Our 2025-2026 Legislative Agenda

Our Shared Prosperity Agenda

Large corporations need to pay their fair share so that we can protect essential services and continue to invest in our Commonwealth. 

Corporate Fair Share (HD.3390 / SD.1684)

  • Title: An Act combating offshore tax avoidance 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Carlos González; Sens. Jason Lewis & Liz Miranda 
  • What It Does: Makes large global mega-corporations pay the state’s existing corporate tax rate on a higher share of the excess profits they conceal in offshore tax havens 

All students deserve well-resourced, supportive schools that set them up for success

Thrive Act (HD.4328 / SD.1401)

  • Title: An Act empowering students and schools to thrive 
  • Lead Sponsor: Rep. Sam Montaño; Sen. Adam Gomez 
  • What It Does: Ends state takeovers of public schools/districts, establishes a commission to shape the future of student assessments, and curbs the privatization of public education 

Funding Our Public Schools (HD.2334 / SD.1719

  • Title: An Act to fix the Chapter 70 inflation adjustment 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Orlando Ramos; Sen. Robyn Kennedy 
  • What It Does: Makes a technical fix to the state education funding formula so that state funding to public school districts keeps pace with inflation over time

Debt-Free Public Higher Ed (HD.1473 / SD.300

  • Title:  An Act relative to debt-free public higher education
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Natalie Higgins & Carmine Gentile; Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Creates a higher education system where every Massachusetts resident has a right to attend any public college or university free of tuition and fees 

We need to empower our cities and towns to take action to address our housing crisis. 

Real Estate Transfer Fee (HD.1112 / SD.1216)

  • Title: An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Mike Connolly & Rep. Carmine Gentile; Sen. Jo Comerford
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns to levy a modest fee on high-end residential and commercial real estate transactions to create dedicated funding for affordable housing 

Rent Stabilization (HD.2501 / SD.1084)

  • Title: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants 
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Dave Rogers & Sam Montaño; Sen. Pat Jehlen
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns to pass rent stabilization ordinances to fight displacement

Tenant Opportunity to Purchase  (HD.1925 / SD.1068)

  • Title: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal
  • Lead Sponsors:  Reps. Jay Livingstone & Rob Consalvo; Sen. Pat Jehlen
  • What It Does: Enables cities and towns to give tenants the right of first refusal to purchase a building when the owner puts it up for sale 

We are all healthier when we all have access to high-quality care without cost burden. 

Medicare for All (HD.1228SD.2341)

  • Title:  An Act establishing medicare for all in Massachusetts
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Lindsay Sabadosa & Margaret Scarsdale; Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Establishes a single payer system, in which the state provides health care to all residents as a right

Our Racial and Social Justice Agenda

A fair, humane criminal legal system is one that allows for second chances and focuses on investing in economic opportunity, not in incarceration. 

Raise the Age (HD.3632 / SD.2115)

  • Title: An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Jim O’Day & Manny Cruz; Sen. Brendan Crighton
  • What It Does: End the automatic prosecution of older adolescents as adults by gradually shifting 18- to 20-year-olds into the juvenile justice system

Clean Slate (HD.1788 / SD.949)

  • Title: An Act requiring clean slate automated record sealing
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Mary Keefe; Sen. Cindy Friedman
  • What It Does: Creates an automated system in Massachusetts to seal criminal records as soon as people are eligible

Prison Moratorium (HD.523 / SD.671

  • Title: An Act establishing a jail and prison construction moratorium
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Chynah Tyler; Sen. Jo Comerford
  • What It Does: Enacts a five-year pause on new prison and jail construction in order to provide time to develop more effective, community-based approaches to public safety

The family separation of deportation and incarceration weakens our communities. Families belong together. 

Safe Communities Act (HD.3816 / SD.1670)

  • Title: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Manny Cruz & Priscila Sousa; Sens. Jamie Eldridge & Liz Miranda
  • What It Does: Limits local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, protects access to justice in our courts, and ensures due process protections

Immigrant Legal Defense Act (HD.4072 / SD.2057)

  • Title: An Act ensuring access to equitable representation in immigration proceedings
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Dave Rogers & Frank Moran; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does:  Creates a funded program for legal defense of immigrants facing deportation proceedings, especially those in federal detention

Visitation Bill (HD.3241 / SD.985)

  • Title: An Act to build restorative family and community connection
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Marjorie Decker; Sen. Liz Miranda
  • What It Does: Eliminates arbitrary, unnecessary restrictions on visitation rights in prisons, jails, and ICE detention units

Privacy rights are essential to protect abortion patients and providers, trans people and their families, journalists, and more from attack by bad actors. 

Location Shield Act (HD.2965 / SD.501

  • Title:  An Act to protect safety and privacy by stopping the sale of location data
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Prohibits companies from selling cell phone location data

An inclusive society is one where we celebrate our diversity, not seek to ban books or whitewash history. 

Right to Learn Bill (HD.625 / SD.141) 

  • Title: An Act regarding free expression 
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. John Moran & Rep. Adam Scanlon; Sen. Julian Cyr
  • What It Does: Ensures that public and school libraries can offer diverse and inclusive books, media, and materials without political interference

CARE Bill (HD.2271 / SD.1289)

  • Title:  An Act to promote comprehensive and inclusive curriculum in schools
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Tram Nguyen & Rep. Steve Ultrino; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Sets standards of accuracy and comprehensiveness in public school instruction for all students to learn about the histories, experiences, perspectives, heritages, and cultures of all Americans

Our Sustainable Infrastructure & Environmental Protection Agenda

We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and ensure that the major polluters who have caused the climate crisis pay for the cost of climate action. 

Put Gas in the Past (HD.3428 / SD.2088)

  • Title: An Act preventing gas expansion to protect climate, community health and safety
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Bud Williams & Adrianne Ramos; Sen. Adam Gomez
  • What It Does: Prevents the expansion of gas infrastructure near Environmental Justice communities and requires gas companies and the Commonwealth to undergo planning for a just transition to green energy 

Make Polluters Pay (HD.3369 / SD.1674)

  • Title: An Act establishing a climate change superfund 
  • Lead Sponsors: Reps. Steve Owens & Jack Lewis; Sen. Jamie Eldridge 
  • What It Does: Requires major polluters to pay a fee based on historic emissions to pay for the costs of climate resilience

Our Good Government & Strong Democracy Agenda

Our democracy is strongest when everyone can participate, whether in elections or the legislative process. 

Same Day Registration (HD.856 / SD.667

  • Title: An Act establishing same day registration of voters
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Carmine Gentile; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Enables eligible citizens to register to vote at the polls, eliminating the arbitrary  10-day voter registration window

Decoupling the Municipal Census from the Voter Rolls (HD.2673 / SD.636

  • Title: An Act decoupling the municipal census from voter registration
  • Lead Sponsors: Rep. Shirley Arriaga; Sen. Cindy Creem
  • What It Does: Ends the use of the municipal census to remove voters from the active voter lists 

Sunlight Act (SD.467

  • Title: An Act to provide sunlight to state government
  • Lead Sponsor: Sen. Jamie Eldridge
  • What It Does: Promotes transparency in state government by removing the Governor’s exemption from public records law, requiring committee votes and legislative testimony to be public, and requiring 2 weeks notice for legislative hearings 

MA Has a Democratic State House. But Do We Have a *Democratic* State House?

At the start of the legislative session, both Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano said that they would take up reforms during the Rules debate in February to increase transparency and boost public confidence in the legislative process.

It’s no surprise why they are singing such a tune: Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s ballot question about auditing the State Legislature won every single city and town with a commanding lead, and the press rightly and repeatedly called out the Legislature last session for missing deadline after deadline and doing so much of their work in the dark (when and if there was work even being done).

But here’s what’s clear to us: we, the public, should be saying what would boost public confidence in the legislative process. That’s not a decision to be left just to State House Leadership.

Everyday people need to have clear ways of following what happens in our State House, making their voice heard, and seeing that their voice can actually have an impact.

That’s why we joined a wide-ranging list of advocacy groups from across the Commonwealth calling for a suite of reforms to boost transparency, participation, and public accountability. But if we want any of these changes to happen, then your legislators need to hear from you too.

The changes include the following:

  • Improving public access to information by making committee votes and testimony public
  • Increasing opportunities for public engagement in the legislative process by providing adequate notice of hearing schedules, further limiting the number of bills per hearing, providing testifiers with an understanding of speaking order, and guaranteeing the right of incarcerated individuals to testify (a practice which began last session)
  • Creating a more open, robust, and timely committee process by requiring public committee markup sessions and public committee reports with bill summaries, moving up the hearing and reporting timelines, expediting hearings for bills that advanced in the prior session, and requiring Conference Committees to meet in open session
  • Providing more time to read legislation, whether bills or floor amendments

Your legislators will say that the public doesn’t actually care about any of this. It’s our job to show that they are wrong. Can you take a minute to email your state legislators?

30 Advocacy Organizations Call on Beacon Hill to Adopt Suite of Transparency Reforms

Wednesday January 22, 2025

Speaker Ron Mariano

24 Beacon St.

Room 356

Boston, MA, 02133

Senate President Karen Spilka

24 Beacon St.

Room 332

Boston, MA, 02133

Speaker Ron Mariano and President Karen Spilka,

The citizens of Massachusetts have made it clear: we expect our legislature to be transparent, democratic, and accountable to its constituents. 

We write to you as advocates and concerned citizens who have a vested interest in such a legislature. Building on a rich democratic history that pre-dates our federal democracy, Massachusetts ought to be a leader in just democratic rule and civic action. Instead, national rankings in recent years place us towards the bottom with regards to public ease of access to information, competitive elections, and financial transparency.  

Massachusetts distinguishes itself by being the only state in the entire country in which all three branches of government hold themselves exempt from public records law. This means that for most citizens of the Commonwealth, their municipal governments and town meetings are held to a higher standard of transparency and accountability than their state representatives and elected officials.

Calls for transparency and accountability in recent years have also been paired with demands for a democratization of power structures within the General Court. Testimony from former representatives confirms that meaningful debate– even outside of the public eye– is increasingly rare and openly breaking ranks is punished. The vast majority of Democratic representatives vote with leadership 100% of the time. These realities run counter to key democratic principles, which hold that open and robust processes of lawmaking, including disagreement, are essential to produce the best outcomes and ensure proper representation. 

Concentrating the meaningful work of lawmaking in fewer and fewer powerful hands benefits paid lobbyists and corporate interests at the expense of grassroots advocates and everyday citizens. It also creates bottlenecks– a fact that was made all the more evident in this most recent legislative session. The first year of the 193rd session saw a record low number of votes or bills passed. At the July 31st deadline, advocates and rank-and-file electeds alike were left blindsided by the failure of nine major bills that had taken months to construct because negotiations stalled in closed-door committees, away from the eye of the public and fellow electeds. 

While the legislature made commendable progress on these bills in informal sessions, it was at the cost of representative democracy. Informal sessions are poorly attended and most lawmaking was in closed-door conference committees. The overwhelming majority of outstanding legislation since July then passed without a recorded vote. 

Regardless of the ultimate passage of versions of these bills, the fact remains that the processes by which they were passed exemplify the legislature’s existing problems with transparency, accountability, and democracy. The public’s demands for reform continue not in spite of but in no small part because of the events of the most recent session. 

In the wake of the recent national election, we need Democratic officeholders to focus on rebuilding public trust in government and the ability of government to deliver for people. Essential to rebuilding that trust is a robust and open process where people feel that they can participate and that if they participate, they will be listened to.

We were encouraged to hear in both of your opening remarks last week that you are considering transparency reforms as a serious priority in revising the legislature’s rules. Although rules changes alone will not suffice to truly correct the power dynamics and climate at the State House, they are a tool by which the legislature could be made immediately more transparent. To make a meaningful difference, such rules changes must increase transparency of multiple phases of the legislative process. Piecemeal changes that do little to tackle the deep underlying problems will not sufficiently respond to the public need for reform. 

As advocates, we have clocked years of experience helping fellow citizens navigate the legislative process, participating in discussions about process reform, and generating ideas about what it would take to make it the democratic, accountable, and transparent legislature it ought to be. Building upon this experience, we offer the following list of rules reforms to serve as a benchmark for meaningful change. 

These changes would improve public access to information, increase opportunities for public engagement in the legislative process, create a more robust and open committee process, provide legislators with more time to read bills and amendments, and share power. Taken together, they constitute necessary steps along the path towards the very legislature which the people of Massachusetts have clearly demanded.

While you discuss and adopt changes to the legislative process, we also stress the importance of not adopting any that would, in fact, take us backwards in terms of transparency and public participation. Any normalization of last session’s practice of extending conference committees past July 31st in the second year of session would further limit the ability of rank-and-file legislators and constituents to make their voices heard in the legislative process and is unacceptable. 

Improving Public Access to Information 

  1. Make committee votes public: all votes taken in House, Senate, and joint committees, including electronic polls, should be made publicly available on the Legislature’s website on the page of the relevant bill.
    1. This helps everyday people better understand the mechanics of the legislative process, as a bill moves forward from filing to passage. 
    2. Non-binding ballot questions on this issue have passed in 36 House districts over the years with an average of 87% of voters in support.
    3. A majority of US state legislatures already publish such votes, including states like California, Connecticut, Maine, and New Jersey.
    4. The technology to do this already exists, as Senate Committees post such votes. 
    5. A committee vote should include a list of those who vote in the affirmative, those who vote in the negative, those who opt to reserve their rights, and those not voting. 
  1. Make testimony submitted to committees public: all testimony submitted to committees should be made public, with appropriate redactions for sensitive information
    1. Seeing the arguments being put forth both for and against any piece of legislation provide a clearer picture of why a bill is or is not advancing and what is at stake. It increases the ability of everyday people to participate and empowers rank-and-file legislators to understand what is happening outside of their given committees. 
    2. This is already standard practice in such states as Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 
    3. The technology to do this already exists, as the House did so during the police reform debate in 2020. 

Increasing Opportunities for Public Engagement in the Legislative Process

  1. Provide adequate notice of hearing schedules
    1. Several committees have played a leadership role in improving public access to hearings by establishing a clear hearing schedule, with dates and topics designated. All committees should adopt this practice and should post such a schedule by April 1st of the first year of the legislative session. 
    2. House, Senate, and Joint committees should be required to announce the full details of said committee hearings, replete with brief summaries of the bills being heard, with at least two weeks’ notice.  
    3. This would improve the accessibility of committee hearings to working people, so that it is truly possible for all citizens to participate in the legislative process and offer testimony. 
    4. The recent advances in hybrid hearings have been an important and much-appreciated tool to expand participation, but many people are unable to change their work schedules on just a few days of notice. 

2. Limit the number of bills per hearing. 

  1. Public hearings are a critical opportunity for everyday people to make their voices heard in the legislative process; however, when too many bills are heard at the same time, hearings can get inordinately long, making a 3-minute testimony into a full-day affair. 
  2. All testifiers should be able to make their voice heard, and the best way to ensure this is to limit the number of bills per hearing to a reasonable number. The current 50-bill limit in Joint Rule 1D is too high. A limit of 20 bills per hearing would be more reasonable and provide greater focus. 

3. Provide speaking order for hearings to testifiers

  1. This is common practice in some, but not all, hearings. When people are traveling from across the Commonwealth and losing or adjusting wages at hourly jobs to testify in person because of the importance of an issue for them, they should be able to have an approximate understanding of when in a multi-hour hearing they might speak. 

4. Guarantee of the Ability of Incarcerated Individuals to Testify at Hearings

  1. Hybrid hearings have allowed for expanded accessibility of hearings in myriad ways, including enabling incarcerated individuals to testify at hearings. This began in the summer of 2023 when women from MCI-Framingham were able to testify on the prison moratorium bill.
  2. When legislators craft policy, they need to hear from those most impacted by such policy decisions, and the inclusion of incarcerated individuals’ voices is vital, especially around prison conditions and the criminal legal system.
  3. The Legislature must ensure that this right to testify is preserved and that there is no limit on the number of incarcerated individuals from any facility who are able to testify at a given hearing, the same right afforded to the general public.

Creating a More Open, Robust, and Timely Committee Process

1. Require public committee markup sessions. 

  1. The public is not able to see how and why a bill changes from its filing to its report out of committee. To empower all members of a committee to affect legislation and to build public trust in the decision-making process, committees should hold public markup sessions as they used to decades ago. Votes to report legislation favorably, report legislation adversely, or send legislation to study should occur only in such sessions. 

2. Publish committee reports with summaries, rationales, and other information. 

  1. Committee staff are already doing impressive work compiling information on a bill, so that information should be made available to all legislators and the public. It helps rank-and-file legislators better understand what is happening in other committees and the public to better understand legislators’ rationale behind bills and to understand what those bills would do and how they might benefit. 
  2. Bills reported out of an “issue area” committee should be accompanied by substantive reports with a) a summary of the bill; b) a summary of the arguments advanced pro/con at the bill hearing and in written testimony submitted; c) a list of organizations and individuals that testified pro/con on the bill; d) a list of organizations and individuals that met or otherwise communicated with the Committee Leadership. And when a bill gets reported out of a committee like Ways & Means or Third Reading, those reports should also include an explanation of any changes made to the bill.
  3. A gold standard of such reports is the California state legislature. Other legislatures that make public the summaries of bills in committee reports include Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon.

3. Start hearings early and move up the reporting deadline. 

  1. In our neighboring states in New England, committees are already scheduling or hosting hearings. As the urgency of action rises due to the incoming Trump administration, Massachusetts must be able to act quickly and flexibly to respond to threats. This requires an expedited hearing timeline, with hearings not delayed until the summer, fall, and winter, but occurring on a robust timeline starting March 1st in parallel to the budget process, not after. 
  2. The reporting deadline for committees (Joint Rule 10 deadline) should also be moved up, from its current date in February of next year to December 19 of this year, matching the last date of possible formal sessions for the calendar year. By reporting bills out earlier, the Legislature would more clearly set the agenda for the second year of work and guard against future bottlenecks. 

4. Expedite process for bills reported out favorably in the prior session

  1. Committees put significant work into bills that get reported out, with conversations with advocates, experts, and the public, but if those bills do not get passed, then they start right back at square one in the next session. This slows down the legislative process and requires significant duplicative work. 
  2. Refiled bills that were reported out last session should have hearings by July 31 of the first year of the session. 

5. Require Conference Committees to meet in open session. 

  1. Conference Committees should be meeting in the open, providing an opportunity for the House and Senate members to lay out the clear rationale for their respective chamber’s preferences on a given bill. 
  2. This openness benefits both rank-and-file legislators and the public, who are left in the dark for months as Conference Committees can sometimes last up to a year. 

Provide More Time to Read Legislation 

  1. Provide at least 72 hours to read bills. 
    1. When the legislative process gets rushed, the odds of drafting errors rises, even under the best of intentions. 
    2. With ample time before receiving a bill and floor debate, legislators, experts, advocates, and engaged community members then have the opportunity to more thoroughly evaluate a bill, and legislators will better understand what they are actually voting on.
  2. Provide at least 30 minutes to read floor amendments. 
    1. During floor debates, amendments are routinely redrafted or consolidated/bundled. Legislators should be granted the courtesy of at least a half hour to read the text of what is being brought to the floor. 

Adopting these reforms in the upcoming rules debate will be an important step forward in creating a more open and transparent legislative process. However it is not the end. We also urge you to comply with the audit requested by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio. The State Auditor’s power to audit the legislature was confirmed by 72% of voters and the majority of voters in every city and town in Massachusetts. Improving public confidence in the Legislative process must entail respecting the clear will of the voters. 

We look forward to working together towards our shared commitment to a legislature that is transparent, accountable, and democratic.

Sincerely,

350 Mass / Better Future Project 

Act on Mass 

American Federation of Teachers – MA 

Asian American Resource Workshop 

Berkshire Environmental Action Team 

Boston Catholic Climate Movement 

Climate Action Now, Western MA 

Climate Code Blue

Community Action Agency of Somerville

Fairmount Indigo CDC Collaborative

Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution Climate Task Force 

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Families for Justice as Healing

Food & Water Watch

Homes for All Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Climate Action Network 

Massachusetts Peace Action 

Massachusetts Sierra Club 

Mass-Care: the Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care

Our Climate 

Our Revolution Massachusetts 

Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast, Inc.

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts

Progressive Massachusetts 

Reclaim Roxbury 

RESTORE: The North Woods

Save Massachusetts Forests 

Springfield No One Leaves 

Third Act MA 

Trees as a Public Good Network 

UU Mass Action

PM in the News: “Spill of the Hill: Healey hears it from both sides”

Mike Deehan, “Spill of the Hill: Healey hears it from both sides,” Axios Boston, January 22, 2025.

What they’re saying: “Governor Maura Healey is using this moment to sound Trumpian in her approach to emergency shelter,” Progressive Massachusetts policy director Jonathan Cohn wrote in response to Healey’s proposed shelter changes.

He called Healey’s move “straight out of the playbook of the soon-to-be-president and the right-wing Republicans in Congress.””

Take Action: Just Say NO to Attacks on the Right to Shelter

Inauguration Day was rough. We know that we have our work cut out for us over the next four years to protect Massachusetts from Trump’s hateful agenda and to ensure that Massachusetts is a more just and equitable Commonwealth where “all” really does mean “all.”

You’ll hear from us soon about bills that we can advocate for this session to do both (we’ll be announcing our legislative agenda at our annual meeting), but beyond the work of protecting MA and charging forward, there’s one more critical piece: we can’t go backwards.

And going backwards is exactly what Governor Maura Healey is trying to do with new proposed restrictions on emergency shelter access.

Over forty years ago, Massachusetts passed a right to shelter for unhoused families, based on a moral belief that babies and children should not be forced to sleep on the streets.

But over the past year, Governor Healey has been chipping away at this law bit by bit. After making tighter and tighter time limits for emergency shelter, her latest proposals combine new requirements designed to restrict access, limits as short as 30 days, and a Trumpian ban on undocumented immigrants and new arrivals.

As Trump demonizes immigrants and launches an agenda of cutting vital services to give tax cuts to the rich, the last thing that Massachusetts needs to do is tell him “We’re on board.”

Tell your legislator to say NO to Healey’s attacks on emergency shelter access.

Senate Scorecard Update: The Rest of 2024 in Review

The 193rd session finished as the clock struck midnight and December 31 became January 1st. Rather than merely running out the clock against their usual July 31 legislative deadline, the MA House and Senate nearly went almost all the way up to the end of the year.

Blowing past deadlines is not a new phenomenon in the Massachusetts State House. But what was new this session was the record low number of recorded votes: 203 in the House and 252 in the Senate. By contrast, the average number of recorded votes for all the sessions from 2005 to 2022 (under both Democratic and Republican governors) was 522 in the House and 482 in the Senate; the House, in other words, was well over 50% below average and the Senate getting close. That makes the work of putting together a scorecard—a vital accountability tool—harder. 

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators. With fewer votes, there are fewer contrasts. 

When putting together a corecard, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps.

We also avoid giving credit where credit has already been given: if we score a bill at one stage of the legislative process, we shy away from scoring its final passage later on to avoid duplication. However, when bills or amendments run counter to progressive values, we may score their multiple appearances. 

See our full scorecard here or on https://scorecard.progressivemass.com.

In the session since our last scorecard, the Senate was more willing to pass standalone bills than the House (even if their standalone bills often combined multiple smaller bills too). That included a bill to ban third-party electric suppliers from enrolling new individual residential customers, protecting residents from unfair and deceptive practices that have led to higher energy bills for low-income families (25s, party-line), and a comprehensive bill to reduce plastic waste (30s). Although the Plastics Reduction Act garnered the support of two Republicans (Bruce Tarr of Gloucester and Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth) along with the full Democratic caucus, some efforts to weaken the bill were bipartisan. An amendment to make a proposed ten-cent fee for recycled paper carryout bags optional for retailers failed clearly 8 to 30, but with four Democrats joining Republicans: Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield). The House refused to take up either bill, with some controversy around the former.

The Senate’s Affordable Homes Act (i.e., housing bond bill) debate had even fewer recorded votes than the House’s. Despite being in session from 10 am to midnight to work through the bill (with frequent recesses therein), there were almost no recorded votes, and there was little debate.

In the age of the MBTA Communities Act, the new law requiring communities with MBTA service to establish a zoning district where multifamily housing can be built as of right, the Republican Party has become a NIMBY bastion, a bit of irony given that Charlie Baker was the law’s biggest champion. Accordingly, Senate Republicans made an—unsuccessful—effort to create an appeals process to allow communities to evade the law (31s). Two Democrats—Edward Kennedy of Lowell and Walter Timilty of Milton—joined Republicans to vote for it. Although the Senate’s bill included a number of important provisions, we decided not to score it due to the Senate’s exclusion of the real estate transfer fee local option, which Governor Healey had supported: the unanimous final vote on the housing bond bill hides more about the process than it reveals. 

The budget, as “must-pass” legislation, produced a comparatively large share of total recorded votes given the number of amendments filed: the Senate took 44 recorded votes during its budget debate. Most were, of course, unanimous. However, a few were not. The Senate voted 34 to 5 against a Republican amendment to extend the statutory two-day sales tax holiday (a costly gimmick that accomplishes nothing) to two weeks, with Walter Timilty (D-Milton) joining the 4 Republicans (26s). The Senate voted 29 to 10 against a Republican amendment  to undermine the Fair Share Amendment by allowing high-income couples to evade the surtax by filing separate tax returns if they have filed a joint federal tax return (27s). Six Democrats joined the four Republicans: Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Joan Lovely (D-Salem), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield). Shockingly, Collins, Lovely, Timilty, and Velis voted the exact opposite way the year prior (3s). 

The Senate also voted 30 to 9 to create a new advisory commission to determine a new seal and motto of the commonwealth (to replace the current very racist flag and seal), as recommended by the last commission (29s). Six Democrats joined 3 out of the 4 Republicans in voting against it: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Ed Kennedy (D-Lowell), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield). Republican Bruce Tarr of Gloucester joined Democrats in voting yes. 

The Senate’s economic development bill in July became another source of non-unanimous votes despite the unanimity behind the final bill. Two votes were party line: one to strengthen our public health infrastructure by re-passing a bill that the Legislature had passed last session but too late to override Governor Baker’s veto and one to defeat a Republican amendment to reduce the tax rate for short-term capital gains, an attempted giveaway to the top 1 percent (33s; 34s). 

The Senate also used the economic development bill as a vehicle to increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds—keeping high school seniors out of the adult prison system, something they also voted for back in 2017 (32s). Voting against the measure were the chamber’s four Republicans as well as Democrats Nick Collins (D-South Boston), John Cronin (D-Fitchburg), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield). 

Several Democrats who opposed such a measure in 2017 have since come around: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), and Mike Rush (D-Westport). Rodrigues and Rush have both voted better than their ideology on certain legislation given their need to vote in line with the Senate President as part of the Leadership team. 

Despite our reservations around unanimous votes, we did include two of them because if we encourage legislators to vote for a bill, we believe that we should include that bill in our scorecard. On that front, both chambers voted to update Massachusetts’s forty-year-old parentage statutes to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction (36s) and pass comprehensive maternal health legislation that would expand equitable access to midwifery care, allow more birth centers to open, offer paid pregnancy loss leave, and more (37s).

When the Senate belatedly took up a bill to address the Steward crisis, the amendment votes often reflected lobbying coming from the Senate Leadership and the Mass Nurses Association in opposite directions, leading to strange bedfellows. An example in point: the Senate voted 25 to 14 against an amendment creating a moratorium on any hospital, provider, or provider organization entering into any financial agreement with a private equity firm, real estate investment trust, or management services organization until 180 days after the bill’s regulations go into effect (35s). Voting yes were two reliable progressives: Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough) and Adam Gomez (D-Springfield), the chamber’s four Republicans, and then eight mostly more moderate-to-conservative Democrats (Michael Brady of Brockton, Nick Collins of South Boston, John Keenan of Quincy, Edward Kennedy of Lowell, Mark Montigny of New Bedford, Michael Moore of Auburn, Marc Pacheco of Taunton, and Walter Timilty of Milton). 

The Senate passed their chamber’s siting reform and clean energy climate package in June. The final bill passed in November had stronger language around environmental justice but narrower language around a transition away from gas. The two votes were the same: 38 to 2, with Republicans Peter Durant of Spencer and Ryan Fattman of Sutton voting no. Since the roll calls were identical, we chose to score the latter (38s). 

With the dearth of recorded votes this session, we have sought other opportunities to show contrast between legislators. Starting in our mid-session scorecard, we tracked whether legislators used their oversight powers over prisons and jails (they can enter any DOC facility unannounced, but we did not restrict this data point to unannounced visits). For the final session scorecard, we added data points around co-sponsorship (39s, 40s) because if we ask legislators to do something, we should give credit if they do it, as well as accessibility (41s), measured via whether they hold office hours, town halls, or other events in district to actually hear from their constituents.

House Scorecard Update: The Rest of 2024 in Review

The 193rd session finished as the clock struck midnight and December 31 became January 1st. Rather than merely running out the clock against their usual July 31 legislative deadline, the MA House and Senate nearly went almost all the way up to the end of the year.

Blowing past deadlines is not a new phenomenon in the Massachusetts State House. But what was new this session was the record low number of recorded votes: 203 in the House and 252 in the Senate. By contrast, the average number of recorded votes for all the sessions from 2005 to 2022 (under both Democratic and Republican governors) was 522 in the House and 482 in the Senate; the House, in other words, was well over 50% below average and the Senate getting close. That makes the work of putting together a scorecard—a vital accountability tool—harder. 

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators. With fewer votes, there are fewer contrasts. 

When putting together a scorecard, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps. 

We also avoid giving credit where credit has already been given: if we score a bill at one stage of the legislative process, we shy away from scoring its final passage later on to avoid duplication. However, when bills or amendments run counter to progressive values, we may score their multiple appearances. 

See our full scorecard here or on https://scorecard.progressivemass.com.

Since our mid-session scorecard, the biggest source of votes was the Affordable Homes Act, also known as the housing bond bill. The House did not take any recorded votes on individual progressive Democratic amendments to improve the bill, preferring to voice vote most of them down if they were not yet withdrawn. 

In the age of the MBTA Communities Act, the new law requiring communities with MBTA service to establish a zoning district where multifamily housing can be built as of right), the Republican Party has become a NIMBY bastion, a bit of irony given that Charlie Baker was the law’s biggest champion. House Republicans tried and rightly failed in their attempts to weaken the enforcement of the MBTA Communities Act, such as waiving compliance if a town meets the 40B threshold (i.e., at least 10 percent of housing units are low- or moderate-income) and creating an appeals process to allow communities to evade the law with spurious arguments (20h, 21h). House Republicans also tried to get mobile homes automatically counted toward a 40B threshold as a way of denying the need to actually build more affordable housing (22h). 

But the debate was not just about blocking bad amendments to the bill. The House did improve their base bill during the floor debate, such as by adopting a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase local option, which would enable cities and towns to choose to pass ordinances giving tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building if it goes up for sale (23h). However, the welcome embrace of a TOPA local option did not suffice for their refusal to include a real estate transfer fee local option; with such a critical piece of the Healey’s own proposed bill missing, we did not see fit to score the final bill itself. Those who voted against the bill (two Democrats—Rep. Bill Driscoll of Milton and Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewksbury—and eleven Republicans) should be criticized for their NIMBYism, but the yes votes hide more than they reveal given the jockeying around what should be in the final bill. 

Despite our reservations around unanimous votes, we did include two of them because if we encourage legislators to vote for a bill, we believe that we should include that bill in our scorecard. On that front, both chambers voted to update Massachusetts’s forty-year-old parentage statutes to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction (24h) and pass comprehensive maternal health legislation that would expand equitable access to midwifery care, allow more birth centers to open, offer paid pregnancy loss leave, and more (25h). 

