10 Weeks Left in the Legislative Session. How Has Your Legislator Been Voting?

Did you know that there are only 10 weeks left in the formal legislative session? That’s right: all the major decisions being made and votes being cast on Beacon Hill will be happening in the next 70 days.

But that’s all still to come. Let’s take a moment to talk about the session so far with our Legislator Scorecard.

Our 2023-2024 Scorecard

Fewer Recorded Votes: As of today, the House has only taken 107 recorded votes. By this date in 2022, the House had taken 187 votes, and in 2020, 174. The same problem exists in the Senate, where there have only been 148 recorded votes so far as opposed to 166 by this point in 2022 (and 14 of those 148 have happened just this week with unanimous votes on budget amendments).

Follow the Leader: We have been talking for years about the culture in the Legislature in which legislators defer to the will of the respective chamber’s Leadership, and that shows up even more starkly this year. Fewer votes that are not just party line are making it to the floor. Votes that show clear divides in the Democratic caucus are rare in the Senate and even rarer in the House. Whey such votes do happen, they are typically on roll call votes requested by Republicans which show which handful of Democrats are the most conservative in the caucus but little beyond that.

New Additions to the Scorecard: Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in (also important) scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent and overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit. Feel free to reach out to your own legislator as well.

Missed Votes: It’s the job of a legislator to show up, so our Scorecard has always counted missed votes against legislators. However, if a percentage of missed votes gets too high, a legislator’s score becomes more a story about attendance than about votes. That’s why you’ll see a number of legislators with no score at all: they missed too many of the scored votes. However, every legislator has the ability to submit on record to the House or Senate clerk how they would have voted had they been present, and we will count those.

What’s Coming:

Our scorecard won’t be finalized until the end of the legislative session, and so there might be many more votes to come — and many opportunities for your legislators to show that they stand for the progressive values you care about.

193rd Session: House Roll Call Votes in Review

Crafting a scorecard depends on recorded votes, and the House has simply not taken very many recorded votes in the 193rd legislative session (2023-2024) to date. 

As of today, the House has only taken 107 recorded votes. By this date in 2022, the House had taken 187 votes, and in 2020, 174. 

Not every vote is worth scoring: we have generally avoided scoring votes that the Legislature must take (veto overrides line item budget vetoes, enactment of state loans, public land transfers), as well as the non-controversial unanimous or near-unanimous votes that occur on budgets and supplemental budgets. 

For the 193rd Session scorecard, visit here.

The Session Starts: Rules

Although the last two sessions had contentious debates on the House rules, 2023 started much quieter on the rules front. However, House Democrats showed again that basic transparency measures supported by the Senate remain anathema in their own chamber. A proposal to require one week notice for legislative hearings (as opposed to the current 72 hours) failed 24 to 129, with Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) the only Democrat to vote for it (RC#8). 

Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts, Tax Cuts 

Although the voters passed the Fair Share Amendment in 2022 to raise taxes on the rich so that we can invest more, the House made clear that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations by passing a tax cut package filled with giveaways to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Only three legislators–Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville)–voted against the bill (RC#16). 

Democrats did, however, vote against Republican proposals to make the bill even worse (RC#14, RC#15). 

During the budget, House Republicans continued that line of attack, but their attempt to divert Fair Share revenue to regressive tax cuts via the “tax cap” law failed on a party line vote (RC#17). 

Although the final tax package was less regressive than what the House passed originally — including some important provisions passed by the Senate to protect Fair Share revenue — it was still skewed too much toward the rich and large corporations and risked harming our ability to invest. It passed near unanimously, with only Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) voting no (RC#33). 

Gun Safety Bill 

In October, the House voted 120 to 38 for a comprehensive gun safety bill that strengthened the state’s assault weapons ban, prohibited machine gun conversion devices, cracked down on ghost guns, among other steps. During the debate, Democrats voted down on party line a Republican effort to stall consideration of the bill (RC#59) and on almost party line a Republican effort to expand pretrial detention (RC#61). 

No Cost Calls 

One of the most exciting wins of the session so far was the passage of No Cost Calls, i.e., guaranteeing free access to phone calls to incarcerated individuals and ending the predatory practice of price gouging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to stay connected.

The House and Senate both originally passed this through their FY 2024 budgets; however, Governor Healey’s desire for technical changes on the implementation date led to the need for a standalone vote in the fall (RC#63). House Republicans tried to deplete the fund for implementation of No Cost Calls during the FY 2025 budget debate, but the effort was soundly defeated (RC#92). 

Pay Equity 

To strengthen the pay equity law passed a few sessions ago, the House passed the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, which would require salary and wage range disclosures and improve statewide data collection (RC#88). 

Shelter Funding 

In light of the rise of migrants and refugees to Massachusetts, the state’s essential right to shelter law has come under attack given the cost of housing new arrivals. Massachusetts should be proud of our right to shelter and of the diversity of our immigrant communities. 

The efforts to restrict the shelter law pose difficulty for a scorecard, since they inspire principled progressive opposition and xenophobic conservative opposition. However, the votes on Republican amendments to restrict new arrivals’ access to emergency shelter are unambiguous. Republicans tried to do this in the supplemental budget in November (RC#65), in a supplemental budget in March (RC#75), and in the FY 2025 budget (RC#99). 

Republicans secured recorded votes on several other xenophobic messaging amendments during budget season: 

  • A xenophobic amendment to the supplemental budget that falsely implied that job training programs for new arrivals are taking resources away from working-class people when the state already has many existing programs to help (RC#17)
  • A xenophobic amendment to prioritize individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year in the emergency shelter waitlist (RC#100)
  • A xenophobic amendment to prioritize honorably discharged unhoused veterans in the emergency shelter waitlist—an attempt to falsely imply that new arrivals are taking housing away from veterans (RC#101) 

Prison & Jail Accountability

Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent, overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit.

193rd Session: Senate Roll Call Votes in Review

For the 193rd Session scorecard, visit this page.

Starting the Session: Rules 

Whereas the House has been the home of contentious rules debates in recent sessions, the Senate began with more of a rules fight than the House, as Senate Leadership put forth an amendment to eliminate term limits for the Senate President (what had been a welcome check on the centralization of power, in contrast to the House). The repeal passed 32 to 6 (RC#7), with three Democrats—John Keenan (D-Quincy), Becca Rausch (D-Needham), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton)—joining Republicans. 

Tax Policy 

After last 2022’s victory for the Fair Share Amendment (i.e., the 4% surtax on income over $1 million, creating dedicated funding for public education and transportation), the business community and conservatives (of both parties) have been organizing to cut taxes. 

During the FY 2024 budget debate, the Senate defeated Republican amendments to reduce the amount of designated funds raised by the Fair Share Amendment: 

  • An attempt to enable wealthy individuals to reduce their taxable income subject to the Fair Share surtax, which failed 5 to 34 with Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans (RC#38) 
  • An attempt to eliminate language to prevent Fair Share revenue from being redirected to the rainy day fund rather than being used for constitutionally protected purposes, which failed 5 to 34 with Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans (RC#45) 

During the Senate debate on its tax package, Senate Democrats took another stand to protect Fair Share revenue by voting to ensure that couples who file jointly on their federal taxes do so in Massachusetts as well (RC#51), but with Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joining Republicans. 

Democrats also defeated several Republican efforts to make the tax package more regressive 

  • Reducing the tax rate for short-term capital gains, a tax cut that goes disproportionately to the top 1% (e.g., day traders, speculators), which failed 5 to 34 (again, Finegold and Timilty) (RC#52) 
  • Raising the estate tax threshold to $5 million (which would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to such multi-million-dollar estates), which failed 5 to 34, with Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joining Timilty and Republicans (RC#53) 
  • Applying cost of living increases to the estate tax threshold of $2 million (something the Legislature has always avoided doing for wage increases), which failed 6 to 33, with Collins, Timilty, and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans (RC#54) 

However, senators also voted down a progressive amendment from Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) to ensure that Housing Development Incentive Program funds support much needed mixed-income housing by requiring developments funded under the program to have at least 20% permanently affordable housing. Only 9 senators voted in support of it (RC#50): Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett), Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston), Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester), Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham). 

The Senate tax bill passed unanimously, and although opposed to the focus on tax cuts, we chose not to score it was better than the House’s package in ways that would be important for House-Senate negotiations: 

  • The Senate bill rejected the proposed $117 million tax cut for day traders and speculators proposed by Gov. Healey and passed by the MA House in April. Notably, both chambers rejected this idea last year when Governor Baker proposed it.
  • The Senate bill rejected a $79 million corporate tax giveaway that the House back in April with no public debate.
  • The Senate bill offered a less expensive and less regressive cut to the estate tax.

The bill was also significantly less costly than the House’s bill, and it included the important loophole-closing mentioned earlier. 

However, the final tax bill included those two regressive tax cuts and a more regressive estate tax cut than the Senate proposed, even though it did include the loophole-closing. Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) was the lone no vote (RC#62). 

Gun Safety 

In February, the Senate passed its gun safety package, which would crack down on ghost guns, codify the state’s assault weapons ban, ban machine gun conversion devices, and other steps  on a party line vote of 37 to 3 (RC#114). 

In the lead-up to doing so, Senate Democrats voted down a Republican effort to send the bill back to committee 31 to 9 (RC#109), with Mike Brady(D-Brockton), Paul Mark (D-Peru), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Walter Timilty (D-MIlton) joining Republicans. They also voted down a proposal to replace the bill with a narrower, Republican-drafted bill 33 to 6 (RC#111), with Pacheco and Timilty joining Republicans.  

Supporting Our Immigrant Neighbors 

Senate Democrats defeated several xenophobic amendments from Republicans throughout the session: 

  • Eliminating the language in the FY 2024 budget to extend in-state tuition to all Massachusetts high school graduates, regardless of immigration status (RC#6, party line) 
  • Excluding arriving families from access to emergency housing assistance funding (RC#92, party line) 
  • Barring resettlement agencies from doing their work if the emergency shelter could be at capacity at an undefined future point — solving a problem via exclusion that can be solved via funding (RC#119), with Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining Republicans 
  • Determining  eligibility for emergency shelter according to the duration of residence in the commonwealth (RC#120), with Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans 

Pay Equity 

To strengthen the pay equity law passed a few sessions ago, the Senate voted 38 to 1 to pass the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, which would require salary and wage range disclosures and improve statewide data collection (RC#88). The sole NO came from Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). 

Unanimity: It Can Be Good 

The Senate also passed several noteworthy bills unanimously, all of which it passed last session only to see the House take no action: 

  • Allowing for a non-binary option on birth certificates and driver’s licenses in the state (RC#57) 
  • Making it easier for unhoused individuals to obtain a state-issued ID (#58) 
  • Making disposable menstrual products such as sanitary napkins, tampons, and underwear liners available for free in public schools, homeless shelters, and prisons in Massachusetts. (RC#89) 
  • Expanding access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by allowing pharmacists to provide a 60-day supply for those facing barriers to care. (RC#90) 

We often shy away from scoring unanimous votes, but the Senate’s persistence amidst House intransigence is worth rewarding.

The Senate unanimously passed legislation based on the Common Start bill: the EARLY ED Act, which would make the state’s Commonwealth Cares for Children (C3) operational grant program permanent, expanding eligibility for the state’s subsidy program, and boosting compensation for educators by creating a career ladder and providing scholarships and loan forgiveness (RC#116). During the debate, the Senate also voted down a Republican amendment to require a Legislative commission in the bill to study the development of a tax credit for employer-supported early education and care, a policy that has proven ineffective and underutilized in other states that have adopted it. It failed 7 to 32, garnering the support of Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Nick Collins, and Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) along with the chamber’s now-four Republicans (RC#115). 

Prison and Jail Accountability

Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent, overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit.

2022 MA House Scorecard: The Rest of the Session in Review

PM Scorecard graphic

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. And telling that story requires careful attention. 

As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators. 

Because of that, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps. 

See our full scorecard here or on https://scorecard.progressivemass.com.

False Solutions for Rising Inflation  

In the wake of rising inflation, conservatives in the state and nationally started pushing for suspending or even eliminating the gas tax. Such a move does not get at the root of the commodity speculation pushing the price increase and drains revenue that could be used to address the true cost drivers. More forward-thinking policymakers embraced free public transit as a way to address rising costs (see, for example, Connecticut). Republicans roll-called an amendment to suspend the gas tax during the budget debate in April, and fortunately, it failed 32 to 124 (26h). Only Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Dave Roberson (D-Tewksbury), Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joined Republicans in voting for it. 

