Six Weeks Until Election Day: Announcing New Endorsements

Election Day is six weeks away. And that’s coming up fast.

In that spirit, we’re proud to announce a new round of endorsements, voted on by our members.

A few quick reminders first:

Confirm your polling location at wheredoivotema.com.
Apply for a mail-in ballot here.
Register to vote or update your registration here.

MA House: Re-Election Endorsements

3rd Bristol: State Rep Carol Doherty

The District: Easton (Precinct 4A, 5, 6), Taunton (Ward 1 Precincts A, B; Wards 2, 5, 7, 8)

Rep. Carol Doherty has been fighting to ensure that all students get the resources and supports they need. She understands that every community in our Commonwealth thrives when we invest in education and infrastructure, when we strengthen workers’ rights, and when our government is accessible and accountable to the public they serve.

Learn more about her campaign at https://caroldoherty.com/.

17th Worcester: State Rep David Leboeuf

The District: Leicester (Precincts 2, 4); Worcester (Ward 7; Ward 8 Precincts 2, 3, 4, 6; Ward 10 Precinct 6)

Rep. David LeBoeuf has been a strong advocate for expanding health care access and removing economic barriers facing the most marginalized. A committed supporter of bold climate action, he understands how housing, climate, and economic justice are connected and co-filed the top piece of legislation this past session to advance that vision of climate action. Learn more about his campaign at https://www.davidleboeuf.org.

New MA Senate Endorsements

Second Suffolk: State Rep Liz Miranda

The District: Boston (Roxbury, Mattapan, Dorchester, Hyde Park, Mission Hill, Jamaica Plain)

Rep. Liz Miranda has been a strong champion for immigrants’ rights, criminal legal reform, maternal health, and environmental justice and is a legislator who knows how to fight to win. She brings a powerful lived experience and a commitment to policy and robust constituent services. She has been a vocal ally for individuals and groups fighting for justice in Massachusetts, and we need more people like her in office.

Learn more about her campaign at https://www.lizmiranda.com/.

Hampden, Hampshire, & Worcester: State Rep Jake Oliveira

The District: Belchertown, Chicopee (Ward 1 Precincts A, B; Ward 6 Precincts A, B; Ward 8 Precinct B; Ward 9 Precinct B; East Longmeadow; Granby; Hampden; Longmeadow; Ludlow; Palmer; South Hadley; Springfield; Ward 6 Precincts B, D; Ward 7 Precincts B, C, D, E, F, G, H1; Warren; Wilbraham)

Rep. Jake Oliveira has been a strong champion of public education and a reliable ally for transit and environmental justice activists in Western Mass. As a former advocate for the state association of school committees and the state association for public universities, he understands well how investing in education is critical for equity and economic vitality.

Learn more about his campaign at https://www.jakeoliveira.org/.

New MA House Endorsements

9th Norfolk: Kevin Kalkut

The District: Medfield (Precincts 3, 4), Millis (Precinct 1), Norfolk, Plainville, Walpole (Precinct 5), Wrentham

Kevin Kalkut has a shown a commitment to public service via the Norfolk Planning Board and Norfolk Select Board and to coalition-building, having brought together stakeholders to create a plan to expand multifamily zoning while preserving green space. He would be a strong advocate for public education, reproductive health care, affordable housing, and climate action.

Learn more about his campaign at https://www.kalkut4rep.com/.

5th Suffolk: Chris Worrell

The District: Boston (Roxbury, Dorchester)

Chris Worrell has a strong background in public service and community engagement, especially ensuring greater voice for impacted communities. As a state legislator, he will fight to address deep-rooted education and housing inequities and ensure that Roxbury and Dorchester are able to benefit from our state’s economic prosperity.

Learn more about his campaign at https://votechristopherworrell.com/.

11th Worcester: Stephen Fishman

The District: Shrewsbury; Westborough (Precinct 4)

Stephen Fishman is a former small business owner who understands that small businesses thrive when we invest in strong public education and transportation systems. Unlike the Republican incumbent he is challenging, he would be a reliable advocate for workers’ rights, voting rights, and reproductive justice.

Learn more about his campaign at https://stephenfishman.org/.

