The Safe Communities Act Makes Us All Safer

SCA rally at State House

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Chairman Timilty, Chairman González, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the political director for Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue advocacy group focused on fighting for a more equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

Central to our mission and platform is the idea that we all do better when we all do better. When everyone feels safe and welcome in our community, we all benefit. That is why we urge you to give a favorable report to H.2418/S.1579: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents—the Safe Communities Act.

The holidays are a season when we think about spending time with family. But our immigration system too often focuses on tearing families apart. Across the country and here in Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts), immigrant families have been separated and detained indefinitely or deported by ICE for any reason or no reason, without due process.

Massachusetts may not be able to stop deportations, but we can stop being complicit. Massachusetts law enforcement officers have, in many cases, voluntarily cooperated with federal immigration enforcement efforts—at Massachusetts taxpayer expense. If immigrants fear that interacting with state officials could get them or family members deported, they will cease to report crimes or emergencies. When immigrants fear state officials, we are all less safe.

Moreover, when local law enforcement is involved with enforcing immigration law, racial profiling is likely. This harms not only the undocumented, but all people of color, who become potential targets for arrest, because they might “look” undocumented.

Lastly, Massachusetts law enforcement is not being paid to act as ICE agents. Cooperating with federal immigration orders costs the Commonwealth money, both from the extra duties and expensive lawsuits over violation of due process.

All of this makes a simple fact clear: the status quo is not keeping people safe. The Safe Communities Act, by contrast, would—by preventing police from inquiring about immigration status, guaranteeing due process rights, limiting notifications to ICE, and ending collaboration agreements that enable state and county officials with ICE.

Although the new administration in Washington has fortunately shown interest in reforming our immigration system, we don’t need to wait to act, especially when we should have acted years ago.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn                                  

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Safe Communities Act Hearing Prep – Dec 2021

SCA rally at State House

Bill Numbers: S.1579 / H.2418

Full title: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents

Lead sponsors: Sen. Jamie Eldrige, Rep. Ruth Balser & Rep. Liz Miranda

Committee: Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Hearing Information

The hearing will be Wednesday, December 1, at 11 am.

Sign up for the SCA Coalition’s hearing watch party here.

Submit Testimony Yourself

You can submit testimony using the link here!

The Issue 

Federal immigration enforcement practices have created a climate of fear in the Commonwealth. Across the country and here in Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts), immigrant families have been separated and detained indefinitely or deported by ICE for any reason or no reason, without due process. This is happening despite the fact that most non-citizens in Massachusetts have lived here for more than 10 years and are deeply rooted in family and community here. More than 90% of deportation cases initiated in Massachusetts during the 2021 fiscal year (as of February) were against people who were charged solely with immigration violations, not crimes. 

Massachusetts may not be able to stop deportations, but we can stop being complicit. Massachusetts law enforcement officers have, in many cases, voluntarily cooperated with federal immigration enforcement efforts–at Massachusetts taxpayer expense. If immigrants fear that interacting with state officials could get them or family members deported, they will cease to report crimes or emergencies. When immigrants fear state officials, we are all less safe.

Although the new administration in Washington has shown interest in reforming our immigration system, we don’t need to wait to act, especially when we should have acted years ago. 

The Solution

The Safe Communities Act guarantees basic rights and ensures that state and local law enforcement aren’t deputized as federal immigration agents. It bars local law enforcement from asking about immigration status (codifying a practice already common across the state), ensures that undocumented immigrants are granted due process rights, and prevents ICE from disrupting fair access to the judicial process for both victims and defendants. Moreover, the bill ends 287(g) agreements, which deputize state and local law enforcement to ICE at taxpayer expense. 

These reforms reflect a genuine vision of public safety: when communities are ripped apart, we are all less safe, and when communities are whole and everyone has access to justice, we are all safer. 

Highlights 

  • Bars law enforcement from asking about immigration status (unless required by law): Many immigrants fear that calling 911 or speaking to police will lead to separation from family members. This makes them more vulnerable to domestic abuse, wage theft, and other crimes. 
  • Protects due process rights: Before ICE questions someone in local custody, police would have to obtain their consent and explain they have the right to decline an interview or have their own attorney present (rights commonly known as “Miranda” rights). Non-citizens are often unaware of these rights, but without such protections, they can unintentionally make statements that or sign documents that put their own cases in jeopardy. 
  • Ensure fair access to courts: Current practices enable and encourage ICE to take custody of people before they have their day in court, denying justice to victims and defendants alike. The SCA allows police and court officials to notify ICE of a person’s pending release from custody only at the end of a sentence, not before. 
  • Bans 287(g) agreements: These contracts, which allow state and county personnel to act as federal immigration agents at state taxpayers’ expense, are the most extreme form of entanglement with ICE. Massachusetts is the only state in New England to have such agreements, and we have four: with Bristol, Barnstable and Plymouth counties, and the Department of Corrections.
  • Requires law enforcement training: The bill also requires that law enforcement agencies incorporate this guidance into their training programs, and permits the filing of complaints with the relevant agencies.

Email / Call Script (provided by the SCA Coalition) 

Find your legislators’ contact information here. Or send it directly here.

I urge you to cosponsor the Safe Communities Act (S.1579/H.2418). As we celebrate the federal government