 262 (Jehlen): Fiscal Impact of Charters, which address the important issue of the cost of charter expansion in school districts by ensuring that the state fulfills its obligation to fund charter expansion and to fully analyze charter funding impacts prior to expanding into a community
  • Amendment 260 (Rush): Recess, which would which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students


The following amendments will help guarantee our constitutional right to a clean environment in Massachusetts:

  • Amendment 936 (Barrett): Minimum Monthly Reliability Contribution, which mitigates the negative impacts of a tax Charlie Baker imposed on MA homeowners who install solar panels on their houses
  • Amendment 968 (Cyr): Environmental Justice, which strengthens the line item for environmental justice coordination by underscoring the importance of public health
  • Amendment 991 (Eldridge): Plastic Bag Reduction, which bans single-use plastic carryout bags

The following amendments will help deliver on the promise of justice for all:

  • Amendment 776 (Barrett): Workforce Training for Ex-Offenders, which increases the line item from $150,000 to $500,000
  • Amendment 992 (Creem): MLAC, which increases the line item from $19 million to $23 million
  • Amendment 997 (Creem): Data Reporting, which adds juvenile and adult reporting requirements, and requires that all the data (the old and the new) be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age, etc.
  • Amendment 1015 (Brownsberger): Prison Re-entry, which increases the funding for community based residential re-entry
  • Amendment 1042 (Eldridge): Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, which appropriates $300,000 for a restorative justice program in the Department of Corrections with proven benefits for reducing recidivism
  • Amendment 1125 (Friedman): Criminal Justice and Community Support Trust Fund, which would help boost funding for jail diversion programs for people experiencing behavioral health crises
  • Amendment 1147 (Eldridge): Civil Rights and Safety, which upholds the constitutional rights of immigrant communities and makes sure that local law enforcement isn’t deputized to ICE

Can you call or email your Senator today in support of these amendments?

Budget 2017: What Does Beacon Hill Value?

A budget is a statement of values. And the recently released House Ways & Means Budget shows that too many on Beacon Hill are content with the status quo of austerity and underinvestment.

Massachusetts lawmakers have fallen prey to the pernicious conservative ideology that taxes–our collective investment in our values and priorities–are always politically toxic. Instead of substantive conversations about how we invest in the infrastructure, services, and institutions that make Massachusetts a great place to live and work, our legislators instead year after year refuse to raise revenue — and leave the people of the Commonwealth begging for revenue crumbs of an ever smaller pie.

Yet, every legislator on Beacon Hill knows that Massachusetts has a revenue problem: when we do not take in enough revenue, we must cut budgets. Because of ill-conceived tax cuts over a decade ago (to the benefit of the wealthiest in MA), Revenue projections continue to fall short, leading to damaging cuts to vital services.

Those tax cuts have cost all of us over $3 billion each year. Each year! Our schools, the MBTA, roads, human services–think of what $3 billion a year could be doing to invest in job growth, education, public health, housing, transportation, and environmental protection.

Next week, when the House begins to vote on the budget, representatives will have the opportunity to take necessary steps to turn this around and to commit to the investments we need to make a Massachusetts that works for all.

Particularly, in the Age of Trump, where hostility to progressive values and policies is pervasive at the federal level, it’s more important than ever to make clear that the status quo is not working. Massachusetts needs to step up its game.

And to get legislators to start stepping up, we’re going to need YOUR help.

Call/email your representative by Monday morning to urge them to support the following ten budget amendments. The sample script is below; more info on each amendment appears after.

SAMPLE SCRIPT

I’m ___ from ___ . I’m calling to urge Rep __ to support budget amendments that support a strong Commonwealth. While these amendments would make a difference in the short term, I also want to urge my rep to fight for MORE REVENUE in the long term, including taxes on the wealthiest in Massachusetts.

Please support:

  • Amendments 42 and 43, which increase badly needed revenue
  • Amendments 780 and 382, which support housing assistance
  • Amendments 1003 and 1172, which invest in children and youth
  • Amendments 822 and 1182, which invest in equitable justice
  • Amendment 1196, which helps protect our environment
  • Amendment 151, which supports women’s health and family planning

Please share my concerns with the Rep. I will be paying attention to how s/he votes on these issues. Thank you.

Budget Amendments

Revenue

Amendment #42 (Rep. Denise Provost): Income Tax Rate Freeze.

This amendment would freeze the personal income tax rate at 2016 levels. From 2012 to 2016, we had four automatic income tax rate cuts, resulting in almost a billion dollar reduction in state revenue. These income tax reductions disproportionately benefit the super-rich, rather than working- and middle-class families: indeed, 20% of the rate reduction tax cuts go to the top 0.05% of Massachusetts residents.

Amendment #43 (Rep. Denise Provost): Educational Opportunity for All.

This amendment would subject any private institution of higher learning that has an endowment fund with aggregate funds in excess of $1 billion to an annual excise of 2.5% of all monies in aggregate in said endowment fund. The fund will be used exclusively for subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth.

Affordable Housing

Amendment #780 (Rep. Paul Donato): MRVP funding

This amendment would restore funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program to $120 million from $100 million. This will increase the number of vouchers available, help preserve affordable housing developments, and restore the program to its 1990 funding level.

Amendment #382 (Rep. Mike Connolly): MRVP Improvements

This amendment makes technical changes to the way Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program funds are allocated, making the program more useful to people from a range of incomes in today’s very expensive housing market.

Education & Youth

Amendment #1003 (Rep. Alice Peisch): Early Educators Rate Increase

This amendment would increase the funding for the Early Education Rate Reserve, which increase reimbursement rates for subsidized early education and care providers, to $20 million from $15 million.

Amendment #1172 (Rep. Paul Brodeur): Youthworks

This amendment would increase the funding for the Youthworks program, which provides skills and training to young people through state-funded employment, to $13.5 million.

Legal Assistance & Jobs Not Jails

Amendment #822 (Rep. Ruth Balser): Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation

This amendment would increase funding for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, which ensures that low-income residents of Massachusetts have access to legal information, advice, and representation, to $21 million.

Amendment #1182 (Rep. Mary Keefe): Job Training For Ex-Prisoners and Court Involved Youth

This amendment would increase funding for crucial programs to combat recidivism and create opportunities from $250,000 to $2 million.

Environmental Protection

Amendment #1196 (Rep. David Rogers): Department of Environmental Protection Administration and Compliance

This amendment would increase the operations budget for DEP from $24.4 million to $30 million. Recent budget cuts have forced staff reductions of 30% at DEP, crippling its ability to protect our to ensure clean air and water and enforce environmental laws. Given looming cuts to the EPA on the national level, we cannot afford such cuts anymore.

Public Health

Amendment #151 (Rep. Carole Fiola): Family Planning

This amendment would fund the family planning services line item at $5.8 million. Family planning funding helps providers offer a wide range of affordable preventative series, including critical screenings for breast, cervical, and other cancers; birth control and STI testing; and treatment for both men and women. With such vital services under the attack on the national level, it’s vital that Massachusetts push forward.

Criminal Justice Reform Is One Step Closer to a Reality

By Caroline Bays, Progressive Watertown

Hard work and advocacy paid off with the release of the criminal justice conference committee’s new CJR bill. This comprehensive bill addresses almost every issue affecting our criminal justice system. When we began this process in 2016, we could not have imagined the setbacks and the hard work that lay ahead. But through the near destruction of the bill when the Council on State Governments process collapsed, the bill–like a phoenix from the ashes–was revitalized, and the legislation emerged even stronger and more sweeping than advocates expected.

Below is a synopsis of the proposed bill. I included the main ask from advocates for reform and what was in the final bill.

Mandatory Minimums – Advocates for reform proposed repealing of all mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses. The bill eliminates most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limits mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. However, it leaves in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin) and expands the definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil.

Fees and Fines – Advocates for reform proposed repealing all parole and probation fees. The bill reduces fees. No parole fee is imposed for one year after release from prison and no probation fee is imposed for six months after release. The bill also improves some procedural protections and increases the rate at which fines are worked off from $30 to $90 per day.

CORI reform – Advocates for reform proposed making criminal records more private by sealing records after 7 years for felonies and 3 years for misdemeanors and record expungement for minors. Records will be sealed after 7 years for felonies and 3 years for misdemeanors. In addition the bill authorizes the expungement of cases that resulted in prosecuting innocent adults as well as non-serious cases involving young people up to the age of 21.

Felony Threshold – Advocates for reform proposed raising the felony larceny threshold to $1,500. The felony threshold was raised to $1,200.

Juvenile Justice – Advocates for reform proposed raising the age of criminal court jurisdiction to 12 and criminal majority to 21. The younger age limit was raised to 12 but the age at which youth can be prosecuted as adults remains 18. However, the bill authorizes the creation of a special housing unit for young people aged 18 to 24; prohibits housing juveniles with adults and placing juveniles in solitary confinement; and limits shackling juveniles. In addition, parents will no longer be forced to testify against their children.

Bail Reform – Advocates for reform proposed codifying the Brangan case which calls for judges to use bail as a mechanism to ensure the defendant’s return to court instead of as a mechanism for pre-trial imprisonments of defendants. The Brangan decision is codified, and the bill creates a pre-trial mechanism to remind defendants of their upcoming court dates. The judge must make a written finding explaining why it is in the Commonwealth’s best interest to impose unaffordable bail amounts.

Diversion – Advocates for reform proposed diverting low-level offenses and drug users to treatment and restorative justice options, with special consideration for juveniles and for primary caretakers. There are multiple mechanisms for judicial diversion including diversion for juveniles for less serious offenses as well as an expansion of restorative justice programs for juveniles and adults. In addition, primary caretakers of children will be given special consideration when sentencing, and minor offenses, such as disruptive behavior at school assemblies, have been decriminalized.

Compassionate Release – Advocates for reform proposed that permanently incapacitated prisoners who pose no safety risk should be released from prison. The bill establishes mechanisms to release prisoners deemed terminally ill or incapacitated.

Solitary Confinement – Advocates for reform proposed that the practice of solitary confinement be severely curtailed–limited to six months or ended completely. The bill calls for restrictive housing rather than solitary, giving inmates access to many of the same programs and educational opportunities available in general population. Regular reviews of inmates must be performed to determine if the inmate can safely be returned to general population, the first one after six months and then every 90 days, thereafter. The bill also creates a balanced oversight board which will have access to the prison facilities and inmates and can report on conditions. Lastly, the bill prohibits arbitrary use of restrictive housing for LGBTQ inmates.

Miscellaneous items

In addition to the aforementioned provisions, the conference bill…

  • Guarantees transgender prisoners are housed with their gender identity
  • Gives prisoners who have not graduated access to education
  • Preserves rights for regular in-person visitation
  • Creates a task force to study suicide rate of correctional officers
  • Calls for data collection on just about every aspect of the prison system
  • Allows women who are victims of human trafficking to have their convictions vacated

Achieving Liberty and Justice for All

The following letter was drafted by Caroline Bays and Jonathan Cohn from the PM Issues Committee and transmitted to the CJR conferees: 

House Chairwoman Claire Cronin, Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Senate Chairman William Brownsberger, Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Majority Leader Ronald Mariano

Chairwoman Cynthia Creem, Senate Committee on Bills in Third Reading

Ranking House Minority Member Sheila Harrington, Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr

*********************************

January 17, 2018

Dear Members of the House-Senate Conference Committee:

The Massachusetts incarceration rate, while low compared to other states, is three to four times higher than that of European countries. In fact, there are only seven countries with a higher incarceration rate than Massachusetts.

There has been a growing consensus that the policies of the “tough on crime” era were misguided. They did not make us safer, but instead entrenched lasting racial and economic inequities. Studies have shown that high levels of incarceration have devastating consequences for minority communities, including an increase in crime, poverty, and homelessness. They prevent individuals and communities from thriving and living up to their full potential and make cherished rhetoric of “liberty and justice for all” ring hollow.

We are grateful to the House and the Senate for their exhaustive work on Criminal Justice legislation. Both the House and Senate bills have many excellent provisions, and in the following letter, we identify (a) essential provisions in both bills that should be included in a final Conference report, (b) places where one bill or the other was superior and whose provisions merit inclusion, and (c) a few places where the bills stray from their intent. The subsequent recommendations will best help to achieve our mutual goal of ending mass incarceration in Massachusetts.

Mandatory Minimums

Mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion in sentencing and treat every offender with the same blunt instrument, regardless of context. Mandatory minimums have succeeded spectacularly at fueling mass incarceration, but do not reduce crime. Our guiding goal is the elimination altogether of minimum mandatories, because of their abject failure to do what they purport to and their contribution to racist mass incarceration. Short of abolition, we advocate the reduction wherever possible of existing manmins, and rejection of any new ones.