Reminder: Our Endorsements Continuing to the General

As a reminder, these join our other endorsees advancing to November:

Rahsaan Hall for Plymouth County District Attorney: https://www.hall4da.com
State Senator Becca Rausch for the Norfolk, Worcester, and Middlesex state senate district: https://www.beccarausch.com/
Robyn Kennedy for the First Worcester state senate district: https://www.kennedy4senate.com/
Manny Cruz for the 7th Essex state house district: https://www.mannycruz.org/
James Arena-DeRosa for the 8th Middlesex state house district: https://www.jamesforstaterep.com/
Teresa English for the 22nd Middlesex state house district: https://www.voteteresaenglish.org/
Erika Uyterhoeven for the 27th Middlesex state house district: https://www.electerika.com/
Rita Mendes for the 11th Plymouth state house district: https://ritamendes.com/
Sam Montaño for the 11th Suffolk state house district: https://www.samforboston.com/

elections

PM in the News: “Maura Healey Looks to Have a Lock on the Massachusetts Governorship, But …”

Gabrielle Gurley, “Maura Healey Looks to Have a Lock on the Massachusetts Governorship, But …,” The American Prospect, September 15, 2022, https://prospect.org/politics/maura-healey-looks-to-have-a-lock-on-the-massachusetts-governorship/.

“The way I describe the Massachusetts legislature’s evolution over the past decade is that they have gone from doing things that are actively harmful to things that are woefully insufficient,” says Jonathan Cohn, policy director for Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide political advocacy group. “There is a certain type of conservatism bred out of inertia, risk avoidance, lack of engagement on policy on an individual level and the fact that the most powerful interests militate in favor of the status quo. Not an outright ‘big C’ conservativism like a Republican legislature, but a status quo bias in operation.”
….
“Under a Republican governor power resides within the legislature, they set the agenda: They can ignore whatever the governor asks them to do because, at the end of the day, they can pull together the votes for what they want to do regardless,” says Cohn. “[A] Democratic governor assumes that the legislature should pass the Democratic governor’s priorities, which takes power away from the Speaker and away from the Senate president.”

beacon hill elections

The End of the Legislative Session Was Chaotic. Here’s Where Bills Stand.

Despite the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature is a full-time body, and that legislators have accordingly been in session since January 2021, legislators routinely push a lot of legislating off until the final months, even final days of the formal legislative session.

That formal session ends on July 31 (or, if the Legislature chooses to bend the rules of time as they did this year, early on August 1). However, the actual legislative session does not end until the day before the first Wednesday of the year, so legislators can come back at any time to pass new legislation or unfinished legislation; they just need the will to do so.

Let’s take a look at what important legislation became law in these final months, what passed only one chamber but not the other, what’s stuck in limbo, and what got stuck in various stages of the committee process.

Passed via Veto Override

Work & Family Mobility Act (H.4085, 6/9)

Ensures that any qualified driver, regardless of immigration status, can obtain a driver’s license

Passed and Signed by the Governor

VOTES Act (S.2922, 6/22)

Creates a permanent vote-by-mail option (and requires every voter to be mailed a vote-by-mail application)
Expands early voting options
Ensures that eligible voters who are incarcerated are able to request a mail ballot and vote
Shortens the voter registration cutoff period from 20 days until 10 days (but does not enact Same Day Registration as the Senate bill had)
Sets a deadline for that the Commonwealth to join the 30-state Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) to keep voter registration rolls up-to-date
See more at https://www.progressivemass.com/votes-act-june-2022/

CROWN Act (H.4554, 7/26)

Prohibits discrimination against employees, students and other individuals based on their natural or protective hairstyle (e.g., braids or knots)

Protecting Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care (H.5090, 7/29)

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
A confidential address program for reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers who too often face threats and violence for providing health care
Language to clarify the ROE Act and ensure pregnant people do not have to leave Massachusetts for abortion care later in pregnancy

Gun Safety Regulations (in Judicial IT bill, 8/10)

Requires a licensing authority, like a law enforcement official, to conduct a personal interview with anyone seeking an initial application for a license to carry a firearm
Bans from getting a gun license anyone subject to “a permanent or temporary harassment prevention order” or who “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others

An Act driving clean energy and offshore wind (H.5060, 8/11)
The Legislature passed a climate bill that takes steps to accelerate the transition to renewable energy (with a special but not exclusive focus on stimulating the offshore wind industry), modernize the grid, make green jobs accessible to the communities most in need, require large buildings to report energy usage, enable 10 municipalities to ban fossil fuels in new construction (provided that they actually allow construction of affordable housing), improve electric car infrastructure and affordability, and require electrification of public fleets. Although the bill was modestly amended since its passage on July 21 in response to amendments from Governor Baker, the Legislature’s final bill mostly adhered to the contours outlined here.

Cannabis Equity Bill (S.3096, 8/11)

The Legislature passed a bill to address equity in the growing legal cannabis industry in the state. The bill would direct 15% of the money in the Marijuana Regulation Fund (which is generated from the marijuana excise tax, application and licensing fees, and industry penalties) into a new Social Equity Fund, which would offer grants and loans to boost participation in the industry by populations disproportionately harmed by the drug war. It would also give the Cannabis Control Commission the authority to review and approve host community agreements as a way to combat both corruption and undue obstacles to Social Equity applicants posed. Baker signed the bill, vetoing only one small part of the bill that would have commissioned a study on how to remove obstacles to the possession and consumption of medical marijuana in K-12 schools.

Transportation Bond Bill (H.5151, 8/15)

The Legislature passed a $11.3 billion transportation bond bill (H.5151). The bond bill contained a number of noteworthy authorizations, including $6.95 million for fare-free bus pilot programs for the MBTA and Regional Transit Authorities, $200+ million for electrification of the commuter rail, $1 billion in MBTA modernization and $64 million in RTA capital investments, $275 million for the East-West Rail project, and enhanced data reporting from companies like Uber and Lyft. However, it is important to remember what a bond bill is and what it isn’t. A bond bill is an authorization of debt; much of the funds end up never spent. Note also that Baker chose to weaken the bill before signing it, sending back amendments (a) to urge the use of battery electric trains for commuter rail despite the fact that there are no battery trains in passenger service in North America yet and (b) to remove the language requiring no diesel locomotives after December 31, 2030.

Passed and Signed: Mental Health ABC Act 2.0 (S.3097, 8/16)

The Legislature passed a broadly supported comprehensive mental health care reform bill (An Act addressing barriers to care for mental health, or Mental Health ABC). The bill would do the following, among many other provisions:

Mandate coverage for an annual mental health wellness exam, comparable to an annual physical
Provide the state with better tools to implement and enforce mental health parity laws (meaning that if insurance plans must provide equal treatment of mental health conditions, including substance abuse, as they do for other medical conditions)
Implement the nationwide 988 hotline to access 24/7 suicide prevention and behavioral health crisis services
Initiate a public awareness campaign for red flag laws and extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) that limit access to guns for people at risk of hurting themselves or others
Enable individuals over 26 years old who live with disabilities can remain on their parents’ health insurance

In Limbo because of Baker

However, Baker did not sign all of the bills the Legislature passed in the final days of the session, and by taking so long to finalize their bills, the Legislature gave Baker undue leverage. He was able to veto things when legislators were already in recess or had little time to act (which, in the case of No Cost Calls, they squandered). The Legislature should come back into the session to finish their work.

Prison Moratorium, the five-year pause on new prison & jail construction, which was passed by both House and Senate via the infrastructure bond bill. Baker vetoed it when the Legislature already ended the session, leaving them unable to override a veto.
No Cost Calls, which was passed by both chambers in the budget and was sent back with an amendment by Baker to add his “dangerousness hearing” bill (which would expand pretrial detention). The House rejected it, and the Senate passed a narrowed, but still harmful version of it, and then both chambers left
SAPHE 2.0 Act (Statewide Accelerated Public Health for Every Community), which would create local and regional public health standards and regular state funding to health boards and was passed unanimously. Baker sent back significant amendments when the Legislature already ended the session, leaving them unable to respond.
$30 million in funding for virtual meeting capacities in municipalities, which Baker vetoed in the general government infrastructure bill the Legislature passed.

In Limbo because of the Economic Development Bill

The Legislature had been working to finalize an economic development bill, centered on rebates (which concerningly excluded the residents of the greatest needs), some progressive tax reforms, some regressive tax reforms (a massive estate tax giveaway), and funding for important programs across the state. These negotiations got sidelined by the realization that a misguided Reaganite 1986 tax law in the state could be triggered, sending automatic (regressive) tax rebates to residents. Important policies that were included in the Senate or House version of the bill are stuck in limbo, and the Legislature should come back to finish them.

PILOT Study (H.3083, Robinson), which would order an estimate how much municipalities are losing each year due to the tax exemption for nonprofits

Community Immunity Act (S.1517, Rausch), which would create statewide consistent immunization policy and provide residents throughout the Commonwealth the data necessary to prevent future outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infectious disease

HOMES Act (S.921, Edwards), which would create a process for sealing eviction records, which can currently be a permanent obstacle for people in attaining new housing even if they won in eviction court

What Passed the House, But not the Senate

Facial Surveillance Regulations, as recommended by a commission created by the Legislature in the 2020 police reform bill (and incorporated by the House into the Judiciary IT bill: H.5076, 7/21/222)

What Passed the Senate, But Not the House

Stronger child care infrastructure (S.2973, passed 7/7/22), which was lauded by the Common Start Coalition as a significant step forward in transforming the child care system in MA, including more affordability for families, early educator raises, and stability for child care providers
The Healthy Youth Act (S.2541, passed 9/23/2021), which would ensure that Massachusetts schools that offer sex education use an age-appropriate, medically accurate, and LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum (Passed 9/23/2021)
Menstrual Equity Bill (S.2730, passed 3/7/2022), which would make menstrual products available without cost in prisons, homeless shelters, and public schools.
Civil asset forfeiture reform (S.2988, passed 6/30/2022), which would raise the legal bar that law enforcement must meet to seize and keep people’s money and property in suspected drug crimes (For more, see our write-up here.)
Juvenile Justice Reform (S.2987, passed 6/30/2022), which would increase opportunities for judicial diversion for youth (For more, see our write-up here.)
Gender X Bill (S.2540, passed 9/27/2021), which would allow for a non-binary option on birth certificates and drivers licenses in the state.

Reported out of Committee But Never Taken Up

One Fair Wage (S.1213 / H.1971): An Act requiring one fair wage (Jehlen – Farley-Bouvier / Fluker-Oakley), which would phase out the discriminatory subminimum wage for tipped workers

Wage Theft Enforcement (S.1179 / H.1959): An Act to prevent wage theft, promote employer accountability, and enhance public enforcement (DiDomenico-Donahue), which would provide the AG’s office with additional mechanisms for enforcing the Commonwealth’s wage and hour laws and subjects lead contractors to joint and severable civil liability if their subcontractors commit wage theft

Banning Mandatory Arbitration (S.1164 / H.1984): An Act relative to the defense against abuse waivers (Chandler – Gordon), which would ban mandatory arbitration in the workplace, a practice which affords employers one-sided protections such as selecting the arbitrator and holding arbitration at the employment site

Injured Workers Bill (S.1187 / H.2032): An Act to protect injured workers during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (Eldridge – Nguyen), which would provide for an administrative complaint and investigation mechanism for enforcement and otherwise addresses employer misconduct that prevents workers from receiving timely medical care and benefits

Equity in Public Contracting (S.2018 / H.3166) An Act Relative to Equity in Public Contracting in Honor of Bruce C. Bolling (Chang-Diaz — Holmes), which would commit the Commonwealth’s commitment to lowering unemployment rates in distressed communities and uses both transparency and competition to help ensure projects funded by taxpayer dollars are creating local jobs and promoting workforce diversity

Wage Equity Bill (S.1196 / H.2020): An Act relative to transparency in the Workplace (Feeney – Malia/Miranda), which would require employers of 100+ workers to publicly post annual wage data reports by race and gender to check compliance with the Pay Equity Law

Lift Kids Out of Deep Poverty (S.96 / H.199): An Act to lift kids out of deep poverty (DiDomenico – Decker) Sets a floor for cash assistance benefits at 50% of the federal poverty level, improving basic financial security for low-income families with children

