Other Endorsed Bills (2025-2026)

With thousands of bills filed each legislative session, and only so many hours in the day, we can’t include every bill we care about on our Legislative Agenda. We wanted to highlight these as additional bills we’re supporting this session, even if not on our priority agenda.

Our Shared Prosperity Agenda

$20 Minimum Wage (HD.3850 / SD.382) 

  • Title: An Act relative to the minimum wage
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Carmine Gentile & Dan Donahue; Sen. Jason Lewis
  • Title: Raises the minimum wage to $20 per hour over four years and indexes it to inflation to better align the minimum wage with a living wage

State House Unionization (HD.2970 / SD.919)

  • Title: An Act relative to collective bargaining rights for legislative employees
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Carol Doherty; Sen. John Keenan
  • What It Does: Extends collective bargaining rights to State House staff

Gig Workers (HD.3356 / SD.722)

  • Title: An Act establishing protections and accountability for Delivery Network Company workers, consumers, and communities
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Andy Vargas; Sen. Lydia Edwards
  • Description: Ensures delivery workers receive the same protections, wages, rights, and benefits that all Massachusetts workers are entitled to under law

PILOT Reform (HD.3727 / SD.2153)

  • Title:  An Act relative to payments in lieu of taxation by organizations exempt from the property tax
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns with nonprofits owning total property valued at or above $15 million to require them to make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) equal to 25% what they would have owed without the exemption

Corporate Tax Disclosure (HD.3385 / SD.2291) 

  • Title:  An Act requiring public disclosures by publicly-traded corporate taxpayers
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Dan Donahue; Sen. Liz Miranda 
  • What It Does: Makes publicly accessible reports that are already filed annually by publicly-traded corporations, detailing their sales, profits, taxable income, and taxes paid

Public Bank (HD.2541 / SD.1213)

  • Title: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Mike Connolly & Antonio Cabral; Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Creates a public bank that would be able to offer lower-interest loans to local governments, small-and medium-sized businesses, and farmers

Access to Counsel (SD.1771 / HD.3912) 

  • Title: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Dave Rogers & Mike Day; Sen. Sal DiDomenico
  • What It Does: Provides legal representation for low-income tenants and owner-occupants in eviction proceedings 

AHEAD Bill (HD.2997 / SD.846) 

  • Title: An Act providing for climate change adaptation infrastructure and affordable housing investments in the commonwealth
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Sam Montaño; Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Increases the deeds excise tax on home sales to provide a funding stream for affordable housing and climate resilience 

Ending Broker’s Fees (HD.238 / SD.35) 

  • Title: An Act eliminating forced broker’s fees 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Tram Nguyen; Sen. Lydia Edwards
  • What It Does: Bans the ability for landlords to require renters to pay broker’s fees 

An Act to Lift Kids Out of Deep Poverty (HD.1353 / SD.1818)

  • Title: An Act to Lift Kids Out of Deep Poverty
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Marjorie Decker; Sen. Sal DiDomenico 
  • What It Does: Raises cash assistance grants by 20% per year until they reach 50% of the federal poverty level and then increase grants each year to keep up with inflation

Community Schools (HD.1108 / SD.2060)

  • Title: An Act to establish a community schools special legislative commission
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Chynah Tyler; Sen. Paul Mark 
  • What It Does: Establishes a commission to study the community schools model, which is characterized by increased service provision, parent engagement, and community partnerships 

Adjunct Bill of Rights (HD.1827 /  SD.2009) 

  • Title: An Act promoting an Adjunct Bill of Rights 
  • Lead Sponsors: Sen. Paul Mark; Reps. Pat Duffy & Sean Garballey 
  • What It Does: Makes adjunct faculty who teach half-time or more at one or more public institutions of higher education eligible for a state pension and health insurance

Fair Wages for Faculty & Staff (HD.4041 / SD.1511)

  • Title:  An Act to provide fair wages to employees of public institutions of higher education
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Andy Vargas; Sen. Pavel Payano 
  • What It Does: Ensures that future wages of public higher education employees are at or above the national average when adjusted for cost of living

Green & Healthy Campuses (HD.3796 / SD.2107) 

  • Title: An Act to provide green and healthy public colleges and universities and address their deferred maintenance needs
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Manny Cruz & Rep. Aaron Saunders; Sen. Jake Oliveira
  • What It Does: Creates a commission relative to energy and environmental improvements on public higher education campuses and a fund to support the commission’s recommendations

Full-Spectrum Pregnancy Care (HD.1456 / SD.1199) 

  • Title: An Act Ensuring Access to Full Spectrum Pregnancy Care
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa; Sen. Cindy Friedman 
  • Description: Requires health insurance plans to cover all pregnancy care—including abortion, prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care—without any kind of cost-sharing

Community Immunity Act (SD.2117)

  • Title: An Act promoting community immunity
  • Lead Sponsors: Sen. Becca Rausch
  • Description: Creates statewide consistent immunization policy and provides residents throughout the Commonwealth the data necessary to prevent future outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infectious disease

Our Racial and Social Justice Agenda

Dignity Not Deportations (HD.3596 / SD.1107) 

  • Title: An Act relative to immigration detention and collaboration agreements
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Christine Barber & Dave Rogers; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Bans collaboration agreements between state/local law enforcement and ICE and bans ICE detention beds in Massachusetts 

Juvenile Diversion (HD.3434 / SD.246) 

  • Title: An Act promoting diversion of juveniles to community supervision and service
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Brandy Fluker-Reid; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • Description: Helps keep youth out of the prison system by allowing for community supervision or community service as a non-incarceration alternative in more cases 

Ending Life without Parole (HD.348 / SD.1006)

  • Title: An Act to reduce mass incarceration
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Chris Worrell; Sen. Liz Miranda
  • What It Does: Repeals mandatory sentences of life without parole, which have strong racial biases and have been deemed human rights violations by international courts

Overdose Prevention Centers (HD.4212 / SD.2483)

  • Title: An Act relative to preventing overdose deaths and increasing access to treatment
  • Lead Sponsors: Sen. Julian Cyr; Reps. Marjorie Decker & John Lawn
  • What It Does: Creates a ten-year pilot programs for overdose prevention centers that use harm reduction strategies to address the opioid crisis

Regulating Facial Surveillance (HD.794 / SD.503)

  • Title: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Orlando Ramos; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • Description: Implements the recommendations of the commission created by the 2020 police reform bill to create a tight regulatory framework for facial surveillance

Healthy Youth Act (HD.947; SD.1777)

  • Title: An Act relative to healthy youth
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Jim O’Day & Vanna Howard; Sen. Sal DiDomenico
  • What It Does: Requires school districts that provide sex education to ensure that it is comprehensive, age-appropriate, and LGBTQ-inclusive, with an emphasis on consent

Language Access Bill (HD.3876  / SD.1757)

  • Title: An Act relative to language access and inclusion
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Adrian Madaro & Carlos González; Sen. Sal DiDomenico
  • What It Does: Builds the capacity of key public-facing state agencies to meet the language access needs of an increasingly diverse population 

Our Sustainable Infrastructure & Environmental Protection Agenda

Zero-Carbon Renovation Fund (HD.3171 / SD.1325)

  • Title: An Act establishing a zero carbon renovation fund
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Andy Vargas & Manny Cruz; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Creates a fund for green and healthy home retrofits, with a prioritization of affordable housing, low-to-moderate-income homes, gateway cities, and environmental justice communities

No Ratepayer Money for Utility Lobbying (HD.1833/SD.742)

  • Title: An Act prohibiting the use of ratepayer funds for utility lobbying, promotions or perks
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Steve Owens & Jenny Armini; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Prohibits utility companies from using customer money for lobbying, promotions, and perks 

Air Quality Bill (HD.1924 / SD.1086)

  • Title:  An Act to ensure cleaner air for communities overburdened by outdoor air pollution
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Christine Barber & Mike Connolly; Sen. Pat Jehlen
  • Description: Improves indoor and outdoor air quality, especially for Environmental Justice populations and those communities burdened by air emissions from highways, ports, airports, and congested roadways by expanding outdoor air monitoring for key pollutants, setting ambitious targets for 2030 and 2035, requiring better ventilation systems in medium and large buildings, among other measures

Plastics Reduction Act (HD.2592 / SD.2134) 

  • Title: An Act to reduce plastics
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Ted Philips; Sen. Becca Rausch
  • What It Does: Reduces single-use plastics in the Commonwealth, including a uniform plastic bag ban, disposable food service ware limits, and the creation of fund to support transitions to environmentally friendly products

Our Good Government & Strong Democracy  Agenda

Hybrid Meeting Access (HD.368) 

  • Title: An Act to modernize participation in public meetings
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Antonio Cabral 
  • What It Does: Requires that all public bodies have options for hybrid participation and creates a trust fund and competitive grants to help municipalities with the technology needed to do so

Voting Rights Restoration (HD.407 & HD.408 / SD.1414 & SD.1416) 

  • Title: An Act relative to voting rights restoration &  Proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven; Sen. Liz Miranda
  • What It Does: Ends remaining incarceration-based disenfranchisement in Massachusetts

Local Option RCV (SD.2194)

  • Title: An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections
  • Lead Sponsors: Sen. Becca Rausch
  • Description: Enables cities and towns in Massachusetts to adopt ranked choice voting for municipal elections

Ending Foreign Corporate Influence of Local Elections (HD.984  / SD.1152)

  • Title: An Act to Limit Political Spending by Foreign-Influenced Corporations
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven; Sen. Mark Montigny
  • What It Does: Requires corporations seeking to make independent expenditures to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are not a foreign-influenced corporation and labels them as such if they do not 

An Accountable State House (SD.1301 / HD.4303)

  • Title: An Act to strengthen representation and promote democratic, transparent, and efficient lawmaking
  • Description: Improves the pay structure and incentives for Massachusetts legislators by reforming the stipend system

Our 2025-2026 Legislative Agenda

Our Shared Prosperity Agenda

Large corporations need to pay their fair share so that we can protect essential services and continue to invest in our Commonwealth. 

Corporate Fair Share (HD.3390 / SD.1684)

  • Title: An Act combating offshore tax avoidance 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Carlos González; Sens. Jason Lewis & Liz Miranda 
  • What It Does: Makes large global mega-corporations pay the state’s existing corporate tax rate on a higher share of the excess profits they conceal in offshore tax havens 

All students deserve well-resourced, supportive schools that set them up for success. 

Thrive Act (HD.4328 / SD.1401)

  • Title: An Act empowering students and schools to thrive 
  • Lead Sponsor: Rep. Sam Montaño; Sen. Adam Gomez 
  • What It Does: Ends state takeovers of public schools/districts, establishes a commission to shape the future of student assessments, and curbs the privatization of public education 

Funding Our Public Schools (HD.2334 / SD.1719) 

  • Title: An Act to fix the Chapter 70 inflation adjustment 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Orlando Ramos; Sen. Robyn Kennedy 
  • What It Does: Makes a technical fix to the state education funding formula so that state funding to public school districts keeps pace with inflation over time

Debt-Free Public Higher Ed (HD.1473 / SD.300) 

  • Title:  An Act relative to debt-free public higher education
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Natalie Higgins & Carmine Gentile; Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Creates a higher education system where every Massachusetts resident has a right to attend any public college or university free of tuition and fees 

We need to empower our cities and towns to take action to address our housing crisis. 

Real Estate Transfer Fee (HD.1112 / SD.1216)

  • Title: An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Mike Connolly & Rep. Carmine Gentile; Sen. Jo Comerford
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns to levy a modest fee on high-end residential and commercial real estate transactions to create dedicated funding for affordable housing 

Rent Stabilization (HD.2501 / SD.1084)

  • Title: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants 
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Dave Rogers & Sam Montaño; Sen. Pat Jehlen
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns to pass rent stabilization ordinances to fight displacement

Tenant Opportunity to Purchase  (HD.1925 / SD.1068)

  • Title: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal
  • Lead Sponsors:  Reps. Jay Livingstone & Rob Consalvo; Sen. Pat Jehlen
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns to give tenants the right of first refusal to purchase a building when the owner puts it up for sale 

We are all healthier when we all have access to high-quality care without cost burden. 

Medicare for All (HD.1228 /  SD.2341)

  • Title:  An Act establishing medicare for all in Massachusetts
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Lindsay Sabadosa & Margaret Scarsdale; Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Establishes a single payer system, in which the state provides health care to all residents as a right

Our Racial and Social Justice Agenda

A fair, humane criminal legal system is one that allows for second chances and focuses on investing in economic opportunity, not in incarceration. 

Raise the Age (HD.3632 / SD.2115)

  • Title: An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Jim O’Day & Manny Cruz; Sen. Brendan Crighton
  • What It Does: End the automatic prosecution of older adolescents as adults by gradually shifting 18- to 20-year-olds into the juvenile justice system

Clean Slate (HD.1788 / SD.949)

  • Title: An Act requiring clean slate automated record sealing
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Mary Keefe; Sen. Cindy Friedman
  • What It Does: Creates an automated system in Massachusetts to seal criminal records as soon as people are eligible

Prison Moratorium (HD.523 / SD.671) 

  • Title: An Act establishing a jail and prison construction moratorium
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Chynah Tyler; Sen. Jo Comerford
  • What It Does: Enacts a five-year pause on new prison and jail construction in order to provide time to develop more effective, community-based approaches to public safety

The family separation of deportation and incarceration weakens our communities. Families belong together. 

Safe Communities Act (HD.3816 / SD.1670)

  • Title: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Manny Cruz & Priscila Sousa; Sens. Jamie Eldridge & Liz Miranda
  • What It Does: Limits local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, protects access to justice in our courts, and ensures due process protections

Immigrant Legal Defense Act (HD.4072 / SD.2057)

  • Title: An Act ensuring access to equitable representation in immigration proceedings
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Dave Rogers & Frank Moran; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does:  Creates a funded program for legal defense of immigrants facing deportation proceedings, especially those in federal detention

Visitation Bill (HD.3241 / SD.985)

  • Title: An Act to build restorative family and community connection
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Marjorie Decker; Sen. Liz Miranda
  • What It Does: Eliminates arbitrary, unnecessary restrictions on visitation rights in prisons, jails, and ICE detention units

Privacy rights are essential to protect abortion patients and providers, trans people and their families, journalists, and more from attack by bad actors. 

Location Shield Act (HD.2965 / SD.501) 

  • Title:  An Act to protect safety and privacy by stopping the sale of location data
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Prohibits companies from selling cell phone location data

An inclusive society is one where we celebrate our diversity, not seek to ban books or whitewash history. 

Right to Learn Bill (HD.625 / SD.141) 

  • Title: An Act regarding free expression 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. John Moran & Rep. Adam Scanlon; Sen. Julian Cyr
  • What It Does: Ensures that public and school libraries can offer diverse and inclusive books, media, and materials without political interference

CARE Bill (HD.2271 / SD.1289)

  • Title:  An Act to promote comprehensive and inclusive curriculum in schools
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Tram Nguyen & Rep. Steve Ultrino; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Sets standards of accuracy and comprehensiveness in public school instruction for all students to learn about the histories, experiences, perspectives, heritages, and cultures of all Americans

Our Sustainable Infrastructure & Environmental Protection Agenda

We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and ensure that the major polluters who have caused the climate crisis pay for the cost of climate action. 

Put Gas in the Past (HD.3428 / SD.2088)

  • Title: An Act preventing gas expansion to protect climate, community health and safety
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Bud Williams & Adrianne Ramos; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Prevents the expansion of gas infrastructure near Environmental Justice communities and requires gas companies and the Commonwealth to undergo planning for a just transition to green energy 

Make Polluters Pay (HD.3369 / SD.1674)

  • Title: An Act establishing a climate change superfund 
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Steve Owens & Jack Lewis; Sen. Jamie Eldridge 
  • What It Does: Requires major polluters to pay a fee based on historic emissions to pay for the costs of climate resilience

Our Good Government & Strong Democracy Agenda

Our democracy is strongest when everyone can participate, whether in elections or the legislative process. 

Same Day Registration (HD.856 / SD.667) 

  • Title: An Act establishing same day registration of voters
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Carmine Gentile; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Enables eligible citizens to register to vote at the polls, eliminating the arbitrary  10-day voter registration window

Decoupling the Municipal Census from the Voter Rolls (HD.2673 / SD.636) 

  • Title: An Act decoupling the municipal census from voter registration
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Shirley Arriaga; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Ends the use of the municipal census to remove voters from the active voter lists 

Sunlight Act (SD.467) 

  • Title: An Act to provide sunlight to state government
  • Lead Sponsor: Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Promotes transparency in state government by removing the Governor’s exemption from public records law, requiring committee votes and legislative testimony to be public, and requiring 2 weeks notice for legislative hearings 

MA Has a Democratic State House. But Do We Have a *Democratic* State House?

At the start of the legislative session, both Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano said that they would take up reforms during the Rules debate in February to increase transparency and boost public confidence in the legislative process.

It’s no surprise why they are singing such a tune: Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s ballot question about auditing the State Legislature won every single city and town with a commanding lead, and the press rightly and repeatedly called out the Legislature last session for missing deadline after deadline and doing so much of their work in the dark (when and if there was work even being done).

But here’s what’s clear to us: we, the public, should be saying what would boost public confidence in the legislative process. That’s not a decision to be left just to State House Leadership.

Everyday people need to have clear ways of following what happens in our State House, making their voice heard, and seeing that their voice can actually have an impact.

That’s why we joined a wide-ranging list of advocacy groups from across the Commonwealth calling for a suite of reforms to boost transparency, participation, and public accountability. But if we want any of these changes to happen, then your legislators need to hear from you too.

The changes include the following:

  • Improving public access to information by making committee votes and testimony public
  • Increasing opportunities for public engagement in the legislative process by providing adequate notice of hearing schedules, further limiting the number of bills per hearing, providing testifiers with an understanding of speaking order, and guaranteeing the right of incarcerated individuals to testify (a practice which began last session)
  • Creating a more open, robust, and timely committee process by requiring public committee markup sessions and public committee reports with bill summaries, moving up the hearing and reporting timelines, expediting hearings for bills that advanced in the prior session, and requiring Conference Committees to meet in open session
  • Providing more time to read legislation, whether bills or floor amendments

Your legislators will say that the public doesn’t actually care about any of this. It’s our job to show that they are wrong. Can you take a minute to email your state legislators?

30 Advocacy Organizations Call on Beacon Hill to Adopt Suite of Transparency Reforms

Wednesday January 22, 2025

Speaker Ron Mariano

24 Beacon St.

Room 356

Boston, MA, 02133

Senate President Karen Spilka

24 Beacon St.

Room 332

Boston, MA, 02133

Speaker Ron Mariano and President Karen Spilka,

The citizens of Massachusetts have made it clear: we expect our legislature to be transparent, democratic, and accountable to its constituents. 

We write to you as advocates and concerned citizens who have a vested interest in such a legislature. Building on a rich democratic history that pre-dates our federal democracy, Massachusetts ought to be a leader in just democratic rule and civic action. Instead, national rankings in recent years place us towards the bottom with regards to public ease of access to information, competitive elections, and financial transparency.  

Massachusetts distinguishes itself by being the only state in the entire country in which all three branches of government hold themselves exempt from public records law. This means that for most citizens of the Commonwealth, their municipal governments and town meetings are held to a higher standard of transparency and accountability than their state representatives and elected officials.

Calls for transparency and accountability in recent years have also been paired with demands for a democratization of power structures within the General Court. Testimony from former representatives confirms that meaningful debate– even outside of the public eye– is increasingly rare and openly breaking ranks is punished. The vast majority of Democratic representatives vote with leadership 100% of the time. These realities run counter to key democratic principles, which hold that open and robust processes of lawmaking, including disagreement, are essential to produce the best outcomes and ensure proper representation. 

Concentrating the meaningful work of lawmaking in fewer and fewer powerful hands benefits paid lobbyists and corporate interests at the expense of grassroots advocates and everyday citizens. It also creates bottlenecks– a fact that was made all the more evident in this most recent legislative session. The first year of the 193rd session saw a record low number of votes or bills passed. At the July 31st deadline, advocates and rank-and-file electeds alike were left blindsided by the failure of nine major bills that had taken months to construct because negotiations stalled in closed-door committees, away from the eye of the public and fellow electeds. 

While the legislature made commendable progress on these bills in informal sessions, it was at the cost of representative democracy. Informal sessions are poorly attended and most lawmaking was in closed-door conference committees. The overwhelming majority of outstanding legislation since July then passed without a recorded vote. 

Regardless of the ultimate passage of versions of these bills, the fact remains that the processes by which they were passed exemplify the legislature’s existing problems with transparency, accountability, and democracy. The public’s demands for reform continue not in spite of but in no small part because of the events of the most recent session. 

In the wake of the recent national election, we need Democratic officeholders to focus on rebuilding public trust in government and the ability of government to deliver for people. Essential to rebuilding that trust is a robust and open process where people feel that they can participate and that if they participate, they will be listened to.

We were encouraged to hear in both of your opening remarks last week that you are considering transparency reforms as a serious priority in revising the legislature’s rules. Although rules changes alone will not suffice to truly correct the power dynamics and climate at the State House, they are a tool by which the legislature could be made immediately more transparent. To make a meaningful difference, such rules changes must increase transparency of multiple phases of the legislative process. Piecemeal changes that do little to tackle the deep underlying problems will not sufficiently respond to the public need for reform. 

As advocates, we have clocked years of experience helping fellow citizens navigate the legislative process, participating in discussions about process reform, and generating ideas about what it would take to make it the democratic, accountable, and transparent legislature it ought to be. Building upon this experience, we offer the following list of rules reforms to serve as a benchmark for meaningful change. 

These changes would improve public access to information, increase opportunities for public engagement in the legislative process, create a more robust and open committee process, provide legislators with more time to read bills and amendments, and share power. Taken together, they constitute necessary steps along the path towards the very legislature which the people of Massachusetts have clearly demanded.

While you discuss and adopt changes to the legislative process, we also stress the importance of not adopting any that would, in fact, take us backwards in terms of transparency and public participation. Any normalization of last session’s practice of extending conference committees past July 31st in the second year of session would further limit the ability of rank-and-file legislators and constituents to make their voices heard in the legislative process and is unacceptable. 

Improving Public Access to Information 

  1. Make committee votes public: all votes taken in House, Senate, and joint committees, including electronic polls, should be made publicly available on the Legislature’s website on the page of the relevant bill.
    1. This helps everyday people better understand the mechanics of the legislative process, as a bill moves forward from filing to passage. 
    2. Non-binding ballot questions on this issue have passed in 36 House districts over the years with an average of 87% of voters in support.
    3. A majority of US state legislatures already publish such votes, including states like California, Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey.
    4. The technology to do this already exists, as Senate Committees post such votes. 
    5. A committee vote should include a list of those who vote in the affirmative, those who vote in the negative, those who opt to reserve their rights, and those not voting. 
  1. Make testimony submitted to committees public: all testimony submitted to committees should be made public, with appropriate redactions for sensitive information
    1. Seeing the arguments being put forth both for and against any piece of legislation provide a clearer picture of why a bill is or is not advancing and what is at stake. It increases the ability of everyday people to participate and empowers rank-and-file legislators to understand what is happening outside of their given committees. 
    2. This is already standard practice in such states as Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 
    3. The technology to do this already exists, as the House did so during the police reform debate in 2020. 

Increasing Opportunities for Public Engagement in the Legislative Process

  1. Provide adequate notice of hearing schedules
    1. Several committees have played a leadership role in improving public access to hearings by establishing a clear hearing schedule, with dates and topics designated. All committees should adopt this practice and should post such a schedule by April 1st of the first year of the legislative session. 
    2. House, Senate, and Joint committees should be required to announce the full details of said committee hearings, replete with brief summaries of the bills being heard, with at least two weeks’ notice.  
    3. This would improve the accessibility of committee hearings to working people, so that it is truly possible for all citizens to participate in the legislative process and offer testimony. 
    4. The recent advances in hybrid hearings have been an important and much-appreciated tool to expand participation, but many people are unable to change their work schedules on just a few days of notice. 

2. Limit the number of bills per hearing. 

  1. Public hearings are a critical opportunity for everyday people to make their voices heard in the legislative process; however, when too many bills are heard at the same time, hearings can get inordinately long, making a 3-minute testimony into a full-day affair. 
  2. All testifiers should be able to make their voice heard, and the best way to ensure this is to limit the number of bills per hearing to a reasonable number. The current 50-bill limit in Joint Rule 1D is too high. A limit of 20 bills per hearing would be more reasonable and provide greater focus. 

3. Provide speaking order for hearings to testifiers. 

  1. This is common practice in some, but not all, hearings. When people are traveling from across the Commonwealth and losing or adjusting wages at hourly jobs to testify in person because of the importance of an issue for them, they should be able to have an approximate understanding of when in a multi-hour hearing they might speak. 

4. Guarantee of the Ability of Incarcerated Individuals to Testify at Hearings

  1. Hybrid hearings have allowed for expanded accessibility of hearings in myriad ways, including enabling incarcerated individuals to testify at hearings. This began in the summer of 2023 when women from MCI-Framingham were able to testify on the prison moratorium bill.
  2. When legislators craft policy, they need to hear from those most impacted by such policy decisions, and the inclusion of incarcerated individuals’ voices is vital, especially around prison conditions and the criminal legal system.
  3. The Legislature must ensure that this right to testify is preserved and that there is no limit on the number of incarcerated individuals from any facility who are able to testify at a given hearing, the same right afforded to the general public.

Creating a More Open, Robust, and Timely Committee Process

1. Require public committee markup sessions. 

  1. The public is not able to see how and why a bill changes from its filing to its report out of committee. To empower all members of a committee to affect legislation and to build public trust in the decision-making process, committees should hold public markup sessions as they used to decades ago. Votes to report legislation favorably, report legislation adversely, or send legislation to study should occur only in such sessions. 

2. Publish committee reports with summaries, rationales, and other information. 

  1. Committee staff are already doing impressive work compiling information on a bill, so that information should be made available to all legislators and the public. It helps rank-and-file legislators better understand what is happening in other committees and the public to better understand legislators’ rationale behind bills and to understand what those bills would do and how they might benefit. 
  2. Bills reported out of an “issue area” committee should be accompanied by substantive reports with a) a summary of the bill; b) a summary of the arguments advanced pro/con at the bill hearing and in written testimony submitted; c) a list of organizations and individuals that testified pro/con on the bill; d) a list of organizations and individuals that met or otherwise communicated with the Committee Leadership. And when a bill gets reported out of a committee like Ways & Means or Third Reading, those reports should also include an explanation of any changes made to the bill.
  3. A gold standard of such reports is the California state legislature. Other legislatures that make public the summaries of bills in committee reports include Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon.

3. Start hearings early and move up the reporting deadline. 

  1. In our neighboring states in New England, committees are already scheduling or hosting hearings. As the urgency of action rises due to the incoming Trump administration, Massachusetts must be able to act quickly and flexibly to respond to threats. This requires an expedited hearing timeline, with hearings not delayed until the summer, fall, and winter, but occurring on a robust timeline starting March 1st in parallel to the budget process, not after. 
  2. The reporting deadline for committees (Joint Rule 10 deadline) should also be moved up, from its current date in February of next year to December 19 of this year, matching the last date of possible formal sessions for the calendar year. By reporting bills out earlier, the Legislature would more clearly set the agenda for the second year of work and guard against future bottlenecks. 

4. Expedite process for bills reported out favorably in the prior session. 

  1. Committees put significant work into bills that get reported out, with conversations with advocates, experts, and the public, but if those bills do not get passed, then they start right back at square one in the next session. This slows down the legislative process and requires significant duplicative work. 
  2. Refiled bills that were reported out last session should have hearings by July 31 of the first year of the session. 

5. Require Conference Committees to meet in open session. 

  1. Conference Committees should be meeting in the open, providing an opportunity for the House and Senate members to lay out the clear rationale for their respective chamber’s preferences on a given bill. 
  2. This openness benefits both rank-and-file legislators and the public, who are left in the dark for months as Conference Committees can sometimes last up to a year. 

Provide More Time to Read Legislation 

  1. Provide at least 72 hours to read bills. 
    1. When the legislative process gets rushed, the odds of drafting errors rises, even under the best of intentions. 
    2. With ample time before receiving a bill and floor debate, legislators, experts, advocates, and engaged community members then have the opportunity to more thoroughly evaluate a bill, and legislators will better understand what they are actually voting on.
  2. Provide at least 30 minutes to read floor amendments. 
    1. During floor debates, amendments are routinely redrafted or consolidated/bundled. Legislators should be granted the courtesy of at least a half hour to read the text of what is being brought to the floor. 

Adopting these reforms in the upcoming rules debate will be an important step forward in creating a more open and transparent legislative process. However it is not the end. We also urge you to comply with the audit requested by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio. The State Auditor’s power to audit the legislature was confirmed by 72% of voters and the majority of voters in every city and town in Massachusetts. Improving public confidence in the Legislative process must entail respecting the clear will of the voters. 

We look forward to working together towards our shared commitment to a legislature that is transparent, accountable, and democratic.

Sincerely,

350 Mass / Better Future Project 

Act on Mass 

American Federation of Teachers – MA 

Asian American Resource Workshop 

Berkshire Environmental Action Team 

Boston Catholic Climate Movement 

Climate Action Now, Western MA 

Climate Code Blue

Community Action Agency of Somerville

Fairmount Indigo CDC Collaborative

Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution Climate Task Force 

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Families for Justice as Healing

Food & Water Watch

Homes for All Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Climate Action Network 

Massachusetts Peace Action 

Massachusetts Sierra Club 

Mass-Care: the Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care

Our Climate 

Our Revolution Massachusetts 

Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast, Inc.

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts

Progressive Massachusetts 

Reclaim Roxbury 

RESTORE: The North Woods

Save Massachusetts Forests 

Springfield No One Leaves 

Third Act MA 

Trees as a Public Good Network 

UU Mass Action

PM in the News: “Spill of the Hill: Healey hears it from both sides”

Mike Deehan, “Spill of the Hill: Healey hears it from both sides,” Axios Boston, January 22, 2025.

“What they’re saying: “Governor Maura Healey is using this moment to sound Trumpian in her approach to emergency shelter,” Progressive Massachusetts policy director Jonathan Cohn wrote in response to Healey’s proposed shelter changes.

He called Healey’s move “straight out of the playbook of the soon-to-be-president and the right-wing Republicans in Congress.””

Take Action: Just Say NO to Attacks on the Right to Shelter

Inauguration Day was rough. We know that we have our work cut out for us over the next four years to protect Massachusetts from Trump’s hateful agenda and to ensure that Massachusetts is a more just and equitable Commonwealth where “all” really does mean “all.”

You’ll hear from us soon about bills that we can advocate for this session to do both (we’ll be announcing our legislative agenda at our annual meeting), but beyond the work of protecting MA and charging forward, there’s one more critical piece: we can’t go backwards.

And going backwards is exactly what Governor Maura Healey is trying to do with new proposed restrictions on emergency shelter access.

Over forty years ago, Massachusetts passed a right to shelter for unhoused families, based on a moral belief that babies and children should not be forced to sleep on the streets.

But over the past year, Governor Healey has been chipping away at this law bit by bit. After making tighter and tighter time limits for emergency shelter, her latest proposals combine new requirements designed to restrict access, limits as short as 30 days, and a Trumpian ban on undocumented immigrants and new arrivals.

As Trump demonizes immigrants and launches an agenda of cutting vital services to give tax cuts to the rich, the last thing that Massachusetts needs to do is tell him “We’re on board.”

Tell your legislator to say NO to Healey’s attacks on emergency shelter access.

Senate Scorecard Update: The Rest of 2024 in Review

The 193rd session finished as the clock struck midnight and December 31 became January 1st. Rather than merely running out the clock against their usual July 31 legislative deadline, the MA House and Senate nearly went almost all the way up to the end of the year.

Blowing past deadlines is not a new phenomenon in the Massachusetts State House. But what was new this session was the record low number of recorded votes: 203 in the House and 252 in the Senate. By contrast, the average number of recorded votes for all the sessions from 2005 to 2022 (under both Democratic and Republican governors) was 522 in the House and 482 in the Senate; the House, in other words, was well over 50% below average and the Senate getting close. That makes the work of putting together a scorecard—a vital accountability tool—harder. 

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. 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. With fewer votes, there are fewer contrasts. 

When putting together a corecard, 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.

We also avoid giving credit where credit has already been given: if we score a bill at one stage of the legislative process, we shy away from scoring its final passage later on to avoid duplication. However, when bills or amendments run counter to progressive values, we may score their multiple appearances. 

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

In the session since our last scorecard, the Senate was more willing to pass standalone bills than the House (even if their standalone bills often combined multiple smaller bills too). That included a bill to ban third-party electric suppliers from enrolling new individual residential customers, protecting residents from unfair and deceptive practices that have led to higher energy bills for low-income families (25s, party-line), and a comprehensive bill to reduce plastic waste (30s). Although the Plastics Reduction Act garnered the support of two Republicans (Bruce Tarr of Gloucester and Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth) along with the full Democratic caucus, some efforts to weaken the bill were bipartisan. An amendment to make a proposed ten-cent fee for recycled paper carryout bags optional for retailers failed clearly 8 to 30, but with four Democrats joining Republicans: Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield). The House refused to take up either bill, with some controversy around the former.

The Senate’s Affordable Homes Act (i.e., housing bond bill) debate had even fewer recorded votes than the House’s. Despite being in session from 10 am to midnight to work through the bill (with frequent recesses therein), there were almost no recorded votes, and there was little debate.

In the age of the MBTA Communities Act, the new law requiring communities with MBTA service to establish a zoning district where multifamily housing can be built as of right, the Republican Party has become a NIMBY bastion, a bit of irony given that Charlie Baker was the law’s biggest champion. Accordingly, Senate Republicans made an—unsuccessful—effort to create an appeals process to allow communities to evade the law (31s). Two Democrats—Edward Kennedy of Lowell and Walter Timilty of Milton—joined Republicans to vote for it. Although the Senate’s bill included a number of important provisions, we decided not to score it due to the Senate’s exclusion of the real estate transfer fee local option, which Governor Healey had supported: the unanimous final vote on the housing bond bill hides more about the process than it reveals. 

The budget, as “must-pass” legislation, produced a comparatively large share of total recorded votes given the number of amendments filed: the Senate took 44 recorded votes during its budget debate. Most were, of course, unanimous. However, a few were not. The Senate voted 34 to 5 against a Republican amendment to extend the statutory two-day sales tax holiday (a costly gimmick that accomplishes nothing) to two weeks, with Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining the 4 Republicans (26s). The Senate voted 29 to 10 against a Republican amendment  to undermine the Fair Share Amendment by allowing high-income couples to evade the surtax by filing separate tax returns if they have filed a joint federal tax return (27s). Six Democrats joined the four Republicans: Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Joan Lovely (D-Salem), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield). Shockingly, Collins, Lovely, Timilty, and Velis voted the exact opposite way the year prior (3s). 

The Senate also voted 30 to 9 to create a new advisory commission to determine a new seal and motto of the commonwealth (to replace the current very racist flag and seal), as recommended by the last commission (29s). Six Democrats joined 3 out of the 4 Republicans in voting against it: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Ed Kennedy (D-Lowell), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield). Republican Bruce Tarr of Gloucester joined Democrats in voting yes. 

The Senate’s economic development bill in July became another source of non-unanimous votes despite the unanimity behind the final bill. Two votes were party line: one to strengthen our public health infrastructure by re-passing a bill that the Legislature had passed last session but too late to override Governor Baker’s veto and one to defeat a Republican amendment to reduce the tax rate for short-term capital gains, an attempted giveaway to the top 1 percent (33s; 34s). 

The Senate also used the economic development bill as a vehicle to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system, something they also voted for back in 2017 (32s). Voting against the measure were the chamber’s four Republicans as well as Democrats Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield). 

Several Democrats who opposed such a measure in 2017 have since come around: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), and Mike Rush (D-Westport). Rodrigues and Rush have both voted better than their ideology on certain legislation given their need to vote in line with the Senate President as part of the Leadership team. 

Despite our reservations around unanimous votes, we did include two of them because if we encourage legislators to vote for a bill, we believe that we should include that bill in our scorecard. On that front, both chambers voted to update Massachusetts’s forty-year-old parentage statutes to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction (36s) and pass comprehensive maternal health legislation that would expand equitable access to midwifery care, allow more birth centers to open, offer paid pregnancy loss leave, and more (37s).

When the Senate belatedly took up a bill to address the Steward crisis, the amendment votes often reflected lobbying coming from the Senate Leadership and the Mass Nurses Association in opposite directions, leading to strange bedfellows. An example in point: the Senate voted 25 to 14 against an amendment creating a moratorium on any hospital, provider, or provider organization entering into any financial agreement with a private equity firm, real estate investment trust, or management services organization until 180 days after the bill’s regulations go into effect (35s). Voting yes were two reliable progressives: Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) and Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), the chamber’s four Republicans, and then eight mostly more moderate-to-conservative Democrats (Michael Brady of Brockton, Nick Collins of South Boston, John Keenan of Quincy, Edward Kennedy of Lowell, Mark Montigny of New Bedford, Michael Moore of Auburn, Marc Pacheco of Taunton, and Walter Timilty of Milton). 

The Senate passed their chamber’s siting reform and clean energy climate package in June. The final bill passed in November had stronger language around environmental justice but narrower language around a transition away from gas. The two votes were the same: 38 to 2, with Republicans Peter Durant of Spencer and Ryan Fattman of Sutton voting no. Since the roll calls were identical, we chose to score the latter (38s). 

With the dearth of recorded votes this session, we have sought other opportunities to show contrast between legislators. Starting in our mid-session scorecard, we tracked whether legislators used their oversight powers over prisons and jails (they can enter any DOC facility unannounced, but we did not restrict this data point to unannounced visits). For the final session scorecard, we added data points around co-sponsorship (39s, 40s) because if we ask legislators to do something, we should give credit if they do it, as well as accessibility (41s), measured via whether they hold office hours, town halls, or other events in district to actually hear from their constituents.

House Scorecard Update: The Rest of 2024 in Review

The 193rd session finished as the clock struck midnight and December 31 became January 1st. Rather than merely running out the clock against their usual July 31 legislative deadline, the MA House and Senate nearly went almost all the way up to the end of the year.

Blowing past deadlines is not a new phenomenon in the Massachusetts State House. But what was new this session was the record low number of recorded votes: 203 in the House and 252 in the Senate. By contrast, the average number of recorded votes for all the sessions from 2005 to 2022 (under both Democratic and Republican governors) was 522 in the House and 482 in the Senate; the House, in other words, was well over 50% below average and the Senate getting close. That makes the work of putting together a scorecard—a vital accountability tool—harder. 

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. 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. With fewer votes, there are fewer contrasts. 

When putting together a scorecard, 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. 

We also avoid giving credit where credit has already been given: if we score a bill at one stage of the legislative process, we shy away from scoring its final passage later on to avoid duplication. However, when bills or amendments run counter to progressive values, we may score their multiple appearances. 

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

Since our mid-session scorecard, the biggest source of votes was the Affordable Homes Act, also known as the housing bond bill. The House did not take any recorded votes on individual progressive Democratic amendments to improve the bill, preferring to voice vote most of them down if they were not yet withdrawn. 

In the age of the MBTA Communities Act, the new law requiring communities with MBTA service to establish a zoning district where multifamily housing can be built as of right), the Republican Party has become a NIMBY bastion, a bit of irony given that Charlie Baker was the law’s biggest champion. House Republicans tried and rightly failed in their attempts to weaken the enforcement of the MBTA Communities Act, such as waiving compliance if a town meets the 40B threshold (i.e., at least 10 percent of housing units are low- or moderate-income) and creating an appeals process to allow communities to evade the law with spurious arguments (20h, 21h). House Republicans also tried to get mobile homes automatically counted toward a 40B threshold as a way of denying the need to actually build more affordable housing (22h). 

