Brookline.News: “Younger candidates push out some of Brookline’s political old guard in progressive sweep”

Sam Mintz and Vivi Smilgius, “Younger candidates push out some of Brookline’s political old guard in progressive sweep,” Brookline.News, May 6, 2026.

“This was an election about getting people to the polls,” said Miriam Aschkenasy, a former Select Board member who is one of the leaders of the recently launched group Progressive Brookline. “We have an idea about what we think Brookline should be as a community, and we have to get people involved.” 

…

Zimmerman, the 43-year-old co-founder of B4E, received the most votes by a large margin. She was endorsed by both B4E and Progressive Brookline.

“Between those two groups, you had a lot of very passionate people organizing around the election, door knocking, reaching out to their networks,” she said. 

…In Precinct 9, all five of the winners were endorsed by Brookline for Everyone and Progressive Brookline. 

Across Town Meeting races, those groups did exceedingly well: 95% of Town Meeting candidates endorsed by both Brookline for Everyone and Progressive Brookline were successful, compared with 76% endorsed by Brookline by Design, B4E’s frequent antagonist, which advocates for a more deliberate planning process. Eighty-five percent of Brookline PAX endorsees won. 

…

“I think that for a long time, a select few people really were the people involved in town politics. I think that’s changing,” said Aschkenasy of Progressive Brookline. “I think we are mobilizing a new group of people who want to do something and say something.” 

…

Federspiel, the incumbent, said this election felt like a shift toward more progressive values, which the past couple of elections have strayed away from. She added that new political groups in town, such as Progressive Brookline, played a big role — and raised some questions about existing groups and their values.

“The [Progressive Brookline] board has new faces, new voices … something like Brookline PAX has been around for a while. There’s not so many new faces, new voices,” Federspiel said. “They had supported me in the past and they did not endorse me this time. I don’t believe I’m less progressive, so I’m kind of thinking they’re less progressive.”

NEW LETTER: Massachusetts social media ban will help Trump and will not keep kids safe from Big Tech

See the original at https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

The Massachusetts House has advanced H. 5349 (now H. 5366), a draconian and unconstitutional bill that would ban minors from social media, force social media platforms to enable parental surveillance of teenagers’ online activity, and subject everyone to privacy-invading online ID checks in order to access information or speak out online.

Dozens of civil liberties, racial justice, LGBTQ+, press freedom, abortion access, and human rights organizations have spoken out against these dangerous and misguided “age verification” laws, several of which have had their constitutionality questioned by the courts.

And a Massachusetts-based coalition of LGBTQ groups including the The Queer Neighborhood Council, III Labs, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, ACLU of MA, and the Transgender Emergency Fund have specifically been pressuring local lawmakers on this issue. Late last year, the Boston City Council introduced a resolution condemning “age verification” and censorship legislation, citing harm to the city’s LGBTQ youth. 

Trans youth in Massachusetts are already terrified of losing their health care. They’re being terrorized by a bigoted administration. Now Massachusetts lawmakers are advancing legislation that would cut them off from access to lifesaving online resources and support? Shameful doesn’t begin to cover it. 

Big Tech social media companies cause real harm, and lawmakers are right to want to do something about it. They should pass privacy, antitrust, and algorithmic justice legislation that actually makes sense and is enforceable. Instead, Massachusetts legislators are actively helping Trump’s authoritarian takeover by pushing for legislation that expands censorship and surveillance. This bill is a gift to the Palantirs of the world—expanding Trump’s surveillance state by forcing everyone to associate their government ID with everything they post at a time when the DOJ is sending subpoenas to social media companies demanding they hand over the names of people running accounts critical of ICE. 

This legislation would make kids less safe, not more safe, while forcing everyone to upload their government ID or submit to a facial recognition scan in order to post online. The definition of “social media” in the bill is so wildly broad it would sweep in almost the entire Internet, including resources like Wikipedia. 

Even red states with conservative supermajorities have avoided some of the parental surveillance provisions present in the Massachusetts bill that raise serious concerns for the safety of LGBTQ youth and young people’s right to privacy. Requiring social media platforms to verify parental consent is completely unworkable. The logistics of this requirement are a nightmare: proving that an adult is a guardian of a child requires giving very sensitive information to social media platforms that are already ripe for data breaches and presents even more obstacles for young people in abusive families, foster care, and parents navigating complicated custody dynamics. This is an impractical and invasive idea that has been abandoned in almost every other version of this type of legislation across the country. 

Age verification and censorship legislation will hurt kids and benefit Big Tech. If Massachusetts lawmakers want to address harm, they should listen to experts, scrap this terrible bill, and instead advance privacy legislation that strikes at the heart of social media companies’ harmful business practices.

