Senate Votes 35-3 to Combat Politically Motivated Book Banning

The Senate voted 35-3 to address the rise of politically motivated book bans. The bill — An Act regarding free expression — creates clear guidelines for how schools and libraries decide which books to make available, and how local leaders determine whether a book is appropriate or should be removed from the shelf. 

The bill recognizes that teachers and librarians are trusted experts and should be treated as such and that personal, political, and doctrinal views should not be governing which books are allowed to be on the shelf.

Local school districts and municipal public libraries would have the flexibility to craft their own policies that align with state protocols and the standards of the American Library Association. For school libraries, an appropriate process for considering whether to remove a book would include assurance that a challenged book remains available to library patrons while the process plays out, guarding against frivolous or unfounded complaints. 

The bill also protects librarians and school employees from retaliation over their selection of library books and requires tracking of book challenges statewide to monitor the issue.

Voting NO were Republicans Kelly Dooner (R-Taunton), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

During floor debate, the Senate voted unanimously (37-0) for Sen. Cindy Creem’s amendment to grant authors the right to challenge the removal of their works from schools and libraries

Several Republican amendments rightfully failed:

  • 6-32 on Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s typo-ridden amendment to increase bureaucracy for schools and libraries. Note also that this amendment’s requirement of notification of “at least two parents or guardians” for every student is a disappointing demonization of single parents. Democrat Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) joined the five Republicans in voting for it.
  • 7-30 on Sen. Peter Durant (R-Spencer)’s amendment to increase the administrative burden on school committees facing book challenges. Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Michael Moore (D-Millbury) joined Republicans.
  • 5-32 on Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment to make it more difficult to challenge book bans and again 5-32 on his amendment to increase the administrative burden on school committees

Testimony: Cities and Towns Want the Right to Rank.

Thursday, November 13, 2025 

Chair Keenan, Chair Hunt, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.531: An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections. 

Democracy in this country needs strengthening. We see the need for that every single day, and for us to have a robust, participatory, inclusive democracy, we must start at the local level. 

Cities and towns across Massachusetts are doing just that. By passing home rule petitions for ranked choice voting, they are embracing a time-tested reform that makes our elections both more competitive and more collegial. 

Ranked choice voting can inspire more candidates to run by eliminating “spoiler” effects, discourages negative campaigning, and ensures that voters don’t need to become dime-store game theorists thinking about how other people will vote before casting their own ballot. 

When cities and towns want to strengthen democracy, the Commonwealth should embrace the opportunity to say yes. Cities like Easthampton and Cambridge already employ ranked choice systems, and this enabling legislation would make it easier for other communities seeking to do so as well. 

I could speak to the merits of ranked choice voting for a while, but what’s at stake in this bill is really something else. Do we believe in local democracy? 

Your lives as legislators are better off, and cities and towns are better off, if you aren’t bogged down with having to approve home rule petitions about policies that some cities and towns already have. Enabling legislation, or local option legislation, like this sets clear parameters for what cities and towns can do, and then puts the power in people on the ground and their local elected officials to make the decision that’s best for them. It, in other words, gives clear choice, that central hallmark of democracy at any level. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Say No to Gas, Yes to a Just Transition

Thursday, November 13, 2025 

Chair Barrett, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3547/S.2290: An Act preventing gas expansion to protect climate, community health and safety. 

As we speak, the 30th COP conference of the United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Brazil. Countries from across the world are discussing how to make their climate pledges into climate realities and how to muster collective global action to address the climate crisis. Notably absent, of course, is the United States. 

This year so far, we have seen the Trump administration take countless steps to sabotage our response to the climate crisis and our transition to clean energy. The Trump administration is seeking to rig the future for heavy-polluting fossil fuel companies and deny present and future generations the blessings of cleaner water, cleaner air, and good-paying jobs. We need you to not join them and, instead, to chart a different path in line with our commonwealth’s promises and values.

This bill would prevent new gas facility construction or expansion near environmental justice neighborhoods because we know that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground (and have known that for decades) and that the communities that have borne the burden of pollution for decades should not be forced to continue to do so. 

But this bill is not just about saying NO. It is about saying YES to what the future can be. 

It centers a vision of a just transition, one in which we usher in a clean energy economy with good-paying jobs that does not leave people behind. The bill requires gas companies to submit just transition plans, including not only measures to meet zero-emissions goals but also measures to do right by their workforce through workforce development, training, staffing, pension system solvency, and other steps. It creates a training fund for workers in the clean energy economy. And it creates a Just Transition Office to guide this energy and economic transformation. 

Time and time again, when Massachusetts voters are surveyed, they say that they want strong action on the climate crisis, and they know that our future is with clean energy. 

We need to continue the progress from recent years on that front, not do Trump’s dirty work for him with more fossil fuels and abandoned commitments. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts