What Happened on the Last Day of the Formal Legislative Session?

July 31 is the last day of the formal legislative session for Beacon Hill. That typically produces a flurry of last-minute legislative activity, and it did–but with a twist.

Two years ago, when the sun rose on August 1, the Legislature was left without agreement on a number of key bills, with conference committees having yet to settle on final text. The Legislature got a lot of negative press for that, and deservedly so. However, they came back throughout the fall to finish the work.

Now, two years later, the two chambers again failed to come to agreement on a number of key bills. However, they blessed such procrastination in the rules they adopted last year, enabling themselves to more readily take up bills after July 31 so long as they are able to appoint the negotiators by then.

So what happened these final days?

  • The two chambers, as we wrote about here, sent a final version of the PROTECT Act to the Governor’s desk yesterday.
  • The Senate voted in a 15 to 4 standing vote (without formal record) for legislation previously passed by the House to expand abortion access and ensure that no one needs to leave the state to get essential reproductive health care after 24 weeks. The House voted 121 to 35 to enact the bill, as the two chambers sent it to the Governor.
  • The two chambers also finalized a bill to rein in politically motivated book bans, with the House voting 156 to 1. Republican John Gaskey of Carver was the only NO vote.

What is still in negotiations?

  • Comprehensive data privacy
  • Energy affordability
  • An economic development bill that contains key priorities like Clean Slate (automatic record sealing), Raise the Age, and the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)
  • Ballot Spending Transparency Act
  • Environmental bond bill
  • A school cell phone ban and (together or separate) teen social media regulations
  • BRIGHT Act (higher ed infrastructure)

The Legislature also appointed conference committees today to work on bills expanding access to primary care and updating the public records law (but in a way less than this fall’s Question 1).

The Legislature is unlikely to do much work in August with vacations and looming elections, and they have until January 5 to finish their job. They shouldn’t wait.

MA Legislature Sends PROTECT Act to the Governor’s Desk

Yesterday, the MA House and Senate sent their final, negotiated version of the PROTECT Act to the Governor’s desk.

The House voted 137-21 to accept the conference report and enact the the bill. Republicans Brad Jones (R-North Reading), Marcus Vaughn (R-Wrentham), David Vieira (R-Falmouth), and Donald Wong (R-Saugus) joined Democrats in voting for it. Note that Jones is retiring, and the other three all have Democratic challengers and represent districts that Harris won in 2024.

The Senate took a standing vote, meaning that the AYEs stood and the NAYs stood but no formal record was taken.

Here’s a run-down of what the bill would do, credit to the Protecting Massachusetts Communities Coalition (and especially Julia Schlozman of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action):

Restricting state and local law enforcement collaboration with ICE 

  • Limits when law enforcement can ask about immigration/citizenship status, permitting the practice only when “directly material to an element” of felony or trafficking and requiring documentation of any such inquiry 
  • Effectively bans new 287(g) agreements with ICE (i.e., agreements in which state and local law enforcement are deputized as ICE agents)
    • The bill, unfortunately, leaves in place the existing agreement between the Department of Correction and ICE, the only statewide agreement in a blue state. 
    • The ban is not a “clean” ban, but the elaborate multi-step process for getting a time-limited 287(g) agreement under the bill is designed in such a way that it is unlikely to ever happen. 
  • Bans various types of law enforcement and court staff assistance of ICE, such as participating in civil immigration enforcement, holding someone on a detainer, investigating someone for ICE, stopping or arresting someone based on their status 
  • Restricts certain information sharing with ICE, namely, law enforcement would be prohibited from providing non-public information about custody status, release date, or court appearances to ICE except at the end of a sentence for certain crimes or in response to a request about a specific individual made within the prior 30 days 

Protecting Courthouses 

  • Bans warrantless civil arrests in or around courthouses, including in courthouse lawns, plazas, courtyards, steps, ramps, sidewalks, walkways, garages, driveways, parking lots

Protecting Elections and Holding ICE Agents Accountable 

  • Creates civil liability under Massachusetts law for violations of federal laws prohibiting military officers at polling locations and military interference with elections
  • Allows federal officers to be sued in state court for violations of the US constitution

Protecting Sensitive Locations 

  • Bans warrantless civil arrests at day cares, schools, and health care facilities
  • Requires day cares, schools, and health care facilities to adopt model plans for interactions with ICE

Protecting Individuals in ICE Detention

  • Requires that detainees receive notice at intake in their primary language of the right to counsel, to decline interviews, instructions for contacting legal counsel, and procedures for grievances/other communication
  • Requires various types of written materials provided to detainees (e.g., intake materials, medical interactions, etc.) to be translated
  • Requires phone confirmation of a detainee’s presence 
  • Requires facility to (attempt to) notify counsel and contact/family within 6 hours of intake and transfer
  • Requires phone calls and videoconferencing between detainees and attorneys
  • Prohibits facilities from impeding access to counsel or proceedings

Other Measures 

  • Allows the Governor to prohibit or limit civil immigration enforcement activities in nonpublic areas of state entities
  • Requires the Governor (in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office) to issue multilingual guidelines regarding how state agencies, “private entities,” law enforcement, and school districts should handle interactions with ICE and what civil rights members of the public have when interacting with immigration agents
  • Requires employers to provide written notice of an I-9 audit of employee immigration documentation to employees within 48 hours of receipt
  • Allows pre-appointment of a legal guardian in case of “adverse immigration action against the parent or guardian”
  • Establishes procedures and timelines for law enforcement agencies to issue certifications for T/U visas for victims of trafficking or crime, with a required response window of 45 days 
  • Allows the State Auditor to audit any sheriff holding ICE detainees, any immigration detention facility, or any “arrangement” that “utilizes” property, services, etc. provided by Massachusetts, a city/town, or a state/local agency
  • Establishes a three-year standing commission on immigration issues, renewable for up to three more years

PM in the News: “Massachusetts is weighing a ‘Clean Slate’ bill. Here’s what that would mean.”

Elise Larsson, “Massachusetts is weighing a ‘Clean Slate’ bill. Here’s what that would mean.,” Huntington News, July 20, 2026.

“We don’t want past history to be a roadblock for employment, for housing and for many other things where having a record can often lead to people being prohibited,” said Jonathan Cohn, the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide organization dedicated to advancing racial and social justice and strengthening democracy.

Unlike petition-based record-sealing laws in states like California and New York, which often take years to complete, Cohn said the Clean Slate bill aims to minimize delays. By automatically sealing records after a period of law-abiding conduct, the bill shifts the focus from procedural hurdles to demonstrated rehabilitation.

“Society is able to benefit from this process better … if we’re able to offer better employment opportunities, better housing opportunities,” Cohn said. “We should just streamline the process.”

We’re Now in the Last Week of the Formal Legislative Session. Here’s What That Means.

This week is the last week of the formal legislative session for Beacon Hill. Although the current session runs through January 5, 2027, the Legislature is not expected to be coming in for votes or committee work for the rest of the year.

Two years ago, at the end of the last legislative session, the Legislature ended up with a long list of unfinished business, as numerous conference committees tasked with negotiating final bill text were unable to come to agreements by July 31.

The Legislature got a lot of bad press for this — and rightfully so. Those bills were eventually finalized months later and signed into law, but the narrative of the session was set.

At the start of the legislative session, the Speaker and Senate President promised a more transparent and efficient legislative process.

We’re now in the final week of the session, and AGAIN, there’s a long list of unfinished business, as numerous conference committees tasked with negotiating final bill text (for things like the PROTECT Act, data privacy bill, energy affordability bill, and much more) have yet to come to an agreement.

But there’s a difference: the Legislature blessed this failure to finish on time in their new rules. As long as they can get negotiators appointed by Friday, they can keep negotiating until January 5, a long period of legislative limbo for our full-time legislature.

That means that there will still be need for legislative advocacy throughout the fall: to make sure that they finish bills and that the bills they finish are strong.

We’ll keep you posted about actions and opportunities to make sure your voice gets heard.

MA Senate Passes Its Economic Development Bill. What Happened During the Debate?

Late last night, the MA Senate passed its economic development bill after going through 600 amendments.

Of those 600, only 5 received recorded votes. The Senate voted….

  • 31 to 8 to revise the calculation of the state’s revenue cap (known as 62F) to be 7.5% of the combined personal income of the state, as opposed to the existing formula based on the growth of wages and salaries. The new formula would protect the state’s ability to invest and ensure that public services are protected during economic downturns. Democrats Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined the five Republicans in voting no.
  • 7 to 32 to reject a Republican amendment to adopt Trumpian tax gimmicks of “no tax on overtime” and “no tax on tips” that put downward pressure on base wages and encourage anti-worker policies. Democrats Nick Collins (D-South Boston) and Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford)
  • 5 to 34 to reject a Republican amendment to eliminate estate tax, a move that would blow a major hole in the state budget and redistribute wealth upwards
  • 7 to 32 to reject a Republican amendment to reduce revenue raised from the state income tax and trigger cuts to essential public services. Democrats Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined the five Republicans in voting yes.
  • 5 to 34 to reject a Republican amendment that would have made the bill’s legalization of duplexes into a local option

Several amendments that we had supported were adopted via voice vote.

  • Amendment #18: Adjunct Faculty Special Commission, filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, which would create a commission to study how much it will cost to cover healthcare and retirement benefits for our adjunct professors
  • Amendment #495: Juvenile Jurisdiction, filed by Sen. Brendan Crighton, which would shift 18-year-olds into the juvenile justice system, where young people are more likely to be held accountable for their actions by engaging in education and treatment
  • Amendment #511: Requiring Automated Criminal Record Sealing, filed by Sen. Cindy Friedman, which would take away unnecessary bureaucracy in the criminal record sealing process

Sen. Pat Jehlen’s Amendment #12 (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) was adopted after being redrafted twice and limited to a pilot program allowing five communities to adopt ordinances granting tenants the right of first refusal to purchase their building when it goes on market.

One amendment that we supported was rejected via voice vote:

  • Amendment #193: Data Centers, filed by Sen. Vanna Howard, which would ensure that data centers cover their energy needs with clean energy and do not increase water and electric bills

And several others were simply withdrawn:

  • Amendment #224: Identification for Youth and Adults Experiencing Homelessness, filed by Sen. Robyn Kennedy, which would ease access to Massachusetts IDs for people experiencing homelessness by waiving the $25 fee for standard Mass IDs
  • Amendment #268: Fairness for Agricultural Laborers, filed by Sen. Adam Gomez, which would grant agricultural workers basic labor protections historically excluded under state law, such as minimum wage or overtime
  • Amendment #359: Midwife Reimbursement Parity, filed by Sen. Joan Lovely, which would expand access to care by ensuring equitable reimbursement rates from MassHealth for certified professional midwives

Support House Bill 2554, An Act Relative to Routine Childhood Immunizations

July 21, 2026

The Honorable Ronald Mariano

Speaker of the House of Representatives

State House, Room 356

24 Beacon St.

Boston, MA 02133

The Honorable Aaron Michlewitz

Chair, House Committee on Ways and Means

State House, Room 243

24 Beacon St.

Boston, MA 02133

RE: Support House Bill 2554, An Act Relative to Routine Childhood Immunizations

Dear Mr. Speaker and Chairman Michlewitz,

On behalf of the Massachusetts Families for Vaccines Coalition, representing over 40 organizations across the Commonwealth, we write to respectfully request your support and urge favorable House action before July 31 for House Bill 2554, which would remove the non-medical exemption from required school vaccines and enhance data collection and sharing to better track immunization rates.

House Bill 2554 is supported by leading medical, public health, labor, education, and community organizations. Public support for this legislation is also clear: a poll conducted last month by Workbench Strategies found that 89% of Massachusetts voters support vaccinating K-12 students against contagious diseases for school and 70% want their legislators to vote in favor of H.2554. 73% of Democratic primary voters reported that they would be more likely to vote for an incumbent who supports House Bill 2554. Support for House Bill 2554 is broadly consistent across political party affiliations, demographic groups, and regions of the state.

Recent data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health indicate that use of the non-medical exemption continues to steadily increase. During the 2025-2026 school year, over a thousand kindergartners received non-medical exemptions from at least one vaccine—more than in any previous year. Seven out of 14 Massachusetts counties reported county-wide kindergarten MMR immunization rates below the 95% needed to prevent outbreaks, with many individual schools reporting immunization rates falling well below that level.

Strengthening our school vaccine requirements will protect the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable students and community members, prevent costly outbreaks, and improve transparency around immunization rates to provide parents with better peace of mind around their children’s safety at school. We therefore respectfully urge the Legislature to pass House Bill 2554.

Thank you for your consideration of this important public health legislation.

Sincerely,

Katie Blair, JD, Director

Massachusetts Families for Vaccines

Northe Saunders, President

American Families for Vaccines

Jessica Tang, President

American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts

Patti Wukovits, BSN, RN, Co-Executive Director

American Society for Meningitis Prevention

Colin Killick, Executive Director

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

Azhar Majeed, Director of Government Affairs and Policy

Center for Inquiry

Anabel Santiago Gibson, Co-Executive Director

Coalition for Social Justice Education Fund

Justin Pasquariello, Chief Executive Officer

East Boston Social Centers

Alicia Stillman, Executive Director

Emily Stillman Foundation

Ryan D. Jayne, Senior Policy Counsel

Freedom From Religion Foundation Action Fund

Patti Wukovits, BSN, RN, AMB-BC, Executive Director

Kimberly Coffey Foundation

Chloe Schwartz, MPH, Director, Maternal & Infant Health Initiative

March of Dimes

Manju Mahajan, MD, FAAFP, AAHIVS, President

Massachusetts Academy of Family Physicians

Taylor Rich, MPH, CCHW, Senior Manager of Training

Massachusetts Association of Community Health Workers

David Lyczkowski, MD, President

Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics

Sunny Kung, MD, FACP & Hemal Sampat, MD, FACP

Co-Chairs, Health and Public Policy Committee

Massachusetts Chapter of the American College of Physicians

Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, President

Massachusetts Medical Society

Jodie Nierintz, Safety & Wellness Chair

Massachusetts PTA

Oami Amarasingham, JD, Deputy Director

Massachusetts Public Health Alliance

Chloe Zera, MD

Massachusetts Section of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists

Michael Constantine, MD, President

Massachusetts Society of Clinical Oncologists

Matthew Bach, President

Massachusetts Teachers Association

John Lippitt, Ph.D., Leadership Team Member

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts

Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Dan Hoffer, Political and Legislative Director

SEIU Local 509

Claire Karl Miller

UU Mass Action

Tell Your State Senator: Fight for Economic Justice in the Economic Development Bill

Two weeks ago, the MA House passed its economic development bill, a policy and spending grab-bag bill that included some wins for affordable housing.

The Senate is voting on their bill this Wednesday and Thursday. The economic development bill, as a “must-pass” bill each session, becomes a critical vehicle for passing policy. Between now and Wednesday, take a minute to call or email your state senator in support of these three amendments:

  • Amendment #12: Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), filed by Sen. Jehlen, which would enable tenants to band together to purchase their building when it goes on the market
  • Amendment #14: Countering Fiscal Uncertainty, filed by Sen. Jason Lewis, which would repeal the state’s harmful and outdated investment cap​
  • Amendment #193: Data Centers, filed by Sen. Vanna Howard, which would ensure that data centers cover their energy needs with clean energy and do not increase water and electric bills
  • Amendment #511: Requiring Automated Criminal Record Sealing, filed by Sen. Cindy Friedman, which would take away unnecessary bureaucracy in the criminal record sealing process

Announcing Another Round of Endorsements

The Massachusetts state primary is a month and a half away away on Tuesday, September 1, and the general election is just three and a half months away on Tuesday, November 3. That time will fly by.

Over the past few months, our Elections Committee has been hard at work developing our candidate questionnaires, researching candidates, and interviewing candidates.

See all of the questionnaires received and endorsements made so far here.

As a member-based organization, all of our endorsements are ultimately decided by member votes, and we recently finished our first Congressional and Legislative member ballot of the summer.

Why Is a Race Not on the List Yet?

  • As a member-based organization, we conduct member ballots and have thorough questionnaires. That limits how many offices we can include on a ballot.
  • We defer to our chapters to take the lead on races in their territory. If our chapters want to host candidate forums or conduct their own votes, we will not take up the race until afterwards.

If you care about a specific Congressional or legislative race, just ask.

About Our Endorsement Process

Our endorsement process contains a few steps.

(1) Questionnaire: Every cycle, Progressive Mass’s Elections and Endorsements Committee (EEC) puts together comprehensive policy questionnaires for federal and state candidates, which we publish on our website. Only candidates who fill out these questionnaires are eligible for endorsement.

(2) Interviews: For Congressional races, the EEC conducts public interviews of all candidates who submit questionnaires. For legislative races, the EEC conducts research about the various races on the ballot and interviews candidates who submit questionnaires and meet certain criteria (progressive values, viability, etc.).

(3) Recommendations: The EEC then deliberates on whom and whether to recommend for endorsement to the full membership.

(4) Member Vote: The ultimate decision lies with our members. Candidates must receive at least 60% of the vote in a member ballot to receive an endorsement.

MA Senate

Shannon Teabo for Worcester and Hampshire

The District: Barre, Brookfield, East Brookfield, Gardner, Hardwick, Holden, Hubbardston, Leicester, New Braintree, North Brookfield, Oakham, Paxton, Phillipston, Princeton, Rutland, Spencer, Sterling, Templeton, Ware, West Brookfield, Westminster, Worcester (W7 Pcts 2, 4-6; W9 P3&4)

Shannon Teabo is an activist, organizer, and mom running to fight for affordable childcare, funding for education, and equitable access to quality healthcare. She is running against Republican incumbent Peter Durant, who has an 8% on our Legislative Scorecard and a racist, xenophobic, and anti-worker record as a state senator and previously as a state rep.  Learn more about Shannon at https://www.teaboforsenate.com/.