We recommend Massachusetts lawmakers engage with human rights groups on their concerns with this bill. We oppose any version of this bill that mandates invasive age verification, bans young people from social media, requires parental surveillance of teenagers, and strips everyone on the internet regardless of age of their anonymity.

Additional resources on this topic:

Signed,

Act on Mass
Advocates for Youth
Arts Equity Group
ArtsWorcester
Asian American Resource Workshop
Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network – Massachusetts
Boston Democratic Socialists of America
Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective
Brandeis Democrats
Digital Fourth
EducateUS
Episcopal City Misson
Fight for the Future
For Artists By Artists
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Frizz Media
GreenRoots
Guardian Project
IfNotNow Boston
Indivisible Upper Cape
Intersectional Innovation and Impact (III) Labs
Jamaica Plain for Palestine
Jamaica Plain Progressives
Jewish Voice for Peace – Boston
Kavod Boston
Mass 50501
Massachusetts Pirate Party
Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC)
MassEquality
Matahari Women’s Worker Center
Mid Cape Indivisible
MRKH Intersex
Muslim Justice League
Neighborhood Grow Plan
North Shore Progressives
Old Pros Org
Pa’lante Transformative Justice
Parenting is Political
Partners in Sex Education
Progressive Massachusetts
Protect Trans Futures
Secular Student Alliance
SIECUS
Sierra Club Massachusetts
Somerville for Palestine
Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice (SCIJ)
Student Press Law Center
The Coalition for Student Mental Health
The Cordial Eye
The Queer Neighborhood Council
The Tor Project
Unitarian Universalist Mass Action Network
United American Indians of New England (UAINE)
V’ahavtah: A Judaism Beyond Zionism Synagogue
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Yale Privacy Lab

MA Senate Votes 37 to 3 for the PROTECT Act

The MA Senate today voted 37 to 3 to pass the PROTECT Act, which takes important steps to protect immigrant communities in Massachusetts, such as banning new 287(g) agreements, preventing law enforcement from asking about immigration status or using resources for civil immigration enforcement, limiting information sharing with ICE, protecting courthouses and other sensitive locations, and more.

After four efforts to weaken the bill, Republicans Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) joined Democrats in voting for it.

Bruce Tarr’s amendment to strike language giving any money received for the Department of Correction’s 287(g) agreement with ICE to the Office of Refugees and Immigrants failed 5 to 34 (party line).

His amendment to bar any entity receiving public funds for legal representation in immigration law from representing undocumented people similarly failed on a party line vote of 5 to 34. Amid attacks on due process, everyone should be entitled to representation. Legal representation can actually help people secure legal status.

Tarr’s amendment to weaken the provision banning police from asking about immigration status failed 7 to 32, with Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) and John Velis (D-Westfield) joining Republicans.

Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton)’s amendment to allow ICE detainers, which violate due process rights as well as the Massachusetts constitution, failed 10 to 29. John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), and John Velis (D-Westfield) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The Senate adopted six amendments to strengthen the bill:

  • Senator Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston)’s amendments to protect the courthouse grounds as well as the insides of courthouses (#10) and to establish a commission on matters related to federal immigration enforcement in the Commonwealth (#20)
  • Senator Adam Gómez (D-Springfield)’s amendments to expedite the bill’s effective date (#7) and to broaden the definition of child care center (#34)
  • Senator Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester)’s amendment to extend sensitive locations protections to Department of Developmental Services facilities and Mass Health Day Habilitation programs (#6)
  • Senator Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury)’s amendment to protect health care workers against retaliation for any attempts to act in good faith in following the bill’s dictates (#13)

Support & Strengthen the PROTECT Act

he MA Senate is voting tomorrow on the PROTECT Act (S.3072), which takes important steps to protect immigrant communities in Massachusetts, such as banning new 287(g) agreements, preventing law enforcement from asking about immigration status or using resources for civil immigration enforcement, limiting information sharing with ICE, protecting courthouses and other sensitive locations, and more.

The MA Senate has the opportunity to strengthen the bill by adopting the following amendments:

  • Amendment #7 (Gómez): Effective Date Support, which reduces the implementation timeline of the provisions limiting law enforcement collaboration with ICE from 180 days to 30 days from passage
  • Amendment #10 (Edwards): Courthouse Curtilage Support, which extends courthouse protections to the walkways, alleys, driveways, and sidewalks adjacent to the courthouse plus 300 additional feet
  • Amendment #11 (Eldridge): Protect Immigrant Victims of Crime and Trafficking, which helps immigrant victims get faster decisions on certifications they need to apply for immigration relief, especially if they are facing deportation, and makes it clear they can get legal support
  • Amendment #55 (Brady): Language Access and Community Education, which requires translation of model policies for sensitive locations in the Commonwealth’s top 5 languages and requires annual Know Your Rights trainings at schools and covered health care providers.

Can you send your state senator an email in support?(Or leave them a message?)