Reproductive Justice 

Although the Legislature often claims that it cannot act quickly, at times it can, and the Legislature responded quickly to the Dobbs ruling by passing a follow-up bill to last session’s ROE Act. The new bill established critical protections for Bay Staters who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, requiring insurance to cover abortion and abortion-related care, and other important measures supporting reproductive justice and bodily autonomy. It passed overwhelmingly 136 to 17, with only 6 Democrats and 11 Republicans voting against it (27h). Notably, this was a much larger margin than the ROE Act last session, which just cleared the two-thirds threshold for an override of Governor Baker’s veto. The Democrats who opposed the bill were Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan), John Rogers (D-Norwood), Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), and Bud Williams (D-Springfield).

Tackling the Climate Crisis 

Back in March, the House passed a bill to accelerate the development of the offshore wind industry. The bill contained many important provisions, but was narrow in scope given the scale of the climate crisis. We chose to score the final conferenced climate bill that the House and Senate passed in July. Entitled An Act driving clean energy and offshore wind, that bill took steps to accelerate the transition to renewable energy, modernize the grid, make green jobs accessible to the communities most in need, require large buildings to report energy usage, improve electric car infrastructure and affordability, and require electrification of public fleets. It passed 143 to 9, with opposition coming from Democrat Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and 8 Republicans (28h). 

Public Safety Done Right 

Just as the Legislature acted quickly to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion rights, the Legislature also acted quicky to respond to the Supreme Court’s assault on gun violence prevention by passing a bill to harmonize MA’s gun safety laws with the ruling as well as requiring law enforcement officials to conduct personal interviews with anyone seeking to apply for a firearm license and banning anyone facing a restraining order from getting a license. It passed on a largely party line vote of 120 to 33 (29h). Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rady Mom (D-Lowell), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Paul Schmid (D-Westport), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joined Republicans in opposition. 

After the House and Senate passed a measure to end the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals exorbitant costs to connect with their loved ones (No Cost Calls), Governor Baker threatened to veto it unless the Legislature also passed his “dangerousness bill,” an expansion of pre-trial detention (i.e., when individuals are incarcerated without yet being convicted of a crime) with few if any safeguards. Despite being touted as a victims’ rights bill, the proposal was opposed by Jane Doe, Inc., who argued that the bill would be harmful for the survivors they serve. Thankfully, the House rejected Baker’s measure, voting it down 31 to 122 (31h). If only the Senate had as well (but that’s another story). Four Democrats joined Republicans in siding with Baker: Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Paul Tucker (D-Salem), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop). 

Labor Solidarity 

In April, members of the MA State Senate staff announced that after years of staff organizing, they achieved the number of authorization cards necessary to form a MA Senate staff union. On Thursday, March 31, representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222 (IBEW) notified Senate President Karen Spilka of the successful majority and requested voluntary recognition of the Massachusetts State House Employee Union, which would become the second state legislative staff union in United States history. To show solidarity with the union organizers, we chose to score any statements made by legislators in support of the Staff Union (32h). 

2022 MA Senate Scorecard: The Rest of the Session in Review

PM Scorecard graphic

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. And telling that story requires careful attention. 

As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators. 

Because of that, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps. 

False Solutions for Rising Inflation  

In the wake of rising inflation, conservatives in the state and nationally started pushing for suspending or even eliminating the gas tax. Such a move does not get at the root of the commodity speculation pushing the price increase and drains revenue that could be used to address the true cost drivers. More forward-thinking policymakers embraced free public transit as a way to address rising costs (see, for example, Connecticut). Votes to suspend the gas tax came up during a supplemental budget in March and in the regular budget in May; we scored the former, which failed 11-29 (21s). Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield joined Republicans in the gimmick. 

Tackling the Climate Crisis 

In April, the Senate took up a multi-issue climate bill to accelerate the clean energy transition, with a particular focus on electrification of transportation and also, to a lesser extent, on building emissions. You can read our full write-up here. It was a strong bill and passed on party lines, i.e., 37 to 3 (23s). There were several worthwhile amendments that passed with recorded votes, but we chose not to score the unanimous votes to allow local pension funds to divest from fossil fuels and require MassDOT to assist Regional Transit Authorities in transitioning to the use of electric buses (If there was unanimous support, it could have just been in the base bill that came to the floor or received a voice vote to move along the process faster). However, Senator Pacheco’s amendment based on his Building Justice with Jobs bill received a more contentious vote (22s). The amendment requested $1 billion from federal Covid-19 recovery funds be transferred to the Clean Energy Investment Fund for at least 1 million home retrofits, prioritizing people living in Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. The amendment was a key priority for the Mass Renews Alliance, MA Power Forward, 350 Mass, and the Mass Sierra Club, but it failed 11 to 28, with a coalition of yes votes from both some of the most progressive and the most conservative senators. 

Sports Betting

Despite the many far more important issues the Legislature could have devoted time to addressing this session, the Legislature was consumed a fair amount by the question of legalizing sports betting. We have been on the record opposing the expansion of casinos given the public health impacts of gambling and the predatory business practices at its core; however, we did not engage in this fight. That said, Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) roll-called an amendment to the Senate’s sports betting bill to build an evaluation of sports betting license-seekers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) commitments and past record into the licensing process. If the industry is to exist, it should not reinforce the inequities of the economy at large. Unfortunately, Senate Leadership opposed the amendment, and it failed 14 to 26 (24s) — a nonetheless remarkably close vote by our Legislature’s standards. 

Work & Family Mobility Act 

Although we are often more critical of the House than of the Senate, the Senate were the laggards on the Work & Family Mobility Act, which the House passed in February but the Senate did not take up until May (intentionally after the filing deadline for candidates…). The bill, 

for which immigrants’ rights advocates had been fighting for decades, would remove immigration status as a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license so that all drivers on the road are tested and so that immigrants without status are able to drive safely to work, to school, to the hospital, etc. It passed 32 to 8 (30s), with only 5 Democrats joining the 3 Republicans in opposition. Republicans tried several times to weaken the bill, with amendments to create a second-class status for such new license-holders, increase entanglement with ICE, or foster voter fraud conspiracies. They all failed, obtaining between 4 and 7 Democratic votes depending on amendment (25s – 29s). 

Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) were the only Democrats to oppose it. John Keenan (D-Quincy), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) were the only senators to vote for the bill but support at least one effort to weaken it.

Criminal Legal Reform 

In late June, the Senate took up two bills to make the criminal justice system slightly more “just.” The first bill was to reform the civil asset forfeiture system, raising the legal bar that law enforcement must meet to seize and keep people’s money and property in suspected drug crimes. MA currently allows DAs the lowest legal burden of proof to keep property that’s seized, even when charges are never filed, and is the only state to do so. The Senate passed it 31 to 9, with 6 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition (32s). A Republican amendment to weaken the bill failed 10 to 29 (33s).

Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) were the only Democrats to oppose it. Anne Gobi (D-Spencer) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) voted for the effort to weaken the bill but ultimately supported it. Nick Collins (D-South Boston) opposed the effort to weaken the bill, but then also voted against the bill itself. 

The second was to increase opportunities for judicial diversion for youth, thereby ensuring opportunities for rehabilitation and curbing the school-to-prison pipeline. It passed 32 to 8, with 5 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition (36s). The Senate also defeated three Republican efforts to weaken the bill, with amendments receiving between 3 and 9 Democratic supporters (33s – 35s). 

Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) were the only Democrats to oppose it.Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) all supported at least one of the conservative amendments but still voted for the bill itself. 

In a sad final note for the session, however, the Senate embraced a harmful proposal from Governor Baker to reinforce the carceral framework. After the House and Senate passed a measure to end the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals exorbitant costs to connect with their loved ones (No Cost Calls), Governor Baker threatened to veto it unless the Legislature also passed his “dangerousness bill,” an expansion of pre-trial detention (i.e., when individuals are incarcerated without yet being convicted of a crime) with few if any safeguards. Despite being touted as a victims’ rights bill, the proposal was opposed by Jane Doe, Inc., who argued that the bill would be harmful for the survivors they serve. 

Nonetheless, in the final hours of the session, the Senate chose to pass a narrowed but still harmful version of Baker’s proposal, thereby closing off a path forward for the No Cost Calls bill and pandering to the worst of “tough on crime” mentality. The amendment passed, shamefully, 30 to 8 (38s). The eight rightful dissenters were Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain), Jo Comerford (D-Northampton), Cindy Creem (D-Newton), Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Adam Hinds (D-Pittsfield), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), and Jason Lewis (D-Winchester).

Reproductive Justice 

Although the Legislature often claims that it cannot quickly, at times, it can, and the Legislature responded quickly to the Dobbs ruling by passing a follow-up bill to last session’s ROE Act. The new bill established critical protections for Bay Staters who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, requiring insurance to cover abortion and abortion-related care, and other important measures supporting reproductive justice and bodily autonomy. It passed overwhelmingly 39 to 1, with only Republican Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) opposing it (37s). 

Labor Solidarity 

In April, members of the MA State Senate staff announced that after years of staff organizing, they achieved the number of authorization cards necessary to form a MA Senate staff union. On Thursday, March 31, representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222 (IBEW) notified Senate President Karen Spilka of the successful majority and requested voluntary recognition of the Massachusetts State House Employee Union, which would become the second state legislative staff union in United States history. Senate Leadership has remained resolutely opposed to recognizing them, and to show solidarity with the union organizers, we chose to score any statements made by senators in support of the Staff Union (39s).

The House and Senate Agree to a Final Version of the VOTES Act. Here’s What’s In, and What’s Out.

I voted stickers

On Wednesday, exactly five months before the November 8 general election, the House and Senate released their final agreement on language for the VOTES Act. Yesterday, the Senate voted 37 to 3 in support of the final version of the bill, and the House is expected to vote soon.

The negotiations around the VOTES Act have been going on for months. The Senate passed a bill back in October, and then the House passed one back in January. There has always been strong support from both chambers this session for making the widely popular vote-by-mail and expanded early voting reforms from 2020 permanent, but House leaders have remained fiercely opposed to Same Day Registration or even a narrower Election Day Registration despite ongoing Senate support. Rep. Mike Moran (D-Brighton), one of the most vociferous opponents of Same Day Registration in the House debate, was one of the House appointees to the Conference Committee negotiating the bill.

The opposition to Same Day Registration / Election Day Registration is revealing. Reforms like vote-by-mail and expanded early voting can give incumbents a clearer picture of who is voting and who has already voted. SDR/EDR means that new people with whom they may not have spoken could show up at the polls. That uncertainty terrifies many representatives, and rather than stepping up their work at engaging all residents of their districts, they would rather shut such prospective voters out of the process entirely.

The final version of the VOTES Act, to be clear, contains a number of wins, some big and some modest. Special credit to the Democracy Behind Bars coalition for elevating the issue of jail-based voting during the debate and the negotiations around the bill.

Here are the key provisions of the Conference bill:

Voter Registration 

  • Reducing the voter registration deadline from 20 days before the election to 10 days. Unfortunately, the Conference bill left out Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration, which, as noted, had been a major point of contention in negotiations. The Senate has now voted to pass Same Day Registration three times, only to see it fail each time due to House intransigence. Same Day Registration is one of the simplest and most effective ways to increase turnout, and it is especially important for working-class voters, BIPOC voters, young voters, and renters, and it continues to be appalling that our Democratic supermajority in the House is too afraid of new people participating in the democratic process to embrace this reform. 
  • Requiring the Secretary of State to make the online registration portal accessible in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and other languages deemed necessary or required by law 
  • Reasserting that the Automatic Voter Registration law passed in 2018 is a back-end rather than front-end opt-out system. Secretary Bill Galvin has been refusing to implement the bill as passed, creating instead what is called a “front-end opt-out system” in which eligible registrants are given the opportunity to opt out during the initial transaction as opposed to afterwards. For more on this issue, read this. 
  • Requiring the Secretary Galvin to enroll Massachusetts in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which helps states keep more accurate voting rolls, no later than July 1, 2022. This too was required in the 2018 AVR bill, and Galvin has refused to adhere to the law.

Vote By Mail 

  • Permanent early voting by mail for all elections (unless municipalities vote to opt out in a public vote of the local legislative body for local elections)
    • Application deadline of the fifth business day before the election (the Tuesday before the election for all regularly scheduled Tuesday elections, and the Monday before the election when the primary falls on the week of Labor Day)
    • Special accommodations for those with disabilities seeking to vote by mail.
    • Creation of an online portal for VBM requests, as well as publication of the application on the Secretary website and the websites of each city and town 
    • Mailing of VBM applications no later than 45 days before the election to all voters registered no later than 60 days before the election 
    • VBM applications and ballots postage-paid, pre-addressed, and available in all languages as required by law. 
    • Mailing of applications with the voter registration acknowledgement letters sent out after registering to vote or updating registration 
    • Deadline of 5 pm on the third day after the election for receipt of VBM ballots mailed on or before Election Day  

Unfortunately, there are no requirements around the number or accessibility of drop boxes for cities and towns to make available for return of VBM ballots. 

Early Voting 

  • Two weeks for biennial state elections (Saturday two weeks before GOTV Saturday through the Friday before the election) 
  • One week for primary elections (Saturday before GOTV Saturday through the Friday before the election) 
  • Posting of early voting sites at least two weeks prior 
  • Local option for early voting in municipal elections (Majority of registrars must request, and then local legislative body must approve. The early voting period must exist within 17 days before the election and 2 business days prior. For Tuesday elections, this would mean between the Saturday two weeks before GOTV Saturday and the Friday before the election.) 
  • See below for early voting requirements by city/town population
Early voting by municipality's population

Staffing the Polls 

  • Enabling cities and towns to appoint poll workers from outside the city/town if there is insufficient staffing 
  • Granting the power to determine the staffing of police officers of the polls to the local legislative bodies, rather than the police departments

Jail-Based Voting Reforms

  • Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated who are currently eligible to vote are provided with voting information and materials to exercise their right to vote
  • Requires correctional facilities to display and distribute information about voting rights and procedures, as prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth
  • Requires facilities to assist individuals who are incarcerated in registering, applying for, and returning mail ballots
  • Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated are properly notified of their right to vote upon release and given the opportunity to fill out a voter registration form
  • Creates systems for data collection on jail-based voting, as well as the ability of incarcerated individuals to submit complaints

Unfortunately, the JBV language only applies to state/federal elections (and does not include municipal elections), but it is still a big win. 

Seeking Baker’s Approval, The Legislature Narrows Police Reform Bill

This weekend saw renewed attention to the lawlessness far too common among law enforcement, with the release of video footage of cops bragging about brutalizing protesters earlier this summer and a Globe story about how police officers are able to commit crimes off duty with impunity.

Unfortunately, while the news was underscoring why we need to be going further in imposing public accountability of policing and shifting our definition of (and resources for) public safety away from policing, the MA Legislature was narrowing the ambition of its police reform bill.

Rather than signing the MA House and Senate’s consensus police reform bill, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed his true colors again by threatening to veto it unless the Legislature watered it down.

The Senate, to its credit, had passed both its own bill in July and the more recent consensus bill with veto-proof majorities (30 to 7 and then 28 to 12). If they were the sole chamber, they could have passed the stronger bill from earlier this month (which, itself, was a compromise).

But despite Democrats’ 80% majority in the House, the House never came close to a super-majority in support of the bill. They passed the consensus bill by only 92 to 67, a remarkably close vote by House standards and well shy of the 106 needed for an override. One wonders how committed House Leadership really was to their own bill, given how easily they can whip support when they want.

The Senate thus chose to weaken the bill to secure the Governor’s support, adopting most (but not all) of his proposed amendments to the bill. The Senate voted 31 to 9 to pass the new bill, gaining the support of three no votes from earlier this month (Diana DiZoglio, Marc Pacheco, and Bruce Tarr).

12.21.20-Police-Reform-Senate-Final

So About the New Bill?