Because the House’s own climate bill, passed in July, excluded any provisions around transitioning the state away from gas, we did not believe it to be worth scoring. As with the Affordable Homes Act, the NO votes (i.e., the Republican caucus) deserve criticism, but the YES votes hide more than they reveal. That said, the final climate bill passed in November was a solidly comprehensive bill with important language around environmental justice and the gas transition; Democrats were unanimously in support, and Republicans were split nearly down the middle (27h). 

In Massachusetts, we are aghast when Republican legislatures in other states try to block their liberal capital cities from passing their own laws. But that’s common practice here already given our restrictive home rule system. Fortunately, the House voted to approve (26h) a home rule petition from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to soften a looming residential property tax increase (with Proposition 2 ½, which has wreaked havoc on municipal finances for decades, residential and commercial real estate taxes are linked, and given a set of formulas, commercial real estate taxes are dropping while residential ones rising). If only the Senate would have obliged. 

With the dearth of recorded votes this session, we have sought other opportunities to show contrast between legislators. Starting in our mid-session scorecard, we tracked whether legislators used their oversight powers over prisons and jails (they can enter any DOC facility unannounced, but we did not restrict this data point to unannounced visits). For the final session scorecard, we added data points around co-sponsorship (28h, 29h) because if we ask legislators to do something, we should give credit if they do it, as well as accessibility (30h), measured via whether they hold office hours, town halls, or other events in district to actually hear from their constituents. 

Coming Soon: PM 2025 Member Meeting & Activist Conference

Coming soon, just two weeks from tomorrow: we’re excited for the opportunity to see you in person at our 2025 annual member meeting (open to all!) on Saturday, February 1st.

We will review accomplishments from the past year, announce our legislative agenda for the new session, and host a variety of breakout sessions focused on building skills and digging deeper into policy and action. Join us to hone your skills, network with activists from across the state, and get energized for the fights to come.

There’s a lot of important work to do, and we look forward to doing it with activists like you.



Progressive Mass 2025 Member Meeting
Saturday, February 1
1 pm to 5 pm
Lasell University, DeWitt Hall
80 Maple Street, Newton

RSVP here

Our Agenda for 2/1

1:00 – 1:30 Registration & Socializing

1:30 – 2:00 Business Portion(Updates, New Legislative Agenda, etc.)

2:00 – 2:45 Panel Discussion: “Winning Our Wins”

Winning a policy by legislature or by ballot takes a lot of effort, but it is only step one. There’s a world of work afterwards focused on implementing, protecting, and messaging policy victories as well as capitalizing on them to build support for future ones.

Panelists:

  • Harris Gruman, Executive Director, SEIU State Council
  • Laura Rotolo, Field Director, ACLU of Massachusetts
  • Vatsady Sivongxay, Executive Director, Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance

3:00 – 3:45 Breakout Sessions: Policies in Focus

  • Achieving Housing for All
  • Building Up People, Not Prisons
  • Climate Action: What States & Cities Can Do  
  • Protecting Our Immigrant Communities
  • Public Health: The Fights Ahead

4:00 – 4:45 Breakout Sessions: Skills & Strategies

  • Ballot Questions 101
  • How to Build Support for Housing in Your community
  • Progressive Communications in a Fractured Media Landscape
  • What I Learned from Lobbying in Other States
  • Why You Should Run for Local Office

Our Annual Meeting is open to everyone. However, you must be a member to vote for members up for election or re-election to the Board. You also must be a member to nominate yourself or someone else for election.


Statement from Progressive Massachusetts on Governor Healey’s Proposed Restrictions on Emergency Shelter

Fearful of what will happen on the federal level over the next four years, the residents of the Commonwealth are looking for state leadership. Unfortunately, Governor Maura Healey is using this moment to sound Trumpian in her approach to emergency shelter. Her proposed restrictions on shelter, especially a ban on undocumented residents from access, are straight out of the playbook of the soon-to-be-president and the right-wing Republicans in Congress. 

Beacon Hill rejected some of the most extreme limits on emergency shelter last year when Republicans in the House and Senate pushed for them last year. We urge them to do so again. 

The emergency shelter crisis is a result of our housing crisis. New affordable apartments will not magically appear after six months, as long as we face rapidly growing rents, limited housing production, insufficient state investment, and high up-front costs for new rentals. The state needs to tackle these issues and listen to experts and providers to achieve the goal of safe, affordable housing for everyone, not search for quick fixes that will only lead to higher costs elsewhere and push mothers with babies onto the streets. The people of Massachusetts expect better.

Beacon Hill 101 Video & Follow-up

Thank you to everyone who joined our Beacon Hill 101 Session! You can find the link to the video below.

You can find the slide deck for the presentation here.

There were a lot of great questions in the chat, and we compiled them and put together answers below (you can find a printable version here):

Do late-filed bills have any better or worse chance of getting passed?

  • Given that most bills face long odds, I’m tempted to say that it’s the same regardless, but a late-filed bill lacks a burst of early momentum. However, at the same time, late files may be responding to a particular hot-button issue and gain momentum that way. 

What can we do about the lack of transparency?  Ask the news media to cover this? / I imagine that the lack of transparency has been an ongoing issue – have there been efforts to change that and is there hope?

  • In 2016, when the Legislature voted to update the public records law, they created a commission to look into whether the law should reply to the Legislature and Governor. That commission dissolved because the House and Senate couldn’t agree, but the Senate released their own report, recommending several changes that they have adopted in their own rules since. 
  • Although this has been a long-standing issue, the latest wave of rules-related progressive advocacy around transparency dates to 2018, when a number of female candidates signed a pledge calling for more transparency. Several of them won their elections. That was followed by advocacy from groups like us at Progressive Mass and others in early 2019 around the rules, where we worked with progressive representatives in the House to get votes on a few rules changes. The votes were not successful, but they raised the profile of the issue. You can read about that in our 2019 archive. (Here is our response to common excuses from legislators.) 
  • Act on Mass started soon thereafter, with the founders having worked on State Rep Nika Elugardo’s campaign and having been active in that 2019 push. Act on Mass spearheaded a transparency push (“The People’s House” campaign) in 2021, as well as a transparency pledge during the 2020 election cycle.
    • See our roundup of the House debate from 2021, which was pushed to the summer when legislators freaked out about advocacy early in the session. 
    • Last session, Sen. Jamie Eldridge filed these rules reforms in a bill known as the Sunlight Act, and Sen. Becca Rausch and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven filed other bills to open up the legislative process. 
  • In their opening remarks for the session on January 1, both Speaker Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka spoke about an intent to take up some kind of legislative process reform, with Spilka naming concrete proposals. This was likely a result of the large win for Question 1 (Audit the Legislature) and negative press about the end of the legislative session. Your legislators need to hear from you about support for pro-transparency reforms: https://www.progressivemass.com/jan2025action. Expect to hear more from us on this soon. Legislators often say that the issue doesn’t matter to their constituents, and they need to hear otherwise. 