“‘The bloodless murder of legislation.’ After promising more transparency, Mass. Legislature still killing bills without votes.” | Boston Globe

Kelly Garrity, “‘The bloodless murder of legislation.’ After promising more transparency, Mass. Legislature still killing bills without votes.,” Boston Globe, May 5, 2026.

Public committee votes are a form of holding lawmakers accountable, allowing residents and advocates the ability to thank those who supported their preferred legislation and “call to complain if they voted the way you didn’t want them to,” said Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts.

The pocket study, he said, maintains the Legislature’s “old style.”

“The bloodless murder of legislation,” he said, “where things die, and everybody has clean hands.”

This Thursday at the State House: Our Annual Lobby Day

This Thursday is a big day. The MA Senate will be voting on their draft of the PROTECT Act, and it’s our annual lobby day.

We have just three months left in the formal legislative session, and we need to keep the momentum going.

Join us at the State House as we advocate for priorities from our Legislative Agenda.

We need the MA House to take action where the MA Senate has already: by strengthening data privacy protections and reining in politically motivated book bans.

We need the MA Senate to take action to strengthen the PROTECT Act and protect our immigrant communities, and to rein in utility profiteering and pass an energy bill that doesn’t scapegoat Mass Save.

We need both chambers to say NO to corporate extortionists trying to get themselves ANOTHER massive tax cut.

We need both chambers to commit to investing in people not prisons and not let the prison moratorium that advanced out of committee in both chambers stall.

And rather than wait until the November ballot, we have the opportunity to get the Legislature to pass rent control and Same Day Registration.

Progressive Mass 2026 Lobby Day

Thursday, May 7, 10 am (Doors open at 9:30 am)

Massachusetts State House

RSVP here

All are welcome, whether it’s your first time or your fiftieth time at the State House.

Just Say NO to Corporate Extortionists

Corporate CEOs are backing two ballot questions to cut the income tax. Combined with Trump’s cuts to the state, these questions will blow an $8 Billion hole in the budget, a radical, reckless attack on our state’s finances and working families. This cut of more than 10% of the state’s budget means defunding our schools, our cities and towns, and our health care.

With the threat of such severe cuts, these CEOs are trying to scare the legislature into a backroom deal to cut taxes for millionaires and corporations.

These CEOs are still mad about the passage of the Fair Share Amendment. They chipped in a few more cents per dollar on their income over a million, and we were able to fund universal school meals, free community college, and more. They want to get rid of all of this and more.

The big donors and backers of these questions won’t go to the ballot— they know that such deep cuts will undermine the transportation and services their businesses depend upon. If a few fanatics do go forward, faith, labor, and community groups are ready to defeat them.

If the Legislature concedes and lets these corporate extortionists get their way, they will keep coming back year after year with more threats and more demands. They will keep enriching themselves, and the investments we all depend on will suffer.

Tell your legislators to say NO to negotiating with corporate extortionists and NO to any deal with them.

But there’s more that you can do:

Follow-up to Spring Forward Webinar “Spring Forward: Investing in People, not Prisons: The Prison Moratorium and Beyond”

Thank you so much to everyone who joined our Spring Forward webinar on Wednesday about the prison moratorium and the important work happening on decarceration with Mallory Hanora of Families for Justice as Healing!

Follow-Up Links

  • You can watch the video here. 

1737 Amendments were Filed to the MA House Budget. What Happened to All of them?

Yesterday, the MA House passed its FY 2027 budget with a broadly bipartisan vote of 149 to 9. The 9 NO votes came from the more conservative wing of the House Republican Caucus.

In the lead-up to the floor debate, 1737 amendments were filed to the budget.

Most of them (1,659, or 95.5%) were dispensed with through the consolidated amendment process. House Leadership groups amendments into categories, tosses aside the actual amendments, and then negotiates a set of earmarks and policy changes that will remain in the final package.

This process produced seven consolidated amendments, five of which passed unanimously.

  • Consolidated Amendment “A” (Education & Local Aid/Social Services/Veterans)
  • Consolidated Amendment “B” (Health and Human Services & Aging and Independence)
  • Consolidated Amendment “C” (Public Safety and Judiciary)
  • Consolidated Amendment “D” (Public Health & Mental Health and Disability Services)
  • Consolidated Amendment “E” (Constitutional Officers & State Administration/Transportation)
  • Consolidated Amendment “F” (Energy and Environmental Affairs & Housing)
  • Consolidated Amendment “G” (Labor and Economic Development)

So what about the remaining 78? 48 of them were withdrawn, 29 were rejected, and one was laid aside.

26 of the 29 rejected amendments received recorded votes. All were filed and roll-called by Republicans. Let’s focus on a few in particular.

