Automatic Voter Registration: We Have the Technology, What We Need Is the Will.

The following was testimony delivered before the Joint Committee on Election Laws on June 8, 2017, in favor of S.373/H.2091 (An Act Automatically Registering Eligible Voters and Enhancing Safeguards against Fraud) and S.371/H.2093 (An Act establishing Election Day registration).

Our democracy is strongest when everyone has the ability to participate, to make their voices heard. And one of the most fundamental ways citizens can engage in the democratic process is by voting.

Massachusetts prides itself in being a state routinely on the right side of history and a model for other states. However, when it comes to voting rights, we have often lagged behind our peers.

The 2014 election reform bill began the process of bringing our election administration into the twenty-first century by allowing online voter registration, pre-registration, and early voting, among other key reforms. It has been both popular and successful. And it is time to build on that progress. Automatic voter registration would do just that.

It increases the efficiency of election administration by integrating it seamlessly into standard government operations and by bringing Massachusetts into the Election Registration Information Center. It eliminates the need for constant re-registration when people move, and by digitizing the registration process, it can significantly cut down on the cost (and paperwork) involved, benefiting cities and towns. It improves the accuracy of the voter rolls. And it will reduce the number of eligible citizens who are left out of the democratic process—approximately 680,000 according to the US Census Bureau.

Two years ago, Oregon became the first state to adopt automatic voter registration. Since then, seven states and the District of Columbia (including our neighbors Connecticut and Vermont) have followed suit—with several more on the near horizon. And it has been a resounding success. According to a report from the Center for American Progress, Oregon’s bill increased voter registration, increased the number of actual people who voted, and made the voting population more representative of the state’s population.

I would also urge you to support H.2093/S.371, An Act establishing Election Day registration. States like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and our neighbor New Hampshire have had Election Day registration for decades, and it has helped to make sure that all eligible citizens can participate and have their votes counted.

We have the technology here in Massachusetts to embrace best practices and bring our elections into the twenty-first century. What we need is the will.

Do MA Dems Stand for Women’s Rights in the Workplace Or Not?

The 190th legislative session has been off to a slow start on Beacon Hill. Beyond the pay raise, and the budget process, the Legislature has not been doing much in the way of, well, legislating.

One small bit of progress was the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed the House unanimously last month. The bill requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” for pregnant women and nursing mothers (such as more frequent breaks, less strenuous duties, and the ability to sit down on the job) provided that they don’t cause “significant difficulty or expense.”This new bill is not as strong as the one introduced last session—which Speaker DeLeo and others in the Democratic leadership, doing the bidding of powerful business interests, blocked. Like much progressive legislation, the bill died in committee. The 2017 bill resulted from negotiations between women’s advocacy group MotherWoman and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). And although it was watered down to get AIM on board, the bill was nonetheless a positive development for women across the Commonwealth.

But because of the House’s standard lack of transparency, it was almost watered down even further.

As the Globe reported on Thursday, the powerful Ways & Means Committee quietly changed one word in the bill in committee before it went to a vote:

But it emerged from the House Committee on Ways and Means for a full vote on the floor with the word “knowingly” added at the beginning of that sentence. The language passed in the House without anyone noticing the change, and now the bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

It’s an addition that advocates for these pregnant worker protections say creates a serious new layer of what a worker would have to prove if she felt there was discrimination in her denial of a job. To prove an employer acted “knowingly” requires direct evidence that the employer knew the applicant was pregnant and denied them a job because of it — a much higher standard of proof.

Neither sponsors of the bill nor key advocates, who helped negotiate the legislation, were notified. AIM claimed to have not been behind the change–though it was clearly done in their interest.