Do you advise submitting oral testimony also in written form?

  • Yes. Not all legislators on a committee attend the hearings, so submitting written testimony increases the likelihood that all members of the committee and their staff would read it. 

Does anyone go through the hearing videos and track who testified? Can you know who submitted written testimony?

  • There are no public services that provide that of which I’m aware, although MAPLE is exploring how to track the testifiers from video. 
  • There is no public record of written testimony, in contrast to states like Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, and West Virginia post a list of testifiers but do not link to testimony. 

What if you have a testimony that has to do with slumlords and Horrible housing conditions? 

  • If there are things that the city/town could do to enforce better conditions, I would recommend contacting local officials. On the state level, there are various pieces of legislation that could improve this. Currently, testimony is not a public record, but if it was, there would be provisions for confidentiality if you needed that to prevent retaliation. 

I’m thinking of training an AI on MGL to interpret proposed bills. I wonder if anyone else has already done this. 

  • MAPLE is working on AI summaries of proposed bills and have been error-checking the quality of the summaries produced. 

“2026?” So if someone presents a bill now nothing happens until next year?

  • The February 2026 deadline, written into the Joint Rules by Joint Rule 10, is the deadline for joint committees (with the exception of Health Care Financing, which has a later deadline of March 25) to take action on legislation. Given that nothing inspires action like a deadline, the joint committees often wait until then to decide on bills, but they can report bills out at any time before then. 

Has the organization considered sponsoring a potential constitutional amendment superseding the OML/public records exemptions for the legislature? Would PM endorse and campaign for such an amendment if someone else initiated it?

  • There has been chatter about a ballot question around public records reform, and we will keep people posted on that. 

What about when a bill is just passed by the presiding officer even with no one else in the chamber?

  • This happens when bills are passed by voice vote, where the presiding officer calls for YEAs and NAYs and then announces the result immediately (so fast that it is suspect that there were even any votes to listen to). The House and Senate can operate in this way under unanimous consent: as long as no one is present to object, they do not need to prove the presence of a quorum to conduct business. As soon as someone objects and calls into question the absence of a quorum, then Legislative Leadership needs to bring people back (although the House has tested the boundaries of that rule). 
  • There are many bills for which a voice vote makes sense: for example, a home rule petition to change a Board of Selectmen to a Select Board. But such bills should never even need a vote from the Legislature in the first place–a sign of the need for a reform of the home rule process. 

How do you find the members of a conference committee? Is it on the Legislature’s website?

  • The names will be posted on the page of the corresponding bill. See, as an example, the climate bill from last fall: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S2838. You will also likely hear about it via action alerts to contact the Conference Committee / your own legislators. 

Why ‘compromise’ on something that was just passed?

  • Conference Committees are appointed to reconcile the differences between what the two chambers pass. If they pass the same exact legislation, then they do not need to appoint a Conference Committee. In larger bills, each chamber might have specific priorities, and the other chamber sometimes chooses to intentionally exclude said priorities to get bargaining power. 

Does each bill get a separate conference committee?

  • Yes, every bill that is passed in different forms in each chamber will get a conference committee. However, when the Legislature creates many conference committees at the same time, as happened last summer, the conference committees likely blur into one giant negotiation in an informal way, with provisions traded across bills. 

Spilka and Mariano have been talking about changing the calendar. Is it likely?

  • Both of them have started talking about changing the legislative timeline and making reforms to the legislative process, following from the bad press they received for blowing past the July 31 deadline as well as the demand for accountability demonstrated by the 72% public support for Question 1 (Audit the Legislature). One of the main changes proposed by Spilka was an earlier reporting deadline for bills, moving the February deadline to December. That would be a welcome change, but if the committees rely on perpetual extensions, it will not do that much. We would love to see them take steps to accelerate the hearing process, especially fast-tracking hearings for bills already reported out favorably in the last legislative session. Definitely make sure that your legislators hear from you about the need to not push all important work until July of next year (or even later). With the Trump administration coming soon, there is so much urgent work necessary to be done here in Massachusetts to protect our residents, and we should not tolerate such delays. 

If a legislator votes against my preference, is it worth it to call and complain?

  • Yes! It is always worthwhile to contact your legislators to express displeasure. They work for you and should hear from you. Constituent pressure can encourage them to vote better–or encourage them to find another job. 

Very thorough explanation of the official process and clear about the outsized power of the leaders. I’m curious about the in-between politics. Clearly reps and sen have to not step on leaders’ toes. But can you say more about the ‘back room’ or unofficial politics and processes? How are deals done? How are compromises built? How do they make effective alliances? Etc.

  • Excellent question! Some of this is simply hard to know because of the closed-door nature of the process. However, this interview with Rep. Jay Kaufman was a useful window into what happens, backed by a group of former staffers and advocates.
  • During the amendment process on a bill, most of the decisions to adopt or reject amendments are made before the amendments get to the floor, with a Leadership team (Speaker/Senate President, Ways & Means chairs, and a few others) determining which will pass and which won’t. There is frantic internal lobbying from legislators (as well as external lobbying) to try to show support behind their measures and to make their case to Leadership, but those debates rarely make it into the public view. I have heard anecdotes of legislators being told to withdraw amendments or deal with Leadership whipping votes against them. There are few close votes, but whenever any vote gets remotely close without Leadership blessing, that’s an indication of a strong whip operation against its passage behind the scenes to ensure that legislators do not vote for it. An example of this is the Election Day Registration fight in the House in 2022, where the vote was left open for a long time and Leadership allegedly called representatives to ask them to change their votes. Another behind-the-scenes example, but in the Senate, would be the fate of the real estate transfer fee local option from this past session, where I was told by several people that there was a majority support for it but a few high-ranking senators opposed it and blocked it from inclusion. 
  • Conference Committee negotiations are harder to understand. The conferees’ own opinions obviously hold outsize influence, as will the Speaker’s and Senate President’s. 
  • Ensuring that legislative sponsors organize internally to put pressure on colleagues, conferees, and Leadership, and ensuring that we, as activists, are keeping up a drumbeat of pressure on our legislators, is the best way to attempt to break through such a process. The process can be somewhat hard to follow, but it’s our job to follow every step of it to the best we can and give you the tools you need to take effective action throughout the session. 

Can the House vote on a bill during the 1st year?