The House voted party line against various GOP amendments to drain money from the state budget, such as reducing the sales tax, reducing the state income tax, adopting Trump’s “no tax on tips” gimmick (which harms workers more than it helps), and more (Roll Calls #158 to #164).

The House voted down an amendment from Rep. Steve Xiarhos to eliminate cashless bail; the vote was 26 to 129, with Rep. Alan Silvia joining Republicans in voting for it.

Republicans brought up their favorite things to force recorded votes on: suppressing the vote with a photo ID law (27 to 131, with Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut and Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewksbury joining Republicans), defunding No Cost Calls (26 to 132, with Rep. Garry joining Republicans), imposing citizenship requirements for housing assistance (26 to 132, with Garry joining Republicans), preventing the state from using MBTA Communities Act compliance as a condition for grant eligibility (27 to 130, with Garry and Rep. Jeff Turco of Winthrop joining Republicans), making the emergency shelter system more restrictive and more bureaucratic (26 to 131, with Garry joining Republicans), defunding Mass Save (25 to 133, party line), fear-mongering about “welfare fraud” (25 to 133 , party line), and finding new ways to collaborate with Trump’s DHS (25 to 133, party line).

MEJA Letter to State Reps re: FY 2027 Budget

Dear State Representatives, 

Our local public schools face a growing and dire funding crisis, and we need the state to step up and support our students. The recently released House FY26 budget takes several significant steps toward delivering the funding our schools and students need, including increasing per pupil minimum aid to $160, proposing an enrollment decline mitigation fund, and funding the Special Education Circuit Breaker at 75% eligibility for reimbursement. By supporting critical K-12 school funding amendments in the House budget next week, you have an important opportunity to chart a stronger course for our nation-leading public education system. 

As we reach the end of the Student Opportunity Act’s six-year implementation period, we have the chance to continue advancing toward an education system that fully supports every student throughout their educational journey. But the progress we’ve made toward repairing past inequities in education funding is threatened by the high inflation of the past few years, which is forcing districts across the state to make impossible choices. Federal changes impacting our schools and students have made the outlook even worse. 

As a result of high inflation not accounted for in the Chapter 70 funding formula, districts across the state are being forced to cut their budgets, lay off educators and staff, and cancel long-needed investments in programs such as Advanced Placement, arts, and music. Inflation exceeded 7% in FY23 and FY24, but Chapter 70 funding only increased by 4.5%. The costs our students and schools face for out-of-district special education, school transportation, health insurance, and school building projects have increased at an even higher rate. That means cuts to programs our students depend on. 

And as immigrant families face the challenge of surviving under the administration’s deportation regime, families are living in fear and keeping children home from school to avoid ICE. As a result, school enrollment has dropped in dozens of Massachusetts communities this year. Fewer students means cuts to funding — and real consequences — for everyone. 

On behalf of tens of thousands of students, parents, caregivers, educators, and community members across the state, we ask you to support the following amendments to the House’s FY27 budget: 

  • Amendment #41 filed by Rep. Margaret Scarsdale – Ensuring Adequate and Equitable Funding for Public Education
  • Amendment #316 filed by Rep. Jim Hawkins – In District School Transportation
  • Amendment #389 filed by Rep. Sean Reid – Community Schools Program
  • Amendment #1066 filed by Rep. Brandy Fluker-Reid – Charter School Reimbursements
  • Amendment #1203 filed by Rep. Jim Hawkins – Strengthening the Special Education Circuit Breaker Program
  • Amendment #1284 filed by Rep. Orlando Ramos – Chapter 70 Inflation Adjustment
  • Amendment #1586 filed by Rep. Adam Scanion – Special Commission on Chapter 70 Funding
  • Amendment #1713 filed by Rep. Marjorie Decker – Whole Child Grant Program 

We look forward to your support of these much-needed amendments that will ensure that all students in Massachusetts receive the support they need to thrive. 

Thank you, 

Vatsady Sivongxay, Executive Director, Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance (MEJA) 

Jessica Tang, President, American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts (AFT MA) 

Keondre McClay, Executive Director, Boston Education Justice Alliance (BEJA) 

Erik Berg, President, Boston Teachers Union (BTU) 

Lisa Guisbond, Executive Director, Citizens for Public Schools (CPS) 

Viviana M. Abreu-Hernández, President, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MassBudget) 

Tatiana Begault, Executive Director, Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health (MassCOSH)

Alicia Thomas, Co-Director, Pa’lante Transformative Justice (Pa’lante) 

Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director, Progressive Mass (PM) 

Vanny Huot, Director, Revere Youth in Action (RYiA) 

MEJA is a coalition led by Massachusetts students, parents, educators, school and college staff, and education advocates with a shared vision: that all students, regardless of income, race, gender, identity, religion, birthplace, or abilities, have access to high-quality, equitable, and democratically controlled public education that addresses the educational needs of the whole student and where every student thrives to reach their full potential.