Skip to content

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

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).

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter