PM in the News: “With Mass. House set to vote on its rules, is transparency a priority or a talking point?”

Abigail Pritchard, “With Mass. House set to vote on its rules, is transparency a priority or a talking point?,” New Bedford Light, February 24, 2025.

Jonathan Cohn, the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts, said that this reform would increase efficiency and help supporters of bills know whether their bills are dead or still up for discussion. Most bills die in committee on an unclear timeline, Cohn said.

….

At an action hour on government transparency that Progressive Massachusetts and other organizations hosted Feb. 19, Cohn suggested that the public should have as much time to prepare for a hearing as they need to request time off from work — at least two weeks.

…

Hille and Cohn, of Progressive Massachusetts, credit the growing political movement for transparency with increasing pressure for the proposed rules reforms. Both are hopeful about the House and Senate adopting reforms, but said those can only go so far.

…

Cohn also credits Cambridge’s Evan MacKay with pushing the legislature toward rules reforms. MacKay ran against long-time incumbent Rep. Marjorie Decker last year, losing narrowly after a campaign that criticized the legislature for lack of transparency and consolidation of power. 

“I think that they’re mindful of not wanting to give challengers talking points against them,” Cohn said, “and if that means doing the things that we’re criticizing you for not doing and not making public, I take that as a win.”

New Rules: How Far Did Each Chamber Go in Promoting Transparency?

The 194th session of the Massachusetts General Court began with both Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano promising to take up rules reforms in the service of a more accountable, transparent, and efficient legislative process.

It was clear that this was a direct result of years of advocacy from activists who understood that good process and good outcomes go hand in hand (including a broad coalition push at the start of this session to shape the outcome), the wide margin that Question 1 achieved statewide and in every city/town, and the increased media coverage of State House dysfunction.

What are the rules, and why should you care? Legislative rules govern things like who has access to what information, when things need to happen, what happens in the open vs. behind closed doors, and much more. We know from years of following the Legislature that the mega-rich and large corporations can always get behind closed doors, but we, the people, can’t. And such top-down, non-transparent legislating tips the scales away from working people, from marginalized communities, and from the public interest in general.

The Senate passed its proposed changes to the Joint Rules (joint = House and Senate acting together) and its own chamber rules earlier this month. The House did today.

For each chamber, the rules they adopt for themselves (House rules, Senate rules) are now done. But the rules governing them acting together still need further negotiations. When House and Senate differ, they must go to a conference committee to negotiate a compromise. And they haven’t succeeded at this for the Joint Rules for several sessions. With both chambers proposing important reforms, we need to make sure that this session is different.

So what reforms are at stake? Let’s go through them below. (Want to see the text for each? Check out our deeper dive here.)

House vs. Senate: Drafter of Bill Summaries 

The House and Senate both propose requiring bill summaries for every bill in advance of a hearing, but the House wants committee staff to draft the summaries whereas the Senate wants the lead sponsors to. 

House vs. Senate: Hybrid Hearings & In-Person Privileges 

The House and Senate both continue the practice of hybrid hearings, but the House wants to require in-person attendance for committee members and privilege in-person public testimony over that delivered virtually. 

House vs. Senate: Hearing Notice 

The Senate’s proposal would increase the required hearing notice to 5 days as opposed to the current 72 hours, which the House would like to keep. 

House vs. Senate: Making Testimony Public 

Both House and Senate proposals take steps toward making testimony public. The Senate’s proposal intends for testimony to be published on the Legislature’s website, whereas the House proposal is unclear about whether relevant testimony would be published or available upon request. In both cases, there is an acknowledgement that testimony with sensitive information would be redacted. Notably, in the Senate’s own chamber rules, the Senate has expressed an intent to publish testimony regardless of what is decided in the Joint Rules.

House vs. Senate: Committee Votes 

Both the House and Senate proposals endorse the concept of publishing committee votes, provided that the House language does not maintain a distinction between “roll call votes” and “electronic polls.” The House proposal would require that members be provided with redlined versions of the bill prior to a vote, with that markup made publicly available (whether posted or available upon request, though, is unclear). Notably, in the Senate’s own chamber rules, the Senate has expressed an intent to publish its own members’ votes regardless of what is decided in the Joint Rules.

House vs. Senate: Reporting Deadlines 

Both chambers would like to see the reporting deadline for bills moved up from the first Wednesday in February to a date in December: the first Wednesday for the Senate and the third Wednesday for the House. 

The House proposal includes a rolling reporting deadline, with committees required to take action within 60 days of a hearing, with the possibility of a 30-day subsequent extension (and longer with unanimous consent), but not past the third Wednesday in March. 

The Senate proposal would mark bills receiving no action as being given an adverse report; the House proposal would mark them as being sent to study. 

House vs. Senate: Conclusion of Session

Both chambers’ proposals would extend the Legislature’s ability to take votes after the July 31 end date for the formal legislative session. 

Nearly Identical Changes Made in Both 

New in Both: Chamber Privilege over Chamber Bills 

New text in both chambers’ proposals would give greater Senate control over Senate bills and greater House control over House bills. 

No Corresponding Language In Other Chamber’s Proposal 

House (only): Attendance Reports 

The House’s proposed joint rules require a record of attendance at committee hearings, to be published online. 

House (only): Detailed Conference Reports

The House’s proposed joint rules require conference reports to lay out the areas of disagreement and what each chamber fought for. 

Senate (only): Open Conference Committee Meetings 

The Senate proposal guarantees that the first meeting of a conference committee will be fully public. 

Senate (only): Indigenous Leaders

The Senate proposal would require that leaders of Indigenous communities be afforded the same privileges in speaking order as other public officials. 

Senate (only): Time Before Voting on Conference Reports 

The current rules, as reflected in the House language for Joint Rules, state that a conference committee can file a report at 8 pm and vote on it as early as 1 pm the next day. The Senate would require at least one full day in between.

Transparency Action Hour: Next Steps

Thank you so much for joining us last night! We had 140+ people join to learn and take action together—and to keep the momentum going. And we filled up quite a few voice mails. (And if you weren’t able to make it, you were missed!)

Links from last night:

Earlier today, the House released a summary of their proposed rules changes. There are some positive signs, but we are awaiting the full text and will keep you posted. But for now, the important thing is to make sure that YOUR state rep is hearing from YOU.

Don’t forget to call or email (or both!) your state representatives, and to share the ask with your networks! Again, you can find our action guide at https://tinyurl.com/transparencyactionma. Pass this on to family, friends, and neighbors and ask them to take action for transparency too.

2/19: Transparency Action Hour

Voters have said on the ballot countless times that they want to see a more transparent State Legislature, and we know that the top-down, closed-door nature of policymaking empowers the large corporations and special interests that can get their way in, leaving the rest of us out.

Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano have both promised to take up rules reform to make for a more transparent and efficient legislative process. Last month, 30+ organizations laid out a set of pro-transparency, pro-participation, pro-democracy reforms that would boost public confidence in the legislative process.

With the Senate rules behind us and the House rules being taken up later this month, where does the campaign stand? Join us for a campaign update and an opportunity to make some calls to make sure that state legislators are hearing from us, their constituents.


RSVP here

Senate Passes Proposal for Joint Rules. Next Up: The House.

On Wednesday and Thursday,, the State Senate debated and then passed their proposed Joint Rules for the session as well as their own chamber rules. Read about their rules changes here.

29 amendments were filed to the Joint Rules proposal in the debate:

  • 15 were rejected without a vote.
  • 4 were adopted without a vote.
  • 3 were withdrawn.

Seven amendments received a recorded vote.

  • 5 to 33 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to reduce the maximum number of bills per hearing from 50 to 30. The 5 were the Republican caucus.
  • 5 to 33 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to require at least 48 hours between the filing of a conference committee report (i.e., a compromise bill negotiated between House and Senate to resolve differences) and voting on it. The 5 were the Republican caucus.
  • 6 to 32 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to allow for minority conference committee reports to be filed (i.e., those who disagree with the consensus bill can present an alternative). Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) joined the 5 Republicans.
  • 6 to 32 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to prevent conference committee reports from being considered if filed within the last 72 hours of the session. Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) joined the 5 Republicans.
  • 6 to 32 for an amendment from Senator John Keenan (D-Quincy) to limit the ability of committees to grant extensions to bills past the reporting deadline. Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) and the 5 Republicans voted in support
  • 9 to 29 for an amendment from Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) to require every conference report to receive a recorded vote. Senators Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), John Keenan (D-Quincy), Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham) joined the 5 Republicans.
  • 38 to 0 for an amendment from Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) to extend the ban on members’ selling stocks related to legislation to cover purchases and activity by family members and staff

The House will be taking up their own joint rules package after school vacation week.

MA Senate Votes to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA Senate this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

Following the House’s vote last week, the Senate voted 33 to 6 to pass the bill. As in the House, the only Democrat to vote NO was a conservative Democrat (here, John Velis of Westfield) joining Republicans in opposition to spending, no in opposition to access.

68 amendments were filed:

  • 1 was laid aside
  • 7 received recorded votes (2 adopted, 5 rejected)
  • 11 were withdrawn without vote or debate
  • 11 were adopted without a vote (mostly on data collection and reporting)
  • 38 were rejected without a vote or debate (including numerous amendments to restore access)

The two adopted with recorded votes, both by Sen. Michael Moore (D-Auburn), were both unanimously approved:

  • 38 to 0 to require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) to study the feasibility of conducting a National Crime Information Center background check for each adult applicant or beneficiary placed in the emergency housing assistance program, including logistics and cost.
  • 38 to 0 to require EOHLC to develop a statewide safety plan for the emergency shelter system

Four out of the five rejected amendments were from Republicans:

  • 8 to 30 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals whose cause of homelessness occurred in Massachusetts, thereby excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 12 to 26 to increase the cost of the system and administrative burden for those seeking emergency shelter, further restricting access, through requiring universal background checks when the bill already contains language to look into what that would entail. The purpose of the amendment was not safety, but demonizing immigrants and the unhoused to advance a right-wing agenda. 7 Democrats joined the 5 Republicans: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

  • 6 to 32 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year, excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 6 to 32 to require an investigation into security lapses in the emergency shelter system, something that would just become an opportunity for fear-mongering and not actual solutions. Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

The Senate also voted down (10 to 28) an amendment from Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham) to require the inspector to conduct a review and analysis of all contracts, expenditures, and other materials or accountings pertaining to goods or services that have been or should have been provided pursuant to or in connection with the emergency.

The vote was a cross-partisan coalition of the five Republicans, 2 progressive Democrats–Rausch as well as Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), and 3 moderate Democrats–John Keenan (D-Quincy), Edward Kennedy (D-Lowell), and Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford).

MA House Votes Overwhelmingly to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA House this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

The budget supplemental — which contained a $425 million increase in funding to the system combined with cruel restrictions to access — passed 126 to 26, with all but one Democrat voting yes. All of the chamber’s Republicans and Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), the most conservative Democrat, voted no — in opposition to the added funds (not in opposition to the restrictions). It’s a sad statement on the values of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

38 amendments were filed. 20 of them were withdrawn without discussion or debate. 9 of the remaining 18 were rejected or laid aside without recorded votes, and another 9 received recorded votes.

The House adopted four amendments:

  • A unanimous vote for an amendment to require a competitive bidding process (Amendment #9, 152 to 0)
  • A unanimous vote for an amendment to improve data collection (Amendment #15, 152 to 0)
  • A unanimous vote to extend hardship waivers to families where a family member has a documented disability (#24, 152 to 0)
  • A mostly party-line vote to extend hardship waivers to families with children under age six (#27, 127 to 25, Garry voting with Rs)

The House rejected several Republican amendments to make the bill even more cruel:

  • Requiring expensive criminal background checks for any applicant, a way of further taxing the shelter system and demonizing the unhoused (Amendment #6, 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Reducing the funding to $200 million (Amendment #8, 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Requiring a 12-month residency requirement (and thereby excluding new arrivals), 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Limiting shelter access to families who became homeless because of an event in MA (again, excluding new arrivals or even people who have moved around between MA and neighboring states like RI and NH with high degrees of regional integration) (#18, 25 to 127, Rep. Garry with Rs)

The House also laid aside two Republican amendments to require ICE to be allowed in state shelters, a decision that was upheld by a party line vote to sustain the ruling of the chair each time.

The MA Senate’s Got New (Draft) Rules. Let’s Count ‘Em.

When the new legislative session kicked off on January 1, Sen. President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) expressed interest in taking up a suite of transparency reforms to “build upon the Senate’s commitment to an open and transparent process of legislating.”

The talk about transparency and legislative process reform from both Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano seemed to be a result of the overwhelming public support for Question 1 last year (i.e., the Auditor’s ballot question about auditing the Legislature) and of the negative press the Legislature got for not finishing on time. In response, a group of 30 organizations called on the House and Senate to adopt a robust package of pro-transparency, pro-democracy, pro-participation reforms.

Yesterday (Thursday, February 6), the Senate released its rules proposals for the 2025-2026 session. These rules both include and build upon past proposals from the Senate.

The Senate, for example, has supported making committee votes and testimony public since 2019. Following the 2016 update to the public records law, the House and Senate established a commission studying whether the Legislature and Governor should remain fully exempt from public records law. The commission dissolved with no agreement, but the Senate members of the commission released their own proposals, including these measures.

However, the new rules attempt to bypass the intransigence from the House by requiring that the votes Senators take in joint committees, such as whether or not to advance a bill out of committee, be posted online. The Senate already does this for Senate-only committees. The Senate’s proposed rules would also require that written or in-person testimony received by Senate members of a joint committee be provided publicly online, with an email or online portal established to facilitate this.

The Senate’s proposed rules would also direct the Senate Ways and Means Committee to make bill summaries available online for legislation reported favorably out of the committee. This makes a useful resource already available to all senators available to everyone. Legislative language is often inscrutable given the jargon involved with changing the Massachusetts General Laws, and bill summaries help regular people get a better sense of what is happening in the legislative process.

The Senate also proposed several changes to the joint rules (i.e., the rules that govern House-Senate committees):

  • Joint Hearings But Not Joint Votes: There has been buzz in recent weeks about whether or not joint committees would end up splitting into separate House and Senate committees with separate hearings, etc. The Senate’s proposal keeps joint hearings (saving advocates and the public the labor of having to attend twice as many hearings) but allows for Senate members to vote on Senate bills and House members to vote on House bills. As the House outnumbers the Senate in joint committees, House opposition can lead to committee stalemates or otherwise slow bills that Senators wish to advance.
  • Increased Hearing Notice: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would guarantee five days (one business week) of notice before a hearing as opposed to the current 72 hours. We have advocated for a two-week notice (given how many people need that much lead time to take time off work), but this is still an improvement and is something the Senate has advocated for in the past.
  • An Earlier Reporting Deadline: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require joint committees to report bills out by the first Wednesday in December of the first year of a session as opposed to the current February. This would allow for year one to focus on hearing bills and year two to focus on passing them, pushing back on backlogs and bottlenecks.
  • Open Conference Committee Meetings: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require the full first meeting of a conference committee to be open to the public and the media. This would bring more transparency to the process and create a better sense of what each chamber is fighting for, although all of the meetings should be public — not just the first.
  • Conference Committee Report Time: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require a full calendar day between when a conference committee report is filed and when the report is acted upon to allow legislators and members of the public more time to review legislation before votes are taken. Currently, they can vote just a few hours after text is released, all but guaranteeing that few people will have read it.
  • Bill Summaries in Joint Committees: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require bill sponsors to submit comprehensive bill summaries to the joint committees holding hearings on the legislation, to be made publicly available with the bill. This helps members of the public, the press, and the rank-and-file better understand what proposed bills would do.

These changes would all make a more transparent, inclusive, and informed legislative process. However, one other change would normalize recent bad habits. The Senate’s proposed joint rules would allow for conference reports (the compromise text negotiated by the House and Senate when they differ on a bill) to be filed and debated after the July 31st deadline for formal session. This allows for more work to be pushed after election season and after legislators are regularly meeting, meaning less input and less accountability.

Take Action to Protect Families and Children Experiencing Homelessness

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, they are voting today to kick unhoused families out on the streets.

For over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need. Since November 2023, new policies from the Governor and Legislature have chipped away at access to shelter.

The House is planning to chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

Let’s be clear: if Beacon Hill wants to control the costs of emergency shelter, they should listen to providers and advocates, not the comment section of the Boston Herald.

Here’s what you can do:

1. If you have time to make a phone call to your state rep, phone calls always make the biggest difference. Find your state rep’s phone number here.

2. If you don’t have time for a call, emails are still very important! Use our template here.

Email Your State Rep

Here’s what your legislator should hear from you:

  • The emergency shelter system needs more money. MA is a rich state; “we don’t have the money” is never a valid excuse.
  • But new money should not come with harmful restrictions to access that kick families out on the street.
  • Support critical amendments to the supplemental budget to protect families facing homelessness.

The following amendments are supported by Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless:

  •   Amendment 38, Rep. Uyterhoeven: removes the proposed 6-month length of stay limit, and removes the proposed cap of 4,000 families in EA shelter
  •   Amendment 32, Rep. Uyterhoeven: protects presumptive eligibility for EA shelter
  •   Amendment 29, Rep. Decker & Amendment 37, Rep. Connolly: removes the proposed cap of 4,000 families in EA shelter
  •   Amendment 23, Rep. Barber: increases the HomeBASE award to $50,000 over 24 months, from $30,000 over 24 months
  •   Amendment 27, Rep. Decker: requires waiver to the length of stay limit for households who have a child under age 13
  •   Amendment 5, Rep. LeBeouf: requires waivers to the length of stay limit for families who have a household member with a documented disability
  •   Amendment 28, Rep. Decker: allow EA families to increase income without losing eligibility for EA shelter

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