Because of calls and emails from people like you, the House delayed their MAGA energy bill that would have rolled back our climate, clean energy, and energy efficiency commitments.
The House will be redrafting an energy bill to vote on in the new year, so pressure will still be needed to ensure that we move forward, not backward. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Chair Cyr, Chair Haggerty, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing.
I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.
We see it all the time in polls, we hear it on the doors, and we see it in the data: Massachusetts has a housing crisis. More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore, priced out from one community to another and then out entirely, or face severe housing instability.
We need a comprehensive approach to the housing crisis, and strong protections for tenants must be a part of it. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.2328: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, H.1544 / S.998: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal, and S.968: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #47 in housing affordability. [1] A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 91 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2]
Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions.
Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.
However, municipalities across Massachusetts are blocked from taking the necessary steps to address the housing crisis. The misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and a stringent home rule system that prevents municipalities from passing their own laws to govern the basic aspects of civil affairs hamstring municipalities.
By enabling our cities and towns to pass rent control ordinances tailored to their local needs, we can stem the displacement that is hitting so many communities.
We cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents.
There is a lot of fear-mongering around rent control, but I want to make a simple point. If you don’t think a landlord should be able to double or triple someone’s rent in a year after doing no work on the property, you believe in rent control, and the question is just a matter of percentages and exemptions.
On too many issues, Massachusetts is haunted by the ghosts of ill-advised ballot initiatives past. It’s 2023, and we need to act like it.
Empowering cities and towns to respond to our housing crisis also requires passing the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). The TOPA bill, which is similarly an enabling bill, recognizes that we need to preserve our affordable housing stock. Too often, when large landlords sell a building, a mass eviction or rent hike follows for the tenants. TOPA shows that there is another way: as has been a proven success in DC for decades, we could enable tenants to come together to purchase the building—and be granted the right of first refusal in doing so. It’s a common-sense policy for community stability and affordable housing at no cost to the state.
Finally, the Legislature has made a commitment to access to counsel in the most recent budget cycle. However, we need to make this permanent in statute. S.968 bill would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner-occupants in eviction proceedings. The eviction moratorium that the Legislature passed earlier in the pandemic was a vital lifeline for so many, but eviction filings have now been climbing past what they were in 2019, pre-pandemic. Tenants enter such eviction proceedings at a major disadvantage: according to FY2024 Trial Court data, while 90% of landlords are represented, less than 5% of tenants are represented. Tenants facing eviction are disproportionately poor, female, and BIPOC, and evictions can have lasting negative impacts on physical and mental health.
Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Washington have already passed Right to Counsel policies, and Massachusetts should join them.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Chair Day, Chair Edwards, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:
Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1923: An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Young Adults and H.2051 / S. 1087: An Act to End Lifetime Parole for Juveniles and Emerging Adults.
A decade ago, Massachusetts raised the age of juvenile court to keep 17-year-olds out of the adult system. Supporters of this reform argued that keeping young people out of the adult criminal system would reduce recidivism. The data is in: they were right. Juvenile crime has declined, and Massachusetts has seen faster declines in violent and property crime rates than the national average.
It’s time to build on that success by raising the age to 21, as this bill would do. Young people are highly influenced by their environments: it is no surprise then that adult jail and prison environments increase offending behavior. By contrast, in the juvenile system, adolescents have better access to educational and mental health resources that are critical to rehabilitation and successful re-entry, as well as stricter supervision.
Mass incarceration policies have hit communities of color in Massachusetts especially hard. As a criminal sentence too often closes off educational and employment opportunities, our criminal legal system perpetuates racial inequalities. A focus on rehabilitation would give youth a better chance to grow up and contribute in their community and, by doing so, would help reduce intergenerational poverty. When our criminal legal system centers human dignity, rehabilitation, and accountability, rather than punishment and vengeance, we are all safer and healthier in the long run.
As the framing of today’s committee implies, this bill would mean better access to health care and other supports. However, we want to underscore that merely improving the adult prison system—a task desperately needed and which other bills heard today would do—is not sufficient to address the issues at stake here. Federal and state protections differ, as do long-term legal consequences.
Similarly advancing these priorities, H.2051 / S. 1087 would address the current situation where youth aged 14 to 21 can face lifetime parole after 15 years in prison. This is costly to the parole system and is ineffective toward achieving stated goals of safety or rehabilitation. We know, through a significant body of research, that most youth will “age out” of offending behavior, and the parole system, which imposes sanctions on parolees for a long list of minor infractions, harms their ability to get back on their feet.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint Committee on FInancial Services:
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.736/H.1114: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank and H.1264/S.767: An Act promoting responsible investment. These bills help ensure that our commonwealth uses our financial resources to align with our values.
Why a Public Bank (S.736/H.1114)
A Massachusetts public bank would help advance the goal of equitable economic development. Here are a few key ways.
A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. A public bank would not be competing with the existing banking system. It fills in the gaps and creates new opportunities for existing banks. Such a bank would help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaptation and mitigation–taking on projects that may have more difficult access to early capital due to lack of connections or higher risks.
A public bank would be good for our cities and towns. Cities and towns, constrained in how they can raise money, often lack the resources for necessary long-term investments. A public bank would offer cities and towns an affordable and flexible alternative to the bond market for important local infrastructure projects.
A public bank would be good for our small businesses. Although it can seem like a long time ago already, the COVID-19 pandemic was brutal for our small businesses. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult times as well as to grow and expand to better serve the community. The bill would specifically target rural communities and underserved neighborhoods, where entrepreneurs often face significant obstacles to securing seed funding for new businesses, and it can help encourage the flourishing of cooperative businesses and worker-owned coops, business models that exemplify shared prosperity.
A public bank would address long-standing economic inequities. We know that women and communities of color have faced longstanding barriers in securing access to capital. A public bank can help to level the playing field.
A public bank would be good for the environment. A public bank could support initiatives to mitigate the dangers of climate change, and it could help local farms adopt and promote sustainable agricultural practices. As the federal government retrenches its support, increased state resources will become critical.
Responsible Investment (H.1264/S.767)
Our Commonwealth’s investments should align with our values and our priorities. Funding weapons of mass destruction that are causing countless deaths right now and will continue to cause harm into the future.
Funding these weapons is also antithetical to our state’s environmental and climate commitments: few things are as environmentally destructive as war.
By divesting our public dollars from these pernicious investments, we can make a strong statement, redirect our resources to creating the better world we want to see, and — also important from a financial perspective — eliminate any liability or entanglement with war crimes committed through our public dollars.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts
Monday, November 17, 2025
Chair McMurtry, Chair Oliveira, and Members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development:
I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.
We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1349/H.2107: An Act relative to raising the minimum wage closer to a living wage in the commonwealth.
In 2018, Massachusetts set an example for other states and the country by passing a $15 minimum wage. As of January 2023, the full increase had taken effect, but $15 has lost significant purchasing power due to the rising cost of food, utilities, rent, and other basic necessities. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, today’s minimum wage would need to be almost $20 to have the same purchasing power as $15 in July 2018.
The $15 minimum wage, while an improvement, is also not a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for a single adult with no children would be $28.88 per hour. When children enter the picture, that threshold for meeting basic needs gets higher and higher. Moreover, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968, it would have met this standard for a living wage.
It’s time to raise the minimum wage again. These bills would raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour and index it to inflation, so that the value does not erode over time. Moreover, these bills correct a glaring omission from the last minimum wage increase: the exclusion of municipal workers. Paraprofessionals and cafeteria workers in some municipalities are still not receiving a minimum wage (let alone a living wage), and we should not be allowing such carveouts. All workers deserve a living wage, and this increase would move us in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts
On Wednesday, the MA House’s Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy (TUE) advanced a bill that would gut the state’s commitment to clean energy.
Here’s what the bill does:
Despite all of that, the vote was 7-0.
The 7 Democrats who voted to roll back our clean energy and energy efficiency commitments were House TUE Chair Mark Cusack (D-Braintree), Vice Chair Michael Kushmerek (D-Fitchburg), Bill MacGregor (D-West Roxbury), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Chynah Tyler (D-Roxbury), and Sean Reid (D-Lynn). If your state rep is on that list, make sure they hear your disappointment.
Two Democrats on the committee–Rep. Natalie Higgins (D-Leominster) and Rep. Margaret Scarsdale (D-Pepperell)–refused to join the bad policy bandwagon. In State House jargon, they “reserved their rights.” In plain language, they sent a clear message of “I’m not willing to support this bill as written.” If you are in their districts, make sure to thank them.
We need to redouble our commitment to climate action, not walk it back. And the State House needs to hear that.
Can you let your state rep know it’s time to strengthen, not weaken, our climate commitments?
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:
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
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
Wednesday, November 12, 2025
Chair Lewis, Chair Gordon, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education:
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.374: An Act empowering students and schools to thrive and S.409/H.726: An Act to establish a community schools special legislative commission.
Massachusetts has a bedrock constitutional commitment to public education as well as a legal responsibility to provide a quality education to all students. However, we are still living under misguided policies that work against that commitment and that vision, such as state takeovers.
State takeovers have not improved outcomes for students; to the contrary, takeovers have made decision-making less democratic; imposed a stigma on districts; disempowered parents, educators, school leaders, and elected school committee members; and increased teacher turnover. They weaken the bonds between schools and communities. Compounding all this harm, they have failed to yield any long-term improvements in student test scores or, more fundamentally and more importantly, learning.
Cities with higher populations of Black, Brown, and immigrant students have been those targeted with state takeovers, perpetuating existing inequalities between districts.
Last year’s vote on Question 2 showed that voters don’t support the “test and punish” approach to education that is too often just a tool for privatization.
At the same time as we abandon the harmful education policies of two decades ago that have led to no lasting gains and instead cemented inequalities, we can also embrace a better vision for education.
The Community Schools model offers such a vision. It recognizes that schools should be spaces where parents, students, educators, and community members can come together to provide services and support to meet the needs of our students and schools. The model understands that students thrive best in the classroom when they are in strong communities and have access to robust services, that for students to learn, they need to be healthy and supported, and that parents, educators, and students know their needs best.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts