“Even for seasoned lobbyists, lawmakers, and advocates used to the secretive, deadline-averse Massachusetts Legislature, the end of the formal session came as a shocking disappointment, with billions of dollars in spending and major policy proposals left on the table as legislators decamped for a five-month recess from formal duties.”
“On July 29, one day after Spilka rejected voluntary recognition of our union, staff asked Senate counsel if we had a path forward and the answer was yes. The hurdles ahead shouldn’t deter anyone – after all, the Senate tackles complex issues every day. For the sake of her workers and workers unionizing everywhere in Massachusetts, we hope that Spilka opens her doors to her staff. Union busting should not become a pillar of her Beacon Hill legacy.”
“But then Rollins left the prosecutor’s office to become the US attorney for Massachusetts early this year and attorney Kevin Hayden was appointed by Governor Charlie Baker to finish out her term….Under Hayden, the office seemed far less eager to pursue the case….And now a Globe investigation into the incident has sparked a swirling controversy, with fingers pointed in all directions, and accusations of deception and lies lobbed back and forth among attorneys, police, and prosecutors.”
“Congress has appropriated sufficient resources to make this necessary investment and provide meaningful relief while the Orange Line is out of service,” Pressley and Markey said in a statement. “The state has let riders down, and riders shouldn’t have to shoulder both the inconvenience and the cost.”
“The Fair Share Amendment will constitutionally guarantee almost $2 billion more each year for two of the business community’s most important priorities: better roads and transit and improved public education. Yet, as The Boston Globe has reported, opponents are targeting the Legislature in a desperate attempt to confuse voters. Only the very rich will pay more, and we will have billions of dollars in new revenue to build a better economy that’s fair for everyone.”
“We are facing a potential “brain drain,” says Michael Goodman, a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. In this hub of intellectual firepower, our most potent natural resource isn’t land or oil; it’s talented people. And when they can’t afford to live in the state, that’s a problem.”
“We seek to stop funneling money into prisons and fund services in the community to provide support and intervention to individuals with disabilities that may divert them from becoming mired in the criminal justice system, and also to provide alternatives to incarceration and civil commitment in correctional facilities. Moreover, necessary mold and asbestos remediation within an existing prison would not run afoul of the moratorium.”
“As a Boston resident and parent of young children, I want nothing more than to create a community that values education, robust public resources, and collective investment in shared well-being. The super-rich have accumulated wealth with the support of these very things. For only an additional 4 cents of each dollar earned above a million dollars, we can restore and revitalize our economy and create the communities we all want to live in.”
“When someone is found to be dangerous – before a jury is seated and the full evidence has been gathered – they are taken from their communities, locked up and forced to sit behind bars while presumed innocent,” Benedetti said. “This is not how justice is done, and we applaud Chairs Mike Day, Jamie Eldridge and other lawmakers who recognize that expanding this punishment-first law hurts our clients and has a disparate impact on poor people of color.”
“T riders say they are frustrated by having to pay the same fare for worse service, and splurge on Uber rides or spend more time away from home to be able to make it to appointments, work, and school on time. And advocates warn about the service cuts deepening racial inequities and increasing carbon emissions.”
“Thankfully, the Fair Share Amendment will be on the November 2022 Massachusetts statewide ballot. It will create a tax surcharge of four percentage points on annual income above $1 million. These funds would then be dedicated to quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.”
“The calls for decisive action have been coming from city planners and urban policy analysts, as well as social justice activists and environmentalists, transportation enthusiasts who push for smart growth and business leaders focused on economic development. All agree that the state can do more to desegregate communities, bring more economic diversity to Boston’s suburbs, and create more places where average people can afford to live.”
“Massachusetts continues to be the state with the lowest uninsured rate in the nation,” said Christine Loveridge, manager of research for the Center for Health Information and Analysis. “And yet, two-fifths of residents report they and their families experienced affordability issues in the last 12 months.”
“The day state senators and representatives are sworn into office, they are covered by Massachusetts’ employee health insurance. But legislative staff — the chiefs of staff, legislative aides, policy directors, and others who play a large role in crafting laws — are subject to a minimum 60-day new hire waiting period before coverage is effective.
A Senate-backed proposal to immediately cover staffers was included in the chamber’s state budget bill but was killed in negotiations with the House, to the chagrin of staffers who had hoped their concerns about the gap in coverage would be addressed this year. That means the budget sent to Governor Charlie Baker this week does not include any such help for hundreds of employees who work in the state House and Senate.”
“But if the state is going to provide one-time payments out of what is expected to be a historic, nearly $3.6 billion surplus for the fiscal year that ended June 30, then tending to the most vulnerable families should be top of mind.”
“The legal parameters of civil asset forfeiture have long cried out for reform. But that is only part of the problem. Removing the financial incentives for abuse — by taking district attorneys and police departments out of the equation — is just as essential.”
“Let me be absolutely clear: The Senate president can prove [the Senate] is a champion of labor today by announcing its support for the Massachusetts State House Employee Union,” Senate staffer Tara Wilson said, prompting applause and cheers from a crowd gathered in front of the building.
Thank you to @CourtWatchMA and @JusticeHealing for your contributions to this write-up.
**
Right now, families are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones (sometimes $5 or $6 for a 15-minute call). This is a regressive tax on the most vulnerable populations of the Commonwealth that also harms public safety by limiting communication and weakening community bonds.
While only 21 percent of the state’s population is Black or Latinx, more than 54 percent of the people imprisoned by the Department of Correction are, with similar overrepresentation in county jails and houses of correction run by the Commonwealth’s sheriffs. Black and Latinx children are, respectively, nine and three times more likely than White children to have a parent in prison. As communities already struggle with the high cost of housing, health care, and transportation, no one should be forced to choose between paying rent or buying groceries and maintaining contact with loved ones.