But the debate was not just about blocking bad amendments to the bill. The House did improve their base bill during the floor debate, such as by adopting a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase local option, which would enable cities and towns to choose to pass ordinances giving tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building if it goes up for sale (23h). However, the welcome embrace of a TOPA local option did not suffice for their refusal to include a real estate transfer fee local option; with such a critical piece of the Healey’s own proposed bill missing, we did not see fit to score the final bill itself. Those who voted against the bill (two Democrats—Rep. Bill Driscoll of Milton and Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewksbury—and eleven Republicans) should be criticized for their NIMBYism, but the yes votes hide more than they reveal given the jockeying around what should be in the final bill. 

Despite our reservations around unanimous votes, we did include two of them because if we encourage legislators to vote for a bill, we believe that we should include that bill in our scorecard. On that front, both chambers voted to update Massachusetts’s forty-year-old parentage statutes to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction (24h) and pass comprehensive maternal health legislation that would expand equitable access to midwifery care, allow more birth centers to open, offer paid pregnancy loss leave, and more (25h). 

Because the House’s own climate bill, passed in July, excluded any provisions around transitioning the state away from gas, we did not believe it to be worth scoring. As with the Affordable Homes Act, the NO votes (i.e., the Republican caucus) deserve criticism, but the YES votes hide more than they reveal. That said, the final climate bill passed in November was a solidly comprehensive bill with important language around environmental justice and the gas transition; Democrats were unanimously in support, and Republicans were split nearly down the middle (27h). 

In Massachusetts, we are aghast when Republican legislatures in other states try to block their liberal capital cities from passing their own laws. But that’s common practice here already given our restrictive home rule system. Fortunately, the House voted to approve (26h) a home rule petition from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to soften a looming residential property tax increase (with Proposition 2 ½, which has wreaked havoc on municipal finances for decades, residential and commercial real estate taxes are linked, and given a set of formulas, commercial real estate taxes are dropping while residential ones rising). If only the Senate would have obliged. 

With the dearth of recorded votes this session, we have sought other opportunities to show contrast between legislators. Starting in our mid-session scorecard, we tracked whether legislators used their oversight powers over prisons and jails (they can enter any DOC facility unannounced, but we did not restrict this data point to unannounced visits). For the final session scorecard, we added data points around co-sponsorship (28h, 29h) because if we ask legislators to do something, we should give credit if they do it, as well as accessibility (30h), measured via whether they hold office hours, town halls, or other events in district to actually hear from their constituents. 

Coming Soon: PM 2025 Member Meeting & Activist Conference

Coming soon, just two weeks from tomorrow: we’re excited for the opportunity to see you in person at our 2025 annual member meeting (open to all!) on Saturday, February 1st.

We will review accomplishments from the past year, announce our legislative agenda for the new session, and host a variety of breakout sessions focused on building skills and digging deeper into policy and action. Join us to hone your skills, network with activists from across the state, and get energized for the fights to come.

There’s a lot of important work to do, and we look forward to doing it with activists like you.

Progressive Mass 2025 Member Meeting
Saturday, February 1
1 pm to 5 pm
Lasell University, DeWitt Hall
80 Maple Street, Newton

RSVP here

Our Agenda for 2/1

1:00 – 1:30 Registration & Socializing

1:30 – 2:00 Business Portion(Updates, New Legislative Agenda, etc.)

2:00 – 2:45 Panel Discussion: “Winning Our Wins”

Winning a policy by legislature or by ballot takes a lot of effort, but it is only step one. There’s a world of work afterwards focused on implementing, protecting, and messaging policy victories as well as capitalizing on them to build support for future ones.

Panelists:

  • Harris Gruman, Executive Director, SEIU State Council
  • Laura Rotolo, Field Director, ACLU of Massachusetts
  • Vatsady Sivongxay, Executive Director, Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance

3:00 – 3:45 Breakout Sessions: Policies in Focus

  • Achieving Housing for All
  • Building Up People, Not Prisons
  • Climate Action: What States & Cities Can Do  
  • Protecting Our Immigrant Communities
  • Public Health: The Fights Ahead

4:00 – 4:45 Breakout Sessions: Skills & Strategies

  • Ballot Questions 101
  • How to Build Support for Housing in Your community
  • Progressive Communications in a Fractured Media Landscape
  • What I Learned from Lobbying in Other States
  • Why You Should Run for Local Office

Our Annual Meeting is open to everyone. However, you must be a member to vote for members up for election or re-election to the Board. You also must be a member to nominate yourself or someone else for election.

Statement from Progressive Massachusetts on Governor Healey’s Proposed Restrictions on Emergency Shelter

Fearful of what will happen on the federal level over the next four years, the residents of the Commonwealth are looking for state leadership. Unfortunately, Governor Maura Healey is using this moment to sound Trumpian in her approach to emergency shelter. Her proposed restrictions on shelter, especially a ban on undocumented residents from access, are straight out of the playbook of the soon-to-be-president and the right-wing Republicans in Congress. 

Beacon Hill rejected some of the most extreme limits on emergency shelter last year when Republicans in the House and Senate pushed for them last year. We urge them to do so again. 

The emergency shelter crisis is a result of our housing crisis. New affordable apartments will not magically appear after six months, as long as we face rapidly growing rents, limited housing production, insufficient state investment, and high up-front costs for new rentals. The state needs to tackle these issues and listen to experts and providers to achieve the goal of safe, affordable housing for everyone, not search for quick fixes that will only lead to higher costs elsewhere and push mothers with babies onto the streets. The people of Massachusetts expect better.