Homeless Bill of Rights (S.142): An Act providing a bill of rights for people experiencing homelessness (Rausch), which would people experiencing homelessness from discrimination in housing, employment and voter registration; removes archaic and offensive laws about “vagabonds,” “vagrants,” and “tramps” from the General Laws

CHAPA Housing Production Bill (S.871 / H.1448: An Act relative to housing production (Crighton – Vargas/Honan), which would establish a statewide goal of producing 427,000 new units of housing in Massachusetts by 2040, with more than one quarter meeting the definition of affordable housing

Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (S.890 / H.1426): An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal (Jehlen – Livingstone/Consalvo)l which would provide tenants of small, medium, and large multifamily properties with right of first refusal when the owner plans to put a building on the market, provided that they can make a bona fide offer to match the asking price in a reasonable period of time

Visitation Rights (S.1550 / H.2440): An Act to strengthen family and community connection with incarcerated people (Chang-Diaz – Decker), which would strengthen and secure the rights of prisoners to receive visits and maintain relationships with their friends and loved ones without unnecessary interference from the state

Safe Communities Act (S.1579 / H.2418): An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents (Eldridge – Balser/Miranda), which would limit local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, and ensures due process protections

Access to Medication Treatment (S.1296 / H.2067): An Act regarding consistent care for addiction rooted in evidence (Keenan – Balser), which would require prisons and jails to provide medication for opioid disorders

Media Access in Prisons (S.1638 / H.2513): An Act relative to media access and transparency in correctional facilities (Rausch – Decker/Rogers), which would require correctional facilities to guarantee access of media representatives to incarcerated individuals

We the People Act (S.2402 / H.3658): Resolutions for a United States Constitutional Amendment and a limited amendment proposing convention (Eldridge – Gentile/Vieira), which calls for an Article V convention to propose an amendment to undo Citizens United and authorize campaign finance regulation

Empowering Parents to Run (S.475 / H.769): An Act supporting parents running for public office (Jehlen – Connolly/Meschino), which would allow parents running for elected office to expense child care to their campaign accounts

Remote Access to Public Meetings (S.2082 / H.3152): An Act to modernize participation in public meetings (Lewis – Garlick), which would guarantee that remote access to public meetings outlives the pandemic by codifying Governor Baker’s March 2020 emergency order in statute (Rather than making this permanent, the Legislature extended the rules only to next March)

Regional Transportation Ballot Initiatives (S.1899 / H.2978): An Act relative to transportation ballot initiatives (Lesser – Lewis), which would allow municipalities to use ballot initiatives to raise revenue (increase a tax of their choice, sales, hotel, gas, etc.) that would be used specifically for identified regional transportation projects, something many other states already allow

Native Mascots Ban (S.294 / H.581): An Act prohibiting the use of Native American mascots by public schools in the Commonwealth (Comerford – Elugardo/Gouveia), which would prohibit the use of Native American mascots in Massachusetts public schools.

Data Equity Bill (H.3115): An Act ensuring equitable representation in the Commonwealth (Chan), which would require that government agencies that collect demographic information disaggregate by country of origin in order to better identify community needs and inequalities between communities.

Indigenous People’s Day (S.2027 / H.3191): An Act establishing an Indigenous People’s Day (Comerford – Lewis / Fluker Oakley), which would recognize the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day and recommends appropriate incorporation into school curricula

Left in Committee, Sent to Study, or Voted Down

Medicare for All (S.766 / H.1267): An Act establishing medicare for all in Massachusetts (Eldridge – Sabadosa/Garlick), which would establish a single payer system, in which the state provides health care to all residents as a right

HERO Act (S.1853 / H.2890): An Act providing for climate change adaptation infrastructure and affordable housing investments in the Commonwealth (Eldridge – Elugardo), which would double the deeds excise tax on home sales to provide a funding stream for the Global Warming Solutions Fund, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and the Housing Preservation and Stabilization Fund

Real Estate Transfer Fee (S.868 / H.1377): An Act empowering cities and towns to support affordable housing with a fee on certain real estate transactions (Comerford – Connolly), which would enable cities and towns to assess a fee of 0.5-2% on residential and commercial real estate transactions, with the funds allocated to affordable housing trust funds