Moreover, punitive policies targeted at the families of incarcerated individuals leave us all worse off: numerous studies have shown that contact with loved ones promotes successful reentry after incarceration.
In their respective budgets in April and May, the MA House and Senate acknowledged this reality, heeded the advocacy of groups like Families for Justice as Healing and the rest of the Keeping Families Connected coalition, and respectively voted to provide calls at no cost to all people incarcerated by the state prisons, houses of correction, and county jails in Massachusetts (a policy referred to as “No Cost Calls”).
The Budget Conference Committee reconciled the two versions, largely adopting the House language with some important elements of the Senate language, including limits to commissary fees–what families pay to purchase necessary hygiene and food items not provided by prisons and jails directly. While the final language the Legislature sent to the Governor was not as robust as the Coalition had urged–for example, it did not include guaranteed or unlimited minutes per person per day–it was still a watershed moment for a policy deeply and urgently needed by some of the Commonwealth’s most economically burdened families, disparately families of color. The wide support in the Legislature was proven by the adoption of this conference language in the budget.
But the formal period of the 192nd Legislative Session just ended Monday morning in an extension of “July 31” by more than ten hours by the Legislature, and No Cost Calls has not become law. What happened?
Self-Defeating Procrastination
The Massachusetts State House has become notorious for passing late budgets. Despite both chambers being Democratic, they did not pass a post-Conference budget until July 18, two-and-a-half weeks into the new fiscal year.
For context, the Senate (which votes in May) passed its budget on May 26. That means it took the House and Senate almost two months to come to an agreement. By waiting until so late, they gave Governor Charlie Baker the upper hand to send back amendments or attempt to veto parts of the budget given the inevitable chaos of the end of the session.
So, on that front, both chambers deserve at least some blame, but, as we’ll see, the burden lies much more on the Senate.
Yes, Massachusetts, Charlie Baker is a Republican, or The Dangerousness of “Dangerousness”
Rather than simply signing the budget with the No Cost Calls language, Baker sent back an amendment using the No Cost Calls provisions of the budget as a vehicle to pass his bill to expand the use of “dangerousness” hearings, one of his top priorities for the session. In other words, he decided to hold No Cost Calls hostage to an expansion of incarceration, and worse, pretrial detention–jailing people who are presumed innocent.
What is a “dangerousness hearing”? It is when the prosecution requests that a judge hold a defendant without bail for up to 120 days in district/municipal court or up to 180 days in superior court because the prosecution alleges the person is “too dangerous” for release, i.e. no conditions of release could protect the safety of a specific individual or the community as a whole. Constitutionally, dangerousness hearings must be limited to the most serious crimes, those which inherently carry “the menace of dangerousness,” according to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. To be clear, detention on dangerousness grounds is a form of pretrial detention: individuals have not been convicted yet, so a dangerousness hearing undermines the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Although there is incomplete data collection on the use and abuse of pretrial detention, it is clear that pretrial detention both reflects and exacerbates the systemic racism of the criminal legal system. Recent available data on dangerousness requests, in particular, are stark. The Massachusetts Trial Court publishes a dashboard on prosecutorial requests for dangerousness hearings, which was updated in January 2022 to include racial demographic information for the first time (click on the “Adult Demographics (table)” tab at the top, and select ‘Race/Ethnicity” in both drop-down menus under “Select a Demographic…”).
Statewide, in a state that is 71.4% non-Hispanic white, according to the last full year of available data (FY21), roughly 3 in 5 dangerousness hearings were brought against people of color. Black people made up 28.4% and Hispanic people made up 29.6% of prosecutorial requests for a dangerousness hearing in district and municipal courts. Black people made up 32.3% and Hispanic people made up 30.1% of prosecutorial requests for a dangerousness hearing in superior courts.
According to the 2020 landmark study on racial disparities in sentencing in Massachusetts out of Harvard Law School, people of color are more likely to be over-charged for the same conduct, and more likely to be indicted to superior court for the same offenses, as compared to white people. In fact, Harvard’s researchers determined that a whopping 70% of the reason for sentencing disparities was attributable to prosecutorial decisions. These same prosecutorial patterns and implicit biases are reflected in the current use of the “dangerousness” statute to send people to jail pretrial without the possibility of release, a practice that deeply harms communities and coerces people to take pleas just to get out of jail.
With a county by county breakdown, the numbers on racial disparities are even more alarming, as Commonwealth Magazine reported on Friday:
In Bristol County, Tyler said, people of color faced 58A hearings at three times the rate of white defendants; in Berkshire County, the rate of dangerousness hearings was four times as high for nonwhite defendants as white defendants, she said.
About 15 percent of Middlesex County’s residents are people of color, but they represent 52 percent of cases involving dangerousness hearings, according to Tyler. And in Suffolk County, home to Boston and the State House, 90 percent of dangerousness cases are for defendants of color, who are only 48 percent of the population.
Further, since 2018’s “bail reform”—when the Legislature expanded upon an “ability to pay” standard for judges setting bail, required by the SJC in Commonwealth v. Brangan—prosecutors have begun to use the dangerousness statute more to try to convince judges to hold people without bail. Groups like CourtWatchMA have documented dramatic upticks in the use of dangerousness even in counties led by prosecutors who ran as progressives. And that change in usage over the last four years can also be seen on the Trial Court’s dashboard (click on the “Trends” tab). Even as the overall number of criminal cases has decreased (use the drop-down menu to compare the number of “lead charges” per year), more than 1,000 additional cases went through dangerousness hearings in FY21 as compared to FY18.
Finally, even though the current 58A “dangerousness” statute includes a maximum limit of 120 days in jail for cases out of district/municipal court and 180 days for cases out of superior court, already those limits are not always honored. First, keep in mind that a case that originates in district/municipal court can later be indicted to superior court, so those 120/180 limits may become consecutive–a maximum of 300 days, or nearly 10 months in jail, pretrial while presumed innocent. That’s already our current law. But further, because of how the Commonwealth’s speedy trial rules get interpreted, people may sit in jail far longer than that with no recourse. Members of the Families for Justice as Healing participatory defense hub have been fighting for loved ones who have spent 316 days, 387 days, 491 days, and 914 days fighting for their freedom. Accused people who litigate harder–for example, requesting continuances to file motions to suppress the evidence against them or to better prepare for trial–may “toll” the clock, meaning they may sit for days or months in jail that don’t get counted against the statutory limit.
So what is it Governor Baker wants to do with this 58A statute? He wants to make it even more draconian and stacked against people accused of crimes. Baker’s amendment would have, among other things, (1) created a new felony offense for tampering with a GPS device or an interlock breath-test device, (2) significantly expanded the list of crimes for which a dangerousness hearing can be sought–including a number that do not involve any allegation of physical harm, (3) allowed dangerousness hearings to be sought at any time during a judicial proceeding, as opposed to only at the beginning, and (4) allowed individuals to be held in pretrial detention indefinitely, removing the current statutory caps altogether.
The ACLU and Jane Doe Inc. were among the most prominent and vocal opponents of Baker’s bill. As Jane Doe Inc. said of the bill, it “include[s] certain policies that would have harmed our communities and actually undermined the safety and wellbeing of survivors themselves.” In their legislative testimony against it, they highlighted concerns about racial disproportionality, the potential for an increase in dangerousness hearings to take court time and energy away from more serious cases, and the impact on survivors arrested because of an accusation made by their abuser.
Baker had been pushing the bill with all the old “tough on crime” tropes, but as people are increasingly understanding, prisons and policing are not the foundation of public safety: investing in housing, health care, education, and community stability and flourishing is.
So The Bill Goes to the House
On Friday, as advocatespanned Gov. Baker’s petulant amendment, members of the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus held a powerful press conference pushing back against Baker’s amendment. Rep. Brandy Fluker-Oakley (D-Mattapan) highlighted how Baker is ignoring real community voices and community needs :“The truth of the matter is, our governor is not recognizing the victimization that our communities experience day in and day out by being overpoliced. Furthermore, it is abhorrent and an abomination that he would even try to tie this to no-cost calls when it is the lifeline that our families are able to connect with those on the outside and data and statistics and study after study shows that when there is family contact, it reduces recidivism.” Rep. Chynah Tyler (D-Roxbury) spoke of the immense racial disparities in pre-trial detention: “The impacts on communities of color are staggering, and it simply sounds like a racist system to me.”
The next day, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject Baker’s amendment. Only four Democrats: Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Paul Tucker (D-Salem), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joined Republicans in voting for Baker’s amendment.
If your state rep is among the 122 NAYs, you should thank them.
But then Comes the Senate
That the Senate did not similarly vote to reject Baker’s amendment on Saturday was a concerning sign itself. This delay over the weekend led Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) to lead the Senate’s Black and Latino Caucus (her, Sen. Lydia Edwards of East Boston, and Sen. Adam Gomez of Springfield) in an email to their colleagues lifting up the House Black and Latino Caucus’s press conference and calling for a rejection of Baker’s amendment:
“No-cost cost calls reform is a priority of the MBLLC this year. It is a provision designed to stop the regressive taxation of the families of incarcerated people—primarily women and children, who have committed no crime—to pay for programming in our jails and prisons. In addition, maintaining family bonds through phone and video calls helps reduce the well-documented trauma experienced by children of incarcerated individuals, AND reduces recidivism rates when incarcerated individuals return to society. For all these reasons, this reform was consensus policy between the House and Senate in both chambers’ budget proposals.
We reject, in the strongest terms, the Governor’s use of this consensus provision as leverage to force through separate legislation that he favors.
Additionally, it’s important to note that his bill on pre-trial 58A detentions has not received a favorable report from committee. 58A detentions already result in the heavily disproportionate incarceration of Black and Latino defendants—without being convicted of any crime. Increasing their use and scope would exacerbate the problem of disparate incarceration that we have worked so hard to move away from in recent years, with the passage of MA’s 2018 Criminal Justice Reform law.
We hope you will stand with the Black & Latino Caucus and numerous racial justice and civil rights organization in advancing these long-awaited no-cost call reforms, and rejecting the Governor’s attempt to attach an unrelated piece of legislation. The House has already voted to do so. “
Advocates also continued to press the Senate to reject the Governor’s Amendment and reject any version of a dangerousness proposal, especially because if it was attached to No Cost Calls it would almost certainly defeat that policy whole cloth. Families for Justice as Healing and Building Up People Not Prisons held a rally outside the Statehouse in the afternoon and a demonstration inside the halls, capturing the attention of reporters and legislators alike.
Throughout the evening, advocates from Jane Doe and Families for Justice as Healing, among others, continued to press senators to reject any expansion of pretrial detention attached to No Cost Calls.
The Senate ended up not even taking up consideration of it until very late on Sunday night, extending into the wee hours of Monday morning (with the Legislature voting to extend the session further and further into the morning each hour).
Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) and Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) both spoke passionately against the amendment.
Eldridge highlighted how the dangerousness law undermines the “bedrock principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty” and that Baker’s proposal pulls us backwards from recent positive movement on juvenile justice reform, as it would allow more children as young as 12 to be held in detention. He spoke about how expansive even Baker’s “narrowed” list of crimes to add to the dangerousness statute was (including some marijuana offenses, a doubling down on a drug war the state has been trying to move past) and the striking racial disparities in dangerousness hearings in Middlesex County (“Although 15 percent of Middlesex County’s residents are people of color, they represent about 50 percent of those involved in dangerousness hearings.”).
Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) criticized Baker’s selective focus on some victims rather than others (“It’s important we hear from victims, but it’s also important that we remember there are many different kinds of victims and that we not see the pain and suffering of some victims to the exclusion of other victims.”) and highlighted the racial disparities in pre-trial detention in Suffolk County (“Ninety percent — 90 percent — of people subject to 58A detentions in Suffolk County are people of color, compared to 48 percent of the population in Suffolk County.”). She also underscored the harm that indefinite pre-trial detention can cause: “Imagine being held for 200 days, 500 days, 900 days, without being convicted of a damn thing and the impact that has on your family and your children. You lose your job, you lose your housing, you lose your children.”
In his speech in favor of the amendment, Bruce Tarr jarringly refused to enumerate the new offenses to be added to the dangerousness statute, as though that were merely secondary: “I’m not going to go through the entire list. Some of you would like me to do that. Perhaps tomorrow we can gather in some part of the State House and I will go through the list for you. Suffice it to say the governor has proposed a significant expansion of the list.” He wanted the Senate to pass an expansion of the carceral system at midnight without even reading it.
The Baker amendment was rejected on a standing vote: 8 in favor, 14 against. Unfortunately, there is no record of who the 8 and who the 14 were.
A Dangerous Show Vote
Rather than move forward, as the House had, and challenge Baker to veto No Cost Calls (and then return to session to override him), the Senate decided to take up a narrowed, but still harmful, version of Baker’s amendment, with no House buy-in. Senator Tarr had introduced seven amendments, each capturing a piece of what Baker had proposed, but he first moved forward the redrafted Amendment 6 which he framed as a consensus compromise that could be passed in isolation.
The new amendment would create a new misdemeanor offense for tampering with a GPS device (2.5 years in prison, and a felony of up to 5 years for a second and subsequent offense), require that anyone convicted of that offense be subject to presumptive pretrial detention without the possibility of release on any subsequent allegation, expand the list of crimes that would allow the prosecution to move for a dangerousness hearing (including crimes like “criminal harassment” and “attempted extortion” which may involve no threat or use of force), and create a system by which victims are given a six-hour notification in advance of an individual’s being released from detention, including at a police station.
No senators opposed the latter provision. But creating new non-violent crimes (especially for conduct that already has sanctions under current law—if a person removes their GPS, they will be subject to a hearing on a violation of their conditions of release and will likely face time in jail or prison whether released pretrial, on probation, or on parole) and expanding the reach of the carceral system is never wise. It’s especially problematic to do so at 1 am when most senators have not considered the ramifications of what they are voting on.
Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) was unsurprisingly dismissive of claims of systemic racism in the judicial system: “I would suggest that if we want to argue now that the judiciary is somehow flawed in its decision-making, that is a much larger issue and we find ways to address it. But until we do that, those sworn to the judiciary are charged with the solemn responsibility of making the best decisions they can. Until we indict that process, we need to be able to follow it. “
Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) explained how the language would expand dangerousness hearings to cover many non-violent crimes, citing cases such as a dispute between neighbors, a child throwing a wastebasket across the room, or consensual sex between teenagers close in age. He rightfully emphasized the importance of understanding how the charges are used in practice, rather than discussing them only in the abstract: “I ask you not to think of the worst-case scenario, but the best-case scenario, the mistakes that could be made, the biases in our system, the implicit institutional racism in our judicial system.”
Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington) gave a passionate speech about the need to learn the lessons from past policymaking that fueled mass incarceration: “I can tell you that every time we added new criminal laws to the books and every time we extended sentences and every time we created second strike and third strike, you’re out rules, we always did it because in the moment, the arguments seemed compelling. We always made the same mistake. We focused on one or two truly awful scenarios and we then permitted ourselves to make decisions about multiple situations based on those one or two situations. In this particular case, as I’ve listened throughout the evening, I’ve heard folks cite, quite persuasively, one or two experiences of their own, part of their lived experience perhaps as a professional, which lead them to believe there are elements here that are absolutely required. There are laws among those enumerated here that absolutely should be added to the list of what’s allowable for a dangerousness hearing. So we allow the particular to lead us to overlegislate. Every time we’ve overlegislated in a way that’s led to over incarceration, it’s because we’ve been led by a compelling argument or two to overextend the amount of law we’ve created. In this particular instance tonight, we’re about to vote based on extremely persuasive arguments in favor to add 25 new statutes to the list that can trigger dangerousness hearings. This is in a state where we’ve already built out the list pretty extensively. We’re about to overlegislate just as we did during the Bill Clinton years, just as we did during the 1990s. We know there’s one or two compelling reasons to act, and we’re allowing ourselves to overreach. We are going too far. We will regret this. This is why too many people wind up in jail. This is why our incarceration rates in this country are the greatest of any democracy on the face of the earth.”
Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) praised Barrett’s speech and similarly criticized the scope of the proposal: “We have to recognize debating this amendment, yes, it will help some people. There are many components of this amendment I would like to support, particularly victim notification. This amendment will also harm people. We have to be honest about that….We have had many months to arrive at a better compromise. It is an option before us tonight. We could redraft this amendment to reduce its scope, to reduce its overreach. We’re choosing not to do that.” She also read Jane Doe Inc.’s statement in opposition to the amendment, noting that they had emailed legislators that evening to oppose even the redrafted amendment.
Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton) explained to her colleagues that voting for this amendment would effectively kill the No Cost Calls legislation: “So this is sort of a double whammy to those people in prison because we’re going to put more people in prison. By voting this amendment, we’re likely to make sure prisoners don’t have the phone calls we voted they’d be able to have. As we do this today and the hour is late, the House rejected this. Perhaps my colleagues are right. We missed an opportunity. I understand. Perhaps there should have been an negotiation. But there are many prisoners sitting in jail who are unable to speak with their children, their parents, their friends, and this body voted they should have those calls. This late hour, if we vote for this, we can be sure they won’t have that opportunity.” She also criticized the terrible, rushed process: “I’m not even sure I understand how many crimes we’re voting on, and I would say most of us don’t. Most of us don’t understand the nuances, some of which involve crimes we’d call Romeo and Juliet between young children who are having sex these days. Maybe we should do that, maybe we shouldn’t. We are punishing those people incarcerated because we didn’t do what we’re supposed to do.”
Sen. Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston) (despite the earlier email she’d signed onto encouraging her colleagues to reject the Governor’s amendment), Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham), Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Sen. Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough) all invoked anecdotes to support the amendment and refused to engage with the arguments put forth by critics. Sen. Brownsberger (D-Belmont) misleadingly tried to frame the expansion of pretrial detention as a way to support bail reform. Sen. John Velis (D-Westfield) simply scoffed at the idea of due process concerns.
What these senators tried to avoid directly addressing is the simple fact that by voting for the amendment, they were defeating No Cost Calls for the session. The only path forward for No Cost Calls was for the Senate to reject Baker’s amendment, as the House had done and the Senate had done moments before, and for the House and Senate to commit to returning to a special session to override a veto from Baker if need be. The Senate’s decision to introduce new language at a late hour without House buy-in was a bad-faith move, setting up the vote to be nothing more than a show vote. The dangerousness law would not be changed, and No Cost Calls would die.
Knowing all of that, they still voted 30 to 8 in support of the amendment.
Thank you to the 8 senators who stood by No Cost Calls and against a return to failed “tough on crime” policies that expanded mass incarceration and would leave communities less safe: Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain), Jo Comerford (D-Northampton), Cindy Creem (D-Newton), Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Adam Hinds (D-Pittsfield), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), and Jason Lewis (D-Winchester).
This past week, Charlie Baker did something shameful.
The Legislature, much to their credit, had passed language in the budget to guarantee free phone calls for incarcerated individuals, ending the predatory practice of prisons and jails charging incarcerated individuals and their families exorbitant costs to stay connected.
All Charlie Baker had to do was sign it. Instead, he is trying to hold the No Cost Calls language hostage as a way to pass one of his own legislative priorities: a bill to weaken due process protections and expand pre-trial detention. Black and Latino electeds in the MA House rightly condemned this move as abhorrent.
Yesterday, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject Baker’s ploy. (If your state rep is among the 122 NAY votes here, you should thank them. NAY = against Baker’s amendment)
But the Legislative session is about to end, and the State Senate has not yet voted to reject Baker’s amendment and to protect No Cost Calls and due process.
If you have time TONIGHT, email your State Senator to tell them to reject Charlie Baker’s amendment and to extend the Legislative session if they have to in order to preserve their own legislative victories.
2 am update: Unfortunately, the MA Senate chose not to listen to advocates like Jane Doe Inc. and Families for Justice as Healing and still passed a version of Baker’s dangerousness bill, which will expand incarceration and put No Cost Calls at risk. Thank you to the 8 senators who voted no.
The formal legislative session for the MA State House ends Sunday, July 31. That means the Legislature has to act fast on a number of key priorities.
An End of Session TO DO LIST for the MA Senate!
Your state senator needs to hear from YOU about the following:
Protecting tenants by ensuring that Section 135C (HOMES Act) from the Senate economic development bill, which would create a process for sealing eviction records, remains in the final conference committee report
Upholding No Cost Calls languagefrom the budget that would end the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones for phone calls, and rejecting Governor Baker’s attempt to block this important victory and force the Legislature to pass his proposal to weaken due process protections
Passing the Recommendations of the Special Commission on Facial Recognition Technology, because Massachusetts needs tighter rules around the use of face surveillance technology in order to protect our civil liberties and community safety
Safeguarding MA’s gun laws in the wake of recent Supreme Court ruling
Speaking up for the State House Employee Union and calling for the necessary steps to ensure that they are duly recognized as a union and able to collectively bargain
Not giving the final word on any legislation to Governor Baker and calling for a special session if need be to do right by the Legislature’s accomplishments
Your state representative needs to hear from YOU about the following:
Strengthening our child care infrastructure by passing H.4795: An Act to Expand Access to High-Quality, Affordable Early Education and Care, which would increase the affordability of child care for families, raises for early educators, and stability for child care providers
Protecting tenants by ensuring that Section 135C (HOMES Act) from the Senate economic development bill, which would create a process for sealing eviction records, remains in the final conference committee report
Upholding No Cost Calls languagefrom the budget that would end the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones for phone calls, and rejecting Governor Baker’s attempt to block this important victory and force the Legislature to pass his proposal to weaken due process protections
Speaking up for the State House Employee Union and calling for the necessary steps to ensure that they are duly recognized as a union and able to collectively bargain
Not giving the final word on any legislation to Governor Baker and calling for a special session if need be to do right by the Legislature’s accomplishments
The Legislature’s Infrastructure Bond Bill contains language for a 5-year pause on prison construction. Although the final version falls short of what advocates pushed for, it sets a precedent and provides a baseline of protection against brand new jail and prison construction and some limitations on expansion.
Call Charlie Baker at (617) 725-4005 to urge him to sign it, and find additional resources from this toolkit from Families for Justice as Healing (from where the script below comes):
“Hello, my name is _______________ and I’m calling to ask you to sign the Infrastructure Bond Bill including the Jail and Prison Construction Moratorium. Massachusetts needs a 5 year pause on new jail and prison construction so we can focus on implementing alternatives and investing in community-led solutions for real safety and well-being. I am also asking you to use your last months in service of racial and gender justice by granting clemency for women who are older than 50, who are sick, who are survivors of violence, and who have served longer than 10 years. We should empty Framingham prison – not rebuild it. Thank you.”