  • Yes, the Legislature typically passes many more bills in the second year of the legislative session; however, nothing prevents them from passing more legislation in Year 1. Spreading work across the session would help eliminate a bottleneck effect. Indeed, they are a full-time Legislature, unlike most. 

Does the House stay in session during the whole first year?

  • For much of the year, they will be in informal session, i.e., legislators are not asked to come in person. However, the last possible date for a formal session (i.e., where legislators are asked to come in person and take votes) this calendar year is December 19. 

Let’s say you have 100 co-sponsors on a House bill and you are past February of the second year.  Can you force a vote on a bill?

  • By early February, a committee will have made a decision on whether to report out a bill, vote down a bill, or send a bill to “study” (i.e., tabling it). Having a large number of cosponsors does not mean that a bill will advance out of committee; it could still be voted down or granted an extension. 
  • The House does have discharge petitions (i.e., a majority of representatives can sign to bring a bill forward), but this tool is rarely, if ever, used. 

What are ways to influence the House Speaker and Senate president?

  • Constituents in their district have an important role to play in influencing them, so organizing in their districts is especially valuable. (This can include phone banking into their districts, canvassing constituents, organizing events, etc.) However, unless they are especially passionate about an issue, the Speaker and Senate President do not advance “controversial” issues without a strong base of support in the Democratic caucus in their respective chamber. As such, pressure on rank-and-file legislators is also important since they will be making asks during caucus meetings, during budget meetings, at other times, and we need them to be using those opportunities to push the issues we care about. 
  • Although they are not always responsive to media coverage, both Spilka and Mariano complained about negative media coverage in their opening remarks in the session, an indication that they do, in fact, pay attention to it and that it can have influence. 

Please say something about how citizen lobbyists can compete with business/paid lobbyists on bills.

  • This is a matter of numbers and intensity. There are more of us than there are of them (people over money), and this speaks to the need to continue to expand the number of people reaching out to their legislators and showing up to things to put pressure on them. Legislators like to take the “path of least bother,” and constituents have power in shaping what that is for them. 
  • To give an example from the past session, we saw the influence of a flood of real estate spending against the local option real estate transfer fee, especially in how they were able to text voters with lies about what the proposal would do. We need to be talking with, mobilizing, and organizing more people to counteract that. 

Does Progressive Mass publish the historical voting patterns of legislators? 

When are we going to talk about 99% of bills not getting passed, and that those that do are mostly from being redrafted as amendments to the budget and bonding bills?

  • There has been an unfortunate tendency in recent years to move toward fewer and larger bills, with bills only advancing as riders (or, in technical terms, “outside section”) of “must-pass” bills like a budget or a bond authorization. This reduces accountability because most of these bills will pass unanimously, but we know that many legislators opposed and/or fought individual pieces within it. 

If there are 6-7000 bills filed and most don’t get passed, why do legislators  file all these bills?

  • To put it simply, the best way to ensure a bill never passes is to never file it. More expansively, some bills are filed as discussion starters, some are filed to build momentum across several sessions, and some are filed with the hope of attaching them to a larger bill. You never know when external events will raise the profile of an issue, so having legislation ready for when that happens is critical.

How would you work with legislators who say they are “rethinking” their policy of co-sponsoring; i.e., won’t co-sponsor bills? 

  • You should still ask them to co-sponsor bills because by asking them to do so, you are raising the profile of the bill to them. That is helpful if the bill starts to move and Leadership wants to gauge where members are. And don’t let them feel content about doing less! 

Always ask for receipts — receipts for what?

  • When you ask your legislators to take an action, make sure to follow up with it to ensure follow through. That could mean a co-sponsorship of a bill, a recorded vote, a signature on a letter, or other steps. It is always good to ask to see evidence of an action since, even if there are the best of intentions, things can fall through the cracks! 

The power that leadership has — and reinforced with their access to the $$ — is a terrible system.  How could it ever change, given that they are unlikely to support anything that reduces their power/$.  Not a very good model if one was designing a democracy, one where each rep/sen has the same power….   Is there any historical precedent for challenging this terrible system?  Any hope?

  • The folks at the Committee for Reform Our Legislature and Act on Mass plan to file legislation to reform the stipend system to raise the profile of the issue; however, ultimate change would likely have to occur by ballot initiative. 

Sounds like we need to apply some serious pressure. Think our Dems feel “safe” because of all that’s going on nationally?

  • Yes, we do! We understand the urgency on the ground around so many issues, and that urgency will get so much greater under the second Trump administration. The Democrats in the MA Legislature need to understand that it is incumbent upon them to be bolder, both to protect MA residents from the worst of the Trump administration’s policies and to demonstrate how government can make a positive difference in people’s lives and build back public trust. Many of them don’t feel urgency because they are never challenged and become insular to the State House itself, and that means they need to be hearing from constituents much more. 

How do we effectively put pressure on Gov. Healey?

  • Calling/emailing the Governor’s office is important, and calls/emails will be tracked. Elected officials are always attuned to intensity levels because that influences their electoral fortunes. The higher an office is, the more important media can be, and that makes events like rallies or efforts like editorials/letters especially important to shape what the Governor views public opinion to be. You can also try to put together a group of people to demand a meeting with a specific cabinet official; they might be harder to reach, but it is still worth trying. 

Does your organization have enough money to achieve its goals? Do you grow or support alternative candidates?

  • We have only two-part time staff and are hoping to grow capacity. You can support our work here (thank you!). We strive to have a strong grassroots funding base. 
  • Our chapters have often contributed to candidate recruitment work, and I am always willing to talk with people interested in running for office. Progressive Mass is also on the board of Mass Alliance, which runs excellent candidate trainings. 

I’ve worked on bills where a legislator cosponsors it to get us off of them, then goes to leadership to have him kill the bill in the committee process, so they never have to vote on it.

  • Yes, I’ve heard of many stories like that too. That is why it’s so important to treat co-sponsorship as just the first ask to make of legislators. We need them to do more than that! 

Do we have any progressive state cheerleaders? Like Warren at the fed level. 

  • Check out our Scorecard to see the top-performing legislators, especially ones that reliably co-sponsor progressive priorities. 

Do committees take minutes? If so, are minutes available by FOIA request?

  • Unlike in municipalities, which are bound by open meeting law, neither House, nor Senate, nor Joint (i.e., House/Senate) committees are required to conduct work in person in front of the public. Beyond a hearing, a committee’s work will be behind closed doors. The Legislature is also exempt from the public records law. Legislation to change that, such as the Sunlight Act by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, is being refiled.