Mike Zullas for Norfolk, Plymouth & Bristol

The District: Braintree (Pcts 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B1, 4A, 5A, 5B, 6B), Bridgewater, Easton, Milton, Randolph (Pcts 4-6, 9-12), Stoughton, West Bridgewater

Mike Zullas is a former Member and former Chair of the Milton Select Board. On the Select Board, he led the creation of the town’s Climate Action Planning Committee and Advisory Committee on Equity and Justice for All and led the effort for Milton to opt in to the Community Preservation Act. He was among the Select Board members who voted to support compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. He is running to be a champion of more transparent government and more robust supports to address the fiscal crises hitting our cities and towns. Learn more about Mike at https://www.votezullas.com/.

MA House

Zosia VanMeter for 9th Essex

The District: Lynn (Ward 1 Pcts 1& 2), Saugus (Pcts 1, 2 4-9), Wakefield (Pcts 1-3, 7)

Zosia VanMeter is a public servant, immigrant, and community leader. She has founded and worked with local nonprofits devoted to combating food insecurity and empowering women and girls. She is running to fight to increase the supply of affordable housing, strengthen tenant protections, and fight legislative inertia. She is running against a 16-year Republican incumbent with a 5% on our Scorecard. Learn more about Zosia at https://www.electzvm.com/.

Lisa Lopez for 6th Norfolk


The District: Avon, Canton, Stoughton (Pcts 1, 2A, 4A, 5, 7, and 8)

Lisa Lopez is a former Select Board Member in Canton, the third woman in history to ever be elected to the role. She championed the town’s municipal energy aggregation program (Canton Electrical Choice) and Affordable Housing Trust and played a key role in the town’s response to COVID. She was the initial chair of the Community Preservation Committee in Canton, and she is the current chair of the Canton Housing Authority and the local Affordable Housing Trust. She is running to be an advocate for housing affordability, environmental protection, and health care access. Learn more about Lisa at https://www.lopezforrep.com/.

Tom Melville for 9th Norfolk

The District: Medfield (Pcts 3 & 4), Millis (Pct 1), Norfolk, Plainville, Walpole (Pct 5), Wrentham

Tom Melville is a former journalist, having served as Executive News Director at WBUR and News Director at NECN, and someone who as a result values open communication, transparency, and listening. He was inspired to run after seeing the bigoted and divisive way that the incumbent, Republican Marcus Vaughn, responded to the opening of a shelter for migrant families. He is running to be a strong advocate for education funding, civil rights, climate action, health care access, and government transparency.  Learn more about Tom at https://www.electmelville.com/.

Tom is also endorsed by Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County.

Jen Heck for 18th Worcester

The District: Douglas, Oxford (Pcts 1 & 4), Sutton, Uxbridge (Pct 1), Webster

Jen Heck is a documentary filmmaker who led the successful campaign to bring Sutton into MBTA Communities Act compliance, turning early opposition into near-unanimous support. She is running to be a champion for tackling the housing affordability crisis, investing more in our public schools, and establishing clear ethical guardrails around the use of AI. She is running against Republican Joe McKenna, who has a 0% on our Legislative Scorecard. Learn more about Jen at https://www.heckyeah2026.org/.

What Passed in the MA House’s Economic Development Bill?

The MA House voted on Wednesday for its economic development bill, a bill that every two years can become a catch-all bill for various policy priorities and earmarks.

The House went through 688 amendments in the non-transparent Consolidated Amendment process. House Leadership grouped these 688 amendments into five categories to create five Consolidated Amendments, but little, if anything, of the content of most of these amendments remained. Rather than rejecting amendments (by voice or recorded vote) or having lead sponsors withdraw amendments, the House has increasingly taken to this strategy, which reduces the ability for the public to see what is happening and pushes even more discussion behind closed doors.

Consolidated amendments also erase opportunities for accountability by bundling measures together rather than allowing for clear up or down votes on individual priorities.

One of the amendments that we had supported did, however, make it in: the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), which would allow cities and towns a local option to provide tenants in multi-family buildings the right to match a third-party offer when their homes are being sold.

TOPA passed the Legislature more than five years ago, vetoed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker when the legislative session had run out and there was no time for veto overrides. Two years ago, the House passed it as part of the housing bond bill, but it did not survive final negotiations. Let’s make it the session it finally happens.

The House’s bill also took other steps to address the housing crisis, such as authorizing municipalities to adopt commercial conversion zoning to transform underutilized commercial properties into housing and mixed-use developments through streamlined local approvals and allowing multifamily housing as of right on qualifying land owned by religious institutions, with a requirement that at least 20% of units be affordable.