Although the broad contours of the bill remain the same, and many parts of it are worth praise, the redraft of the bill is weaker in a few notable ways:

  • Police in Charge of Setting Their Own Training: The new bill keeps the all-law-enforcement municipal police training committee under the administration’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (a well-documented bad actor when it comes to oversight) instead of transferring ts duties to a new majority-civilian POST commission. The idea that police should be counted on to properly police themselves is not borne out by any evidence.
  • Weaker Use of Force Standards: The POST commission would still maintain some approval authority over use of force standards (unlike Baker’s request), but the bill eliminates definitions for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” related to the use of force.
  • Weaker Facial Surveillance Regulations: The bill also replaces the full ban on racist, dangerous facial surveillance technology with more modest regulations on it (Baker had wanted no regulations at all) and the creation of a commission to explore future regulations.
  • Additional Changes: The bill also creates additional loopholes in the definition of “bias-free policing” and the regulation of no-knock warrants. Although presented as fixing technicalities, the new language could open the door to police abuse.

The dilution of the bill did not stop conservatives from both parties in the Senate from trying to weaken it further.

Because there was a roll call, you can see which Senators, including Democrats, voted for an amendment from Senator Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to weaken the bill by eliminating the civilian majority on the POST commission.

12.21.20 Police Reform Vote on Tarr Amendment

12/23 Update: And then on to the House Today

Last night, the House voice-voted to accept the redrafted bill, leaving no record of the vote. But they did have a recorded vote on the enactment of the bill earlier today.

The weaker redraft passed the House 107-51.

12.23.20 Police Reform Final House Vote

The Democrats who voted NO earlier this month who voted YES after Baker made the Legislature weaken the bill were Cahill, Capano, Fiola, Haggerty, Kearney, Markey, Pignatelli, Scmid, and Zlotnik. They were joined by Republicans Jones, Poirier, Hunt, Orrall, Whelan, and Wong and the unaffiliated Whipps.

Governor Baker Needs to Stop Trying to Dilute Police Reform

In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.

Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.

Baker’s amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.

Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.

Can you email Baker today to urge him to stop trying to water down the Legislature’s bill?

To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, “The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for.”

The Legislature Stood Up to Baker. They Can Do It Again.

This week, the MA House and Senate did something that they so rarely do: they stood up to Governor Charlie Baker.

Rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access. Thankfully, they rejected his amendments by wide margins. You can see the votes below.

But they need to stand up to him again.

They need to stand up to him again by rejecting his harmful amendments to the police reform bill.

And they need to stand up to him by rejecting his effort to strike vital oversight language in the budget to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Email your legislators in support of key language on police reform and prison oversight.

The House Rejected Baker’s Anti-Choice Amendment. But There’s Still Work to Do.

Last month, the House and Senate finally took action to strengthen reproductive rights here in MA by passing a slimmed down version of the ROE Act that, although it didn’t go as far as the ROE Act would have, contained important measures to protect and expand equitable access to abortion.

Rather than signing the measures into law, Republican Governor Charlie Baker sent back an amendment to nearly gut them entirely.

Fortunately, the House refused to go along.

Yesterday, they voted down his amendment 107 to 49.

Republican Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) put forth another amendment that would promote disinformation and stigmatize individuals seeking abortion care. That amendment also went down, by an even wider margin of 120 to 34.

It now goes to the Senate, which plans to vote tomorrow.

But there’s more work to do.

Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.

Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Can you email your state legislators about the importance of standing up to Baker and for civil liberties?

Beacon Hill Just Passed a Final Police Reform Bill. Here’s Where You Come In.

Last night, the MA Senate and House passed a consensus version of the police reform bills from the summer. Read our write-up here.

Let’s break down how it went and what’s next.

How Did Your Legislators Vote?

The Senate voted 28 to 12, with 8 conservative Democrats joining the 4 Republicans in voting against it. Note that the Senate had a veto-proof majority.

The House voted 92 to 67, with 35 conservative Democrats joining the 31 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting no. Note that this falls 14 votes shy of a veto-proof majority.

Let your legislators know what you think of their vote!

Thank them if they voted yes — and express your disappointment if they didn’t. Find their contact info here.

So What’s Next?

The Senate, to their credit, had a veto-proof majority, but the House didn’t. So that puts things in Governor Baker’s hands.

Call Charlie Baker at (617) 725-4005 and demand that he sign the bill.

We need to make sure that this passes, but there’s far more work to be done because, as has become clear, new rules, regulations, and reforms — while still helpful — cannot solve the problems in policing and incarceration in this country. We need to rethink what public safety means and move money away from policing and prisons and toward building thriving communities where everyone has the resources and opportunities they need and deserve.