Earlier today, the MA House and Senate passed a comprehensive bill to strengthen protections for abortion care and gender-affirming care (H.5090).
According to the summary from the Beyond ROE Coalition, the bill contains the following important measures:
Critical protections for Bay Staters who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care;
A requirement that insurance cover abortion and abortion-related care. The bill also ensures coverage is affordable—and not subject to cost sharing—for low-income individuals;
A requirement that Massachusetts public colleges and universities provide medication abortion at campus health centers;
A statewide standing order for both prescription and over-the-counter emergency contraception, making no-cost insurance coverage possible for all forms of emergency contraception without delay, and a statutory fix to ensure over-the-counter emergency contraception can be sold in vending machines;
A confidential address program for reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers who too often face threats and violence for providing health care; and
Language to clarify the ROE Act and ensure pregnant people are not forced to leave Massachusetts for abortion care later in pregnancy.
The bill passed the Senate 39 to 1, with only Republican senator Ryan Fattman voting NO.
The House voted was 137 to 16, with 5 Democrats and 11 Republicans voting no.
The legislative session in the MA State House ends this Sunday. That’s right: whatever doesn’t happen between now and Sunday will have to wait until next year.
But we know that so many things can’t wait.
Email Your State Legislators: MA Needs the HOMES Act
Last week, the Senate passed the HOMES Actas part of its economic development bill.
The moment that an eviction case is filed, a tenant has an eviction record for life. These eviction records are unfairly held against people when they try to rent a new place. Tenants should be able to seal their eviction record when they have done nothing wrong, when they pay what they owe, or when their case is dismissed or resolved.
The HOMES Act language will protect many tenants from being unfairly marked with an eviction record and would establish a fair process for tenants to petition the court on a case-by-case basis.
The Senate and House are right now working on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate bills.
The House did not include this essential tenant protection in their bill, and it’s vital that the HOMES Act remains in the final package.
Last Thursday, the House and Senate passed climate legislation that, among other things, invests in off-shore wind and solar energy, accelerates the transition to electric vehicles, and ends renewable energy credits for wood-burning power plants (read our write-up here).
Please get this important legislation over the finish line! Urge Governor Baker to sign the bill ASAP with no changes.
Call Governor Baker at 617-725-4005 or (toll-free) 888-870-7770
Sample message:
“Hi, my name is ________ and I live in _____________. I urge the Governor to sign the climate bill into law as soon as possible, with no changes. I support ending clean energy subsidies for woody biomass. It’s crazy to burn wood for electricity.”
The following summary was written in conjunction with Jess Nahigian and Veena Dharmaraj from the Massachusetts Sierra Club and adapted from the overview done by the Mass Power Forward coalition (done by Jess — s/o again) and materials produced by the Legislature.
Last Thursday, the MA House and Senate finally came to an agreement on climate legislation this year: An Act driving clean energy and offshore wind (H.5060).
The bill was the conclusion of negotiations between the House and Senate merging two bills passed earlier this year that varied significantly in scope. In early March, the House passed a bill focused on offshore wind. In April, the MA Senate passed a more comprehensive bill focused on clean energy, buildings, and transportation electrification (See a write-up here).
The bill passed the House 146 to 7, with the only NO votes coming from Republicans Donnie Berthiaume, Nicholas Boldyga, Angelo D’Emilia, Marc Lombardo, Norman Orrall, Kelly Pease, and Alyson Sullivan. It passed the Senate 38 to 2, with Senators Ryan Fattman and Patrick O’Connor voting no.
The bill includes many strong provisions, as detailed below, and some notable omissions. Disappointingly, the bill omitted several large financial investments as well as language about air quality monitoring. Additionally, the transportation policy and building emissions reduction policy were limited in scope. The transportation section of the bill remains limited to electrification, rather than exploring ways to expand public transit usage (as well as biking/walking) and reducing the number of automobiles on the road in the first place (a limitation more of the reach of the original Senate bill than of the negotiations). The buildings emissions portion of the bill falls short of creating the investment and infrastructure to decarbonize buildings at the 100,000 building per year scale identified as necessary in the state’s pathway to decarbonization by 2050.
Now the bill must go to the governor’s desk, where he has until July 31 to pass it, send it back with revisions, or veto it.
Offshore Wind
Establishes a Massachusetts Offshore Wind Industry Investment Program, administered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), consisting of annual tax incentives, grants, loans, and other investments
Creates the Massachusetts Offshore Wind Industry Investment Trust Fund to promote the manufacture of domestic supply chain components of the offshore wind industry; stimulate increased financing for permanent manufacturing facilities; advance clean energy research, technology, and innovation; and prepare individuals for offshore wind careers by supporting workforce training
Removes the price cap for new offshore wind projects, which requires each new project to offer power at a lower price than its predecessor, if there are fewer than three bidders.
Gives preference to offshore wind bids from companies that invest in local manufacturing, provide employment opportunities for underrepresented populations, adopt good labor practices, and mitigate environmental impacts, and takes utilities out of the bid selection process.
Establishes a commercial fisheries commission to provide input on best practices for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to wildlife related to offshore wind
Solar Energy
Allows agricultural and horticultural land to be used to site solar panels and establishes a commission to study the deployment of these “dual use sites” while minimizing ecosystem and agricultural impact
Removes net metering constraints on solar up to 25kw and removes smaller solar arrays from the net metering cap
Other Renewable Energy Measures
Prevents wood-burning biomass power plants from qualifying for renewable energy incentives in the Renewable Portfolio Standard Program but, lamentably, does not exclude it from other incentive programs
Directs a study of the advantages and disadvantages of a regional or multi-state clean energy market
Enhances regional collaboration by allowing the Commonwealth to coordinate with nearby states on clean energy solicitation and transmission
Shifting Utilities Away from Fossil Fuels
Requires utility companies to proactively and regularly submit plans to upgrade the transmission and distribution grid, as overseen by a new grid modernization advisory council (the council lacks the public input requirements in the Senate plan).to improve reliability and resilience and accommodate the shift to renewables
Reduces incentives for fossil fuels by limiting ratepayer-funded efficiency programs from incentivizing fossil fuel equipment starting in 2025
Establishes a grid modernization advisory council (but without the public input requirements in the Senate bill) and requires distribution companies to submit regular modernization plans
Creates a working group to develop recommendations for regulatory and legislative changes necessary to align our pipeline replacement program (GSEP) with the state’s climate goals
Requires additional scrutiny of the utility-controlled investigation into the “future of gas”
Paves the way for expanded use of renewable thermal energy, including geothermal networks
Workforce
Ensures clean energy workforce development programs include workers in impacted and disadvantaged communities
Expands and develops workforce development programs in clean energy, particularly wind
Buildings
Requires an assessment of K-12 schools with an eye toward improving efficiency, air quality
Allows 10 municipalities to pilot fossil-free new and major renovations, but with newly added specifications that exclude life science labs and health care facilities, and requires any participating community to (a) meet the 10% affordable housing target set by state law (chapter 40B) or (b) have approved a zoning ordinance permitting multi-family housing by-right in at least one area
Requires that large buildings (20,000 sq. ft. and larger, more expansive than the Senate’s original 25,000 sq. ft. and larger) report their energy usage annually, and allows only Boston and Cambridge to set their own building energy reporting requirements (as opposed to allowing any city/town to do so, as in the Senate bill)
Increases public accountability and reporting requirements to ensure utilities are providing efficiency services to low-income ratepayers and households
Transportation
Provides up to $5000 in point-of-sale rebates for the purchase of electric passenger cars and light duty vehicles less than $55,000, with an additional $1500 rebate for low-income individuals. Rebates of at least $4500 for medium and heavy duty electric vehicles and for those trading in their internal combustion engine vehicle
Calls for the MBTA bus fleet to be all-electric by 2040 (with no more fossil-fuel buses purchased after 2030)and prioritizes deployment on routes that go through underserved communities (Note that environmental groups advocated for full electrification by 2030, and that the Senate bill had “no new non-electric purchases” after 2028)
Mandates all new cars sold in the state to be zero-emission starting 2035
Creates aninteragency coordinating Council to develop and implementa plan for deploying EV charging infrastructure in an equitable and accessible manner and establishes a Charging Infrastructure Deployment Fund
Mandates off-peak rates for EV charging and requires distribution companies to submit proposals for time-of-use rates
Requires the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to develop vehicle electrification and GHG emission regulations for ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft)
Requires MasDOT to provide technical and funding assistance to help Regional Transit Authorities electrify their fleets
Requires MassDOT to install EV charging stations at all service plazas on the MA Turnpike, at least five commuter rail and subway stations, and at least one ferry terminal.
Requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) to conduct a study on electrifying our school bus fleet
A Few Notable Omissions
Unlike the Senate bill, the final bill did not contain the following:
Banning competitive electricity suppliers, who often prey on the most vulnerable, from operating in Massachusetts
Increasing publicly available air quality monitoring and directing the state to establish baseline air quality in air pollution hotspots and corridors
Teeing up a successor to the state’s SMART solar program that favors development in the built environment
Interim and full electrification targets for the commuter rail system
Allocating $100 million to the Electric Vehicle Adoption Incentive Trust Fund; $50 million to the Charging Infrastructure Deployment Fund; and $100 million toward Clean Energy Investment Fund from the Senate bill (Funding for these programs is in the Economic development bill under consideration by the legislature)
Authorizing all public pensions, with the exception of the state employees retirement system, the state teachers retirement system, and the State Boston retirement system, to divest from any investment in fossil fuel companies
And a Few Red Flags…
Expands the definition of clean energy for Massachusetts Clean Energy Center research purposes to include “renewable biofuels, renewable biodegradable chemicals, advanced thermal-to-energy conversion, fusion energy, hydrogen produced by non-fossil fuel sources and methods, and carbon capture and sequestration”
Allows existing (grandfathered) anaerobic digestors to qualify for clean peak standard
Includes biofuels, “green” hydrogen, landfill gas, “low-emission advanced biomass power conversion technologies” are called “innovations” in the list of technologies eligible for educational grants
Thank you for taking swift action in support of reproductive justice after the Supreme Court’s recent shameful and misguided ruling in Dobbs. When rights are under attack on the national level, it is important for Massachusetts to send a clear message that we will not only protect but also strengthen rights here at home—as well as serve as a model to other states.
Progressive Massachusetts would like to emphasize the importance of several provisions in S.3003 and H.4954.
Provider Protections: S.3003 and H.4954 will both establish critical protections for those in Massachusetts who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care. These provisions state unequivocally that access to reproductive health care and gender-affirming care are rights secured by the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth. This language takes steps to protect defendants from abusive litigation based on such care, ensures that officials in the Commonwealth will not voluntarily facilitate investigations or lawsuits into such care, and offers protections to providers who may face impacts on their professional license or medical malpractice insurance premiums as repercussions of abusive litigation.
Medication Abortion: Thousands of college students in Massachusetts currently live in “access deserts” where the nearest abortion provider is hours away via public transit, if accessible at all. Language adopted by an amendment from Sen. Lewis to S.3003 will ensure that public college students can access medication abortion in the early stage of pregnancy at the locations where they already receive other reproductive health care services—at their campus health center. We wouldn’t accept having to travel over four hours for a dentist appointment. Abortion care shouldn’t be any different.
Delivering on the Promise of the ROE Act: We must do everything we can to ensure pregnant patients can access compassionate care in our Commonwealth. In a post-Roe reality, it is simply not safe for a patient at any stage of pregnancy to have to travel out of state to access an abortion provider. To this end, we urge you to realize the full intent of the ROE Act by clarifying the statutory framework for abortion care after 24 weeks to ensure no one is forced to travel out of state for care.
The Massachusetts state primary is now less than 7 weeks away: Tuesday, September 6. And the general election is less than 16 weeks away: Tuesday, November 8.
With those dates rapidly approaching, we are proud to release our second group of legislative endorsements for this cycle.
Curious about our process?
You can find all of the comprehensive questionnaires we have received from candidates this cycle so far here and here.
We encourage our chapters to vote on endorsements first so that we can align and amplify their work.
As we believe in the importance of small “d” democracy, all of our endorsements get voted on by our members, and candidates must receive at least 60% of the vote for an endorsement.
This list will be growing soon! We are planning to release more endorsements in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.
But now the endorsees….
7th Essex: Manny Cruz
Manny Cruz is a member of the School Committee in Salem and brings an impressive background in public service. He was formerly the Chair of the Governor’s State Wide Youth Council and a legislative staffers to both Representative Matias. He is currently the Advocacy Director at Latinos for Education, through which he created the Educator Diversity Coalition and helped found the MA Alliance for Early College. He has been a strong advocate for the environment, public education, and reproductive justice, and he has been endorsed by our new Salem chapter.
Margareth Shepard is a former Framingham City Councilor and was the first Brazilian immigrant elected to a City Council in the US, and she has been endorsed by our Framingham chapter. She has served as a member of the MetroWest Commission on the Status of Women, Chair of the Massachusetts Brazilian Citizens Council, secretary of the Brazilian American Center, and board member of the Brazilian Women’s Group, and she founded Brazilians for Political Education to increase voter registration and civic engagement. In these roles, and in her role as a Councilor, she was a major advocate for the Work & Family Mobility Act and a reliable ally for progressives in Framingham.
Where’s the District? Framingham (Precincts 1-8, 9B, 10-16)
Learn More: https://www.margarethforstaterep.com/
9th Middlesex: Heather May
Heather May is an educator at Emerson College, teaching classes in public speaking, debate, mental health, and healthcare policy as well as a community activist in Waltham. Having been active in the push to unionize the non-tenured faculty at Emerson, she understands the value of organizing (something the House certainly needs), and she is running on strong progressive policies and the need for systemic change in the MA House. She is challenging an incumbent with a record of voting in lockstep with the Speaker, if not worse (given the incumbent’s opposition to the 2020 police reform bill).
Zoe Dzineku brings the experiences as an immigrant, a small business owner, a single mother, and a community organizer. As Chair of the Lowell Election Commission, she successfully fought back the City’s attempt to reduce the number of polling locations in the first election with newly drawn Council districts. She has been involved in community organizing with the African community in the Merrimack Valley and with the Merrimack Valley Project, fighting for racial and economic justice. She has channeled that work in her role as a well-regarded Director of Constituent Services in the State Senate. Solidarity Lowell endorsed her, and we are proud to as well.
Tara Hong is a Cambodian immigrant and a community activist in Lowell. He is the Civic Engagement Coordinator at the Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association, where he has worked on voter education and community empowerment. He serves on the board of the Lowell Litter Krewe and Mill City Grows, making sure Lowell is a more sustainable and equitable city. He is running on a strong progressive platform, rooted in transparency, affordable housing, and bold climate action, and he is challenging an incumbent who has voted lockstep with the Speaker (if not worse, given the incumbent’s votes against police reform). Solidarity Lowell endorsed him, and we are proud to as well.
Teresa English is a public school teacher in Lawrence with a lifelong commitment to public service. She is running to fight for increased aid for public schools, bold climate action, stronger worker protections, and a Massachusetts where people can afford to live at any stage of their life. She understands the importance of investing in the future of the Commonwealth and ensuring that government is accessible to the public. She is challenging a Republican incumbent who has one of the most conservative records in the entire State House. Solidarity Lowell endorsed her, and we are proud to as well.
Where’s the District? Billerica
Learn More: https://www.voteteresaenglish.org/
6th Norfolk: Tamisha Civil
Tamisha Civil combines a history of community involvement and strong progressive values. She has been a legal advocate for women and children impacted by domestic violence, a Commissioner for the Eastern Regional Commission on the Status of Women, a committee member for the Diversity and Inclusion for the Massachusetts Trial Court, a volunteer of the Stoughton’s Energy & Sustainability Committee, and a board member of Canton Residents for Sustainable Equitable Future (CR4SEF). She is running against a conservative Democratic incumbent who has opposed the Fair Share Amendment as well as police reform legislation.
Where’s the District? Avon, Canton, Stoughton
Learn More: https://www.tamishacivil.com/
15th Norfolk: Raul Fernandez
Raul Fernandez has been an impressive local leader in the fight for more progressive municipal government, expanding the vision of what’s possible. As a member of the Select Board in Brookline, he chaired the Task Force to Reimagine Policing in Brookline, leading a community process to imagine a crisis response system that puts mental health and well-being first. At Boston University, where he is a lecturer, he co-developed the course “Identity, Inclusion & Social Action,” which helps students to examine systems of oppression and identify opportunities to work toward social justice, and he is a Board Member of the Racial Imbalance Advisory Council at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Through both lived and professional experience, Raul understands the urgency of action on the many crises the Commonwealth faces and the need for systemic change to address them.
Where’s the District? Brookline (Precincts 1-4, 5A, 6-12, 17)
