In April and May, the MA House and Senate voted on their respective budgets for the next fiscal year. As they reconcile the differences in a Conference Committee, it’s vital that chambers put aside the inter-chamber jockeying and procrastination that so often characterizes these negotiations and instead commit to embracing the best of both budget proposals.
What would that mean? It would mean doing things like the following:
Early Education and Child Care: Advancing the Common Start vision of a more robust early education and child care infrastructure with greater stability for providers, better pay for educators, and more affordability for families, as reflected by various parts of both the House and Senate budget
Universal School Meals: Fully funding universal school meals by dedicating $190 million to School Meals For All (Line Item 1596-2422)
Access to Counsel: Providing $2.5 million for implementation of a statewide Access to Counsel pilot program to increase access to legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner occupants in eviction proceedings (item 0321-1800 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal)
No Cost Calls Funding: Dedicating $35M in the Communications Access Trust Fund for no–cost calls in prisons and jails (item 1595-6153 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal)
No Cost Calls Reporting: Making technical fixes to the No Cost Calls reporting requirements, so that policymakers have the information they need to effectively monitor free communication (Section 29 A&B of the Senate FY 2025 budget proposal)
Voting Access: Eliminating barriers to voting access by ending MA’s outlier status as the only state where if a voter doesn’t return the annual municipal census, they’re placed on the Inactive Voter list (an amendment included in the Senate budget that also earned the support of a majority of representatives)
On Wednesday, the House voted 145 to 13 to pass its redraft of Governor Healey’s Affordable Homes Act. The bill contains many important provisions, such as authorizing increased investment in housing (including rehabilitating public housing stock and decarbonizing our housing stock), allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right, making it easier to convert unused commercial space into housing, creating an Office of Fair Housing, and creating a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) local option. Unfortunately, the bill left out important parts of the Governor’s bill as well, such as a local option real estate transfer fee, eviction sealing protections, and reducing the threshold for passing inclusionary zoning ordinances. It now goes on to the Senate.
The 13 NO votes came from two Democrats — Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton) and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) — and 11 Republicans — Rep. F. Jay Barrows (Mansfield), Rep. Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), Rep. Angelo D’Emilia (R-Bridgewater), Rep. David DeCoste (R-Norwell), Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Rep. Steve Howitt (R-Seekonk), Rep. Susan Gifford (R-Wareham), Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Rep. Norman Orrall (R-Lakeville), Rep. David Soter (R-Bellingham), and Rep. Alyson Sullivan-Almeida (R-Whitman).
The House voted 131 to 27 against an amendment from Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) to exempt communities from MBTA Communities Act requirements if at least 10 percent of the housing units in the city or town are low or moderate-income (the “40B” threshold).
Two Democrats — Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) — joined Republicans in supporting the amendment.
The House voted 126 to 32 against an amendment from Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) to make it easier for communities opposed to building more housing to evade compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.
Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton), Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Pat Kearney (D-Scituate), Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) joined Republicans in voting for it.
The House voted 130 to 28 in favor of an amendment to preserve language allowing for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right without any of the unnecessary obstacles and poison pills conservative representatives tried to add to the language. The amendment made one modification that was acceptable to advocates: requiring a special permit process for building more than 1 ADU on a property.
Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) voted against it with Republicans, and Rep. Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer) joined Democrats in support.
The House voted 127 to 30 against an amendment from Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) to automatically count all mobile homes toward a community’s 40B threshold (i.e., that 10% of all housing units need to be for low or moderate incomes). The amendment was driven by NIMBY opposition to building affordable housing and would make it harder to achieve affordability goals.
Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Sally Kerans (D-Danvers), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Thomas Walsh (D-Peabody) joined Republicans in voting for it.
The House voted 133 to 25 for a consolidated amendment that, among other positive measures, added a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) local option to the bill. Under this, cities and towns could choose to pass ordinances giving tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building if it goes up for sale.
The House unanimously passed an amendment to add a veterans preference for housing and 153 to 5 to add a series of earmarks.
Yesterday, UMass Amherst and WCVB released a poll on what voters think about different solutions to our housing crisis, and voters were clear that we need to use every tool in the toolbox.
Here’s just one example: by 3 to 1, voters supported allowing cities and towns to levy small fees on high-end real estate transactions to raise dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Governor Healey agrees, and in her housing bond bill (the Affordable Homes Act), she included a local option real estate transfer fee, allowing communities to choose to impose a small fee on high-end real estate purchases to build and preserve affordable homes if this tool is important to them in preserving their community.
Cities and towns across MA have shown that they want to do this. And it’s not hard to see why. In Nantucket, for example, you need to be earning 7x the area median income to afford the median value home. That’s why voters, including local realtors, support this proposal.
But, unfortunately, the the House left this key tool out of the housing bill that it’s voting on TOMORROW, capitulating to the heavy lobbying from the real estate industry. But the fight isn’t over.
What the Clerk of the SJC Does:The SJC clerk for Suffolk County works on the SJC’s single-justice sessions, i.e., when just one SJC justice acts as a trial judge to review various lower court rulings, and they oversee lawyer discipline and bar admission.
What the Register Does: The Register runs the county’s Probate and Family Court system, which oversees matters like divorce, wills, inheritance, custody, adoption, and name changes.
A newly released UMass/WCVB poll shows strong support for progressive housing policies, showing yet again how out-of-touch the State House can be.
Rent Control: 72% of voters supported allowing local governments to set a limit on how much rents can be increased each year, with only 13% opposed.
Local Option Real Estate Transfer Fee: 62% of voters supported allowing cities and towns to tax real estate transactions above $1 million to help raise funds for local affordable housing, with only 21% opposed.
Accessory Dwelling Units: 66% of surveyed voters supported allowing homeowners to add small, add-on living spaces called accessory dwelling units to their property, with only 9% opposed.
And despite the buzz around opposition in a few towns, the MBTA Communities Act, which requires cities and towns with MBTA proximity to rezone near transit, had the support of 55% of MA voters, with only 18% opposed.
“Massachusetts has a housing crisis, and voters across the state are calling for bold action. If only the Massachusetts House Leadership would care to listen.
Rather than strengthening and building on Governor Healey’s housing bond bill, House Leadership has decided to cave to the real estate lobby, axing the local option real estate transfer fee, eviction sealing protections, and measures to increase affordability of new development. We need every tool in the toolbox, and at every level, to address our housing crisis.
Let’s be clear: members of House Leadership are being dishonest when they claim that they oppose a local option real estate transfer fee because it is a “piecemeal” solution that doesn’t help every city and town. Such concerns were nowhere to be found during the budget process, when those very same representatives had no problem stuffing the budget full of outsized perks for their own districts. Dedicated funding for dog parks in the North End don’t benefit even the full city of Boston, but giving Boston the ability to tame real estate speculation and preserve and expand affordable housing has benefits far beyond the city itself—not to mention the many cities and towns that want to take actions well.
The House is certainly not acting with an eye to public opinion. MA voters support a local option real estate transfer fee by 3 to 1.
Last year, when state representatives passed tax cuts for the rich proposed by Governor Healey, many of them emphasized the importance of giving the Governor a “win.” Now that the Governor wants a “win” for working and middle-class residents across the Commonwealth, the House sings a different tune, showing that they care less about Healey’s legacy or their everyday constituents than they do about their donors.”
But do you know who doesn’t need to know what you did over the weekend? Data brokers.
Currently, there is no law in Massachusetts or federally to prevent the sale and purchase of cell phone location data. Every day, companies collect and sell sensitive location information from cell phones, revealing information about where we live, work, and socialize.
Here’s just one example: Politico recently reported that a data broker company tracked people’s visits to nearly 600 Planned Parenthood clinics in 48 states, including Massachusetts. The company sold that data to inform one of the largest anti-abortion ad campaigns targeting specific individuals. If anti-abortion extremists can use cellphone location data to target abortion seekers with ads, they can also use that data to target, harass, or threaten patients and providers in our state.
The Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cyber Security recently reported out the MA Data Privacy Act, a comprehensive data privacy bill that includes provisions to limit data collection and sharing, treat sensitive health and biometric data with extra care, and prohibit the sale of our cellphone location data. But getting out of committee is just step one. The Legislature needs to pass this before the end of July.
Boston neighborhoods in District 4: Bay Village, Chinatown, Dorchester, Hyde Park, Jamaica Plain, Mattapan Mission Hill, Roslindale, South Boston, South End, West Roxbury (W1P15; W3P7–8, 14–16; W4P1–5,9,11; W5P1, 13, 14; W6–W20)
Other cities and towns in District 4: Braintree, (Pcts. 3B, 4B, 6A); Cohasset, Dedham, Duxbury, Hanover, Hingham, Holbrook, Hull, Marshfield, Norwell, Norwood, Quincy, Rockland, Scituate, Walpole, Westwood, Weymouth
State Senators’ Districts within D4: Nick Collins, John Keenan, Liz Miranda, Patrick O’Connor, Mike Rush
No questionnaire was received from Chris Iannella or Ronald Iacobucci.
The Massachusetts Governor’s Council consists of eight individuals elected from districts each consisting of five state senate districts. The Council is responsible for confirming judges and members of the Parole Board, among other nominees, and of approving pardons and commutations. If you care about the present and future of courts in Massachusetts, then you should care about the Governor’s Council.
Yesterday, late at night, the MA Senate passed its FY 2025 budget. I’ll defer discussion on the specific funding levels to another time and instead highlight some policy victories in the amendment process and the recorded votes.
On the first hand, two amendments that Progressive Mass had advocated for passed, in modified form:
Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #100: Improving Voting Access, which would decouple the municipal census and voter registration status. Currently, cities and towns are required to mark registered voters as “inactive” if they don’t fill out the annual municipal census, a document many easily forget to fill out. When voters are inactive, they have to go through extra hoops at their polling location to vote.
Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #938: No Cost Calls Reporting Requirements, which would strengthen the oversight and data collection for No Cost Calls (i.e., the recently passed law that guarantees free access to phone calls and other communication to incarcerated individuals)
But now to the recorded votes. The Senate took recorded votes on 41 amendments, 37 of which were unanimous votes.
At Progressive Mass, we love recorded votes: they are a vital tool for accountability and transparency. But when it comes to unanimous votes like these, their main purpose is for senators to be able to publicly take credit for the addition of a specific program or funding increase rather than highlighting meaningful contrasts between legislators.
So what were those 4 non-unanimous votes?
Senator Bruce Tarr’s Amendment (#118) to prevent the diversion of a fraction of excess capital gains tax revenue to the general budget instead of the rainy day fund failed 4 to 35 on a party line vote.
Senator Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment (#810) to create a two-week sales tax holiday failed 5 to 34. Sales tax holidays drain vital revenue and don’t actually achieve goals of tax progressivity or economic stimulus. The 5 YES votes were the chamber’s 4 Republicans plus Walter Timilty (D-Milton).
Senator Bruce Tarr’s amendment to undermine the Fair Share Amendment by allowing high-income couples to evade the surtax failed 10 to 29. The Senate voted to close this loophole last year in order to prevent couples from being “married in DC, but single in Massachusetts” (i.e., filing their taxes together in DC but separately in MA to avoid the surtax on income over $1 million). The 10 YES votes consisted of the chamber’s four Republicans and six Democrats: 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).
Senator Jason Lewis’s amendment (#125) to create a new advisory commission to determine a new seal and motto of the commonwealth (in case you’ve forgotten, our state seal is very racist), as recommended by the last commission, passed 30 to 9. Voting NO were 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans (Bruce Tarr bucked his fellow Republicans by voting YES). The 6 Democrats were 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).
Did you know that there are only 10 weeks left in the formal legislative session? That’s right: all the major decisions being made and votes being cast on Beacon Hill will be happening in the next 70 days.
But that’s all still to come. Let’s take a moment to talk about the session so far with our Legislator Scorecard.
Fewer Recorded Votes: As of today, the House has only taken 107 recorded votes. By this date in 2022, the House had taken 187 votes, and in 2020, 174. The same problem exists in the Senate, where there have only been 148 recorded votes so far as opposed to 166 by this point in 2022 (and 14 of those 148 have happened just this week with unanimous votes on budget amendments).
Follow the Leader: We have been talking for years about the culture in the Legislature in which legislators defer to the will of the respective chamber’s Leadership, and that shows up even more starkly this year. Fewer votes that are not just party line are making it to the floor. Votes that show clear divides in the Democratic caucus are rare in the Senate and even rarer in the House. Whey such votes do happen, they are typically on roll call votes requested by Republicans which show which handful of Democrats are the most conservative in the caucus but little beyond that.
New Additions to the Scorecard: Massachusetts state legislators have the authority to visit prisons and jails unannounced and without the need for any special permission. Few visit unannounced, but the number of legislators who visit prisons and jails in (also important) scheduled visits is also quite low. The State Legislature votes for the funding for prisons and jails each year, and legislators should be overseeing how that money is being spent and overseeing to what extent laws are being (or are not being) followed. And that requires showing up. So, we decided to add an extra item to this session’s scorecard: whether or not legislators have actually visited at least one of MA’s prisons and jails this session to do such oversight. We reached out to every legislator, and we plan to continually update the data as legislators respond or visit. Feel free to reach out to your own legislator as well.
Missed Votes: It’s the job of a legislator to show up, so our Scorecard has always counted missed votes against legislators. However, if a percentage of missed votes gets too high, a legislator’s score becomes more a story about attendance than about votes. That’s why you’ll see a number of legislators with no score at all: they missed too many of the scored votes. However, every legislator has the ability to submit on record to the House or Senate clerk how they would have voted had they been present, and we will count those.
What’s Coming:
Our scorecard won’t be finalized until the end of the legislative session, and so there might be many more votes to come — and many opportunities for your legislators to show that they stand for the progressive values you care about.