Banning Exclusionary Zoning (S.867 / H.1373): An Act promoting fair housing by preventing discrimination against affordable housing (Chang-Diaz — Barber)

HOMES for All (S.866 / H.1799): An Act Relative to Homes for All (Chang-Diaz – Miranda), which would require that any person having the right to rent, lease, or sell properties can not discriminate against any person for sealed criminal records, misdemeanors that occurred over three years ago or that did not result in convictions

COVID Housing Equity Bill (S.891 / H.1434): An Act to prevent COVID-19 evictions and foreclosures and promote an equitable housing recovery (Jehlen – Moran/Honan), which would require landlords to cooperate with rental assistance programs before pursuing eviction; protects the most vulnerable tenants from forced removal for COVID-19 debts; pauses no-fault evictions during the state of emergency and recovery period; pauses foreclosures and requires forbearance based on federal policies; and requires the state to adopt equitable principles, flexibility, and simplification in the distribution of rental assistance funds

Tenant Protection Act (S.886 / H.1378): An Act enabling local options for tenant protections (Gomez – Connolly/Elugardo), which would enable cities and towns to pass tenant protections such as rent stabilization laws, just cause eviction, limitations on condo conversions, etc.

Right to Counsel (S.874 / H.1436): An Act promoting housing stability and homelessness prevention in Massachusetts (DiDomenico – Day / D. Rogers), which would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and owner-occupants in eviction proceedings

Paid Leave for Municipal Workers (S.1160 / H.2044): An Act to ensure paid family and medical leave benefits for municipal employees (Brady – D. Rogers), which would extend the 2018 paid family and medical leave law to cover municipal employees

Dignity At Work Act (S.1185 / H.3843): An Act addressing dignity at work without regard to protected class status / Dignity At Work Act (DiZoglio/Lewis), which would create a legal claim for bullying targets who can establish they were subjected to malicious, health-harming behavior in the workplace

Debt-free higher ed (S.829 / H.1339): An Act to guarantee debt-free public higher education (Eldridge – Higgins), which would create a higher education system where every Massachusetts resident has a right to attend any public college or university free of tuition and fees

Endowment Tax (S.836 / H.2931): An Act to support educational opportunity for all (Gomez – Higgins/Barber), which would impose an excise tax on university endowments greater than $1 billion to create a fund subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth

PILOT Funding (S.1874 / H.3080): An Act relative to payments in lieu of taxation by organizations exempt from the property tax (Gomez – Uyterhoeven), which would enable cities and towns with nonprofits owning total property valued at or above $15 million to require them to make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) equal to 25% what they would have owed without the exemption

CHERISH Act (S.824 / H.1325): An Act committing to higher education the resources to Insure a strong and healthy public higher education system / CHERISH Act (Comerford – Garballey/Mark), which would commit the Commonwealth to funding public higher education at 2001 levels, adjusted for inflation

CARES Act (S.365 / H.584): An Act relative to anti-racism, equity and justice in education (Lewis / Elugardo – Uyterhoeven), which would create a commission to develop curriculum materials with a social justice perspective of dismantling racism and ensure that ethnic sftudies, racial justice, decolonizing history, and unlearning racism is taught at all grade levels using a critical approach and pedagogy that is age-appropriate (The bill was folded into an Educator Diversity bill, but none of the text was incorporated into the bill it was folded into…)

Safer Schools (S.286 / H.648): An Act relative to safer schools (Chandler – Khan), which would support schools that want to transition their school safety program to one that does not rely on a school police model and require greater transparency on the impact of school policing on students’ discipline and information sharing with law enforcement agencies

Decriminalizing Consensual Sex (S.1126 / H.1726): An Act relative to consensual adolescent sexual activity (Rausch – Lewis), which would decriminalize consensual activity between teenagers close in age

Curbing Solitary Confinement (S.1578 / H.2504): An Act to provide criminal justice reform protections to all prisoners in segregated confinement (Eldridge – Miranda), which would expand the rights of those in solitary confinement, including requiring treatment for those with serious mental illness and monthly reviews for eligibility to return to the general population

Ending Life without Parole (H.1797): An Act to reduce mass incarceration (Livingstone/Miranda), which would repeal mandatory sentences of life without parole, which have strong racial biases and have been deemed human rights violations by international courts

Raising the Age (S.920 / H.1826): An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults (Boncore-O’Day/Khan), which would raise the age of criminal majority to 21, allowing offending youth to have better access to treatment and educational services and thereby reducing recidivism

Justice Reinvestment Act (S.1815 / H.2008): An Act to reinvest justice and opportunity in communities affected by incarceration (Chang-Diaz — Keefe), which would establish a training and workforce fund that would reinvest the savings from lower incarceration into neighborhoods most affected by the criminal justice system

Eliminating Mandatory Minimums (S.977 / H.1910): An Act to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences related to drug offenses (Creem – Uyterhoeven), which would repeal mandatory minimum sentences for opioid-related offenses, which were left in or newly created by the 2018 criminal justice reform bill

Cannabis Expungement (S.1048 / H.1904): An Act ensuring equitable access to cannabis related expungement (Gomez – Comerford / Tyler – Lewis)w, which would permit a person eligible for expungement of a decriminalized offense for possession of marijuana to expunge the charge without a hearing and permits a person who is incarcerated due to a possession of marijuana that is now decriminalized to seek release from incarceration

COVID Decarceration (H.1868): An Act regarding decarceration and COVID-19 (Sabadosa), which would direct the Department of Corrections and Sheriffs to to release people from incarceration who pose no immediate threat to the community so that the virus does not spread quickly in our jails and prisons, and in turn, to staff, families, and our health care system

Curbing Police Militarization (S.1539 / H.2479): An Act relative to military grade controlled property (Barrett – Keefe/Lewis), which would require a vote by a local legislative body before a municipality can acquire military equipment

Banning Tear Gas (S.1637 / H.4150): An Act banning the use of tear gas by law enforcement (Rausch – Connolly/Lewis), which would ban the use of tear gas and other chemical weapons by law enforcement

Limiting Qualified Immunity (S.945): An Act to Allow Restitution for Civil Rights Violations (Chang-Diaz), which would prevent qualified immunity from being used as a shield against lawsuits for violations of a person’s civil rights

Updating the MA Civil Rights Act (S.946): An Act to Secure Civil Rights through the Courts of the Commonwealth (Chang-Diaz), which would remove a narrow limitation in the MA Civil Rights Act in order to allow people to seek recourse through the courts for any violation of their civil rights

Vote16 (S.448): An Act ensuring municipal participation of the widest eligible range (Chandler), which would enable cities and towns in Massachusetts to lower the voting age for municipal elections to 16 to encourage good voting habits early

All Resident Voting (S.465 / H.770): An Act extending voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizen voters of the commonwealth (Eldridge — Connolly/Elugardo), which would allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections

Local Option RCV (S.485 / H.825): An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections (Rausch – Pignatelli), which would enable cities and towns in Massachusetts to adopt ranked choice voting for municipal elections

Expanding Public Records Law (S.2107, S.2048, & H.3239): An Act expanding the public records law (Rausch) & An act to apply the public records law to the legislature (Eldridge – Uyterhoeven), which would remove the full exemption that the Governor and Legislature have from public records law

IPCC by 2030 (S.2170 / H.3372): An Act investing in a prosperous, clean commonwealth by 2030 (Eldridge – Uyterhoeven), which would commit MA to transitioning to 100% renewable electricity and net zero carbon emissions across all sectors by 2030

Rooftop Solar (S.2165 / H.3278): An Act Increasing Solar Rooftop Energy / An Act establishing solar neighborhoods (Eldridge – Lewis/Connolly), which would require that all new construction be built to accommodate solar energy installations

Building Justice with Jobs (S.2226 / H.3365): An Act providing for building justice with jobs (Pacheco – Robinson/LeBoeuf), which would put thousands of MA residents to work retrofitting 100,000 homes each year to improve energy efficiency and health outcomes, and reduce utility bills and carbon emissions

Environmental Justice Protections (S.996 / H.1792): An Act to create access to justice (DiDomenico — Meschino/Madaro), which would increase access to legal remedies for communities disproportionately impacted by environmental burdens, e.g., by eliminating the legal burden of proving that programs or activities with a disparate impact are motivated by discriminatory intent

Siting Reform (S.2135 / H.3336): An Act Relative to Energy Facilities Siting Reform to Address Environmental Justice, Climate, and Public Health (Boncore – Madaro), which would add environmental justice, public health, and climate to the factors that the Energy Facilities Siting Board must consider in its deliberations; requires community engagement prior to filing for environmental or Siting Board review of a petition to construct an oil, gas, or substation facility; among other steps

100% Clean Act (S.2136 / H.3288): An Act transitioning Massachusetts to clean electricity, heating and transportation (Boncore – Decker/Garballey), which would transition Massachusetts to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and 100 percent clean heating and transportation by 2045

State Infrastructure Bank (S.665 / H.1223): An Act establishing the Massachusetts infrastructure bank (Eldridge – Connolly/Elugardo), which would create a public bank, capitalized by the Commonwealth and offering financing at lower cost to Mass cities and towns, increasing municipal capacity for making infrastructure improvements

beacon hill

News Roundup — August 9, 2022

“Infighting, obfuscation, delay: the chaotic end of Massachusetts’ legislative session,” Boston Globe, 8/8

“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.”

“Senate president is our employer, she should talk to us,” Common Wealth, 8/6

“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.”

“‘It was you!’ Traffic spat turned police coverup leads to questions for DA Hayden,” Boston Globe, 8/6

“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.”

“Pressley, Markey want MBTA to eliminate fares on all subway and bus service while Orange Line is shut down,” Boston Globe, 8/4

“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.”

“A ballot measure that could mean billions in new revenue,” Boston Globe (letter), 8/4

“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.”

“Will the cost of housing tank the Massachusetts economy?,” Boston Globe, 8/1/2022

“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.”

“A new prison won’t help our community,” Boston Globe (letter), 7/30

“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.”

“How to create a community where we all want to live? Tax the rich.,” Boston Globe (letter), 7/29

“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.”

“Baker won’t sign no-cost prison calls without dangerousness bill,” Boston Globe, 7/28

“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.”

“‘For a major city to not have reliable public transportation is a huge problem.’ Rider frustration with T cuts is palpable.,” Boston Globe, 7/27

“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.”

“I was on the Orange Line train that caught fire. I’m furious.,” Boston Globe, 7/25

“The state needsto pay for more frequent and thorough car inspections so that people don’t get caught in doors and dragged to their deaths. It needs toput money into fixing busted stairs so people don’t fall through them and die. It needs to fix the ceiling of the heavily-trafficked pedestrian tunnel that connects the Red and Orange Lines at Downtown Crossing before it caves in.”

“Four Framingham city councilors express support for Fair Share Amendment,” MetroWest Daily News, 7/24

“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.”

“‘Things need to change.’ For the next Massachusetts governor, housing challenges await.,” Boston Globe, 7/20

“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.”

“41% of Massachusetts families struggle to afford health care,” Boston Globe, 7/20

“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.”

“State House staffers have to wait months for health insurance to kick in. Their bosses nixed part of a bill to give them coverage on day one.,” Boston Globe, 7/20

“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.”

“A $250 check from Beacon Hill? Great. But don’t leave out the very poor.,” Boston Globe, 7/9

“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.”

“Police can seize your property too easily in Massachusetts,” Boston Globe, 6/29

“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.”

“With allegations of hypocrisy, State House staffer union ups pressure on Senate President Spilka,” Boston Globe, 6/29

“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.

2022 District Attorney Elections

The District: Boston, Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop

Incumbent DA: Charlie Baker-appointed interim DA Kevin Hayden (given former DA Rachael Rollins’s confirmation as US Attorney)

Want to see more questionnaires?

How the MA Senate Colluded with Charlie Baker to Defeat No Cost Calls

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 advocates panned 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).

decarceration

Urgent: Email Your State Senator to Protect No Cost Calls

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)

House Vote Rejecting Baker Dangerousness 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.

decarceration

Take Action: What Your State Legislators Need to Do Before Sunday

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 language from 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

Write to them here!

An End of Session TO DO LIST for the MA House!

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 language from 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

Write to them here!

And Lastly, A Quick Call to Governor Baker

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.”

decarceration housing labor

House and Senate Strengthen Protections for Abortion Care in Mass

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.

reproductive rights