Accordingly, Progressive Massachusetts urges the inclusion of the following:

  • All provisions that end mandatory minimum sentences, including the mandatory minimums for selling in a school zone which disproportionately impact minority communities
  • Higher thresholds to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in cocaine (Senate Sections 90-91),  or fentanyl or carfentanil (Senate Sections 92-96). The lower amounts are likely to result in long sentences for non-traffickers who are struggling addicts – a result contrary to the overall intent of both bills.      
  • Good time eligibility, i.e, Senate Section 343, which allows persons serving sentences for offenses that have been repealed by this legislation to begin earning good time as of the law’s effective date. Leaving the current law, which denies these prisoners all prospect of reintegration until they have served their mandatory minimum term, in place would perpetuate a destructive consequence of the war on drugs: indifference toward the prisoners on whom mandatory minimum sentences are selectively imposed (three-quarters of whom are members of racial or ethnic minorities) and to the communities to which they will eventually return.  Including Senate Section 343 in the conference report would further the recommendations of the Council on State Governments that we increase the capacity of prison programs aimed at reducing recidivism and create incentives for completing such programs.

Moreover, we urge you to reject the creation of any new mandatory minimum sentences, or the strengthening of those that exist. We applaud the House’s rejection of the amendment to impose 5 year mandatory minimum sentences for the distribution of a drug that results in the death of the user, as any increase in mandatory minimums is contrary to the purpose of ending mass incarceration. Increasing the number of drugs which will result in mandatory minimums as well as adding the brand new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, a frequently abused charge, runs counter to the intent of returning the decision of justice back to the judges, where it belongs.

Fees and Fines

Excessive fees and fines criminalize poverty and warp the justice system, preventing us from delivering on the promise of “liberty and justice for all” and turning jails into debtors’ prisons.

Accordingly, Progressive Massachusetts urges the inclusion of the following:

  • Increasing so-called “fine time” from $30 per day to $90 per day and requiring appointment of counsel and determination of financial hardship before a court sentences a person to incarceration for failure to pay fines.
  • Abolition of parole fees (Senate Section 323) and the waiving of probation fees where a substantial financial hardship exists (Senate Sections 287-288).    
  • Additional provisions in both the House and Senate bills that allow for numerous other fees and fines to be waived upon a finding that the imposition of the fine would create a “substantial financial hardship”

Juvenile Justice

Involvement in the criminal justice system can be traumatic for children. Our policies should promote rehabilitation, especially for those most at risk. Successful reentry programs for youth bring community-wide benefits.

Accordingly, Progressive Massachusetts urges the inclusion of the following:

  • Reducing the time to seal juvenile records and allowing for expungement in order to improve youth outcomes upon re-entry
  • The exclusion of small children (under age 12) from delinquency proceedings
  • Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds
  • Creation of a civil infractions category of offenses for children and the decriminalization of certain low-level offenses for which adults would not be subject to incarceration
  • Establishment of a parent-child privilege to ensure children can talk freely to their parents (Senate §202)
  • The Senate’s “Romeo and Juliet” provision, which offers a sensible and limited exception to criminal prosecution for close-in-age youth who engage in consensual sexual activity
  • Provisions to reduce school-based arrests by ensuring schools and police set guidelines on school discipline and arrest
  • Limitations on solitary confinement of young people

Solitary Confinement

As a form of cruel and unusual punishment, solitary confinement runs counter to professed American values, and it can have irreparable damage on the individuals subject to it.

While we support the Senate version of the bill, we ask that some of the sections of the House version also be included in the final version. In particular, we urge the inclusion of the following:

  • Provisions to ensure that prisoners are transitioned out of segregation for a certain amount of time before they are scheduled to be released
  • Establishment of an oversight committee and corresponding data collection
  • The screening out of mentally impaired individuals from segregation
  • Access to out-of-cell programming and/or activities for a minimum of 2 hours a day at least 5 days a week

Miscellaneous

We also support the inclusion of the following key provisions in the final bill.  Adopting these policies will help to ensure that Massachusetts promotes just and humane treatment of all of our citizens.

  • Using the cost savings from reduced incarceration for community programs through a Justice Reinvestment Fund which will lower recidivism and benefit our entire community
  • Providing community-based sentencing alternatives for primary caretakers of dependent children who have been convicted of non-violent crimes
  • Resentencing those already imprisoned, using the new guidelines
  • Raising the felony threshold to $1500
  • Ending the punitive price gouging that telephone companies engage in which punish the families of inmates
  • Ensuring the safety and access to treatment for transgender inmates
  • Ensuring the rights of prisoners to have in-person visits

Our criminal justice system runs counter to our professed values, but it doesn’t have to. In the ensuing weeks, you will have the opportunity to pass a long-overdue overhaul of the system, enacting changes with far-reaching benefits to communities across the state. We hope that you embrace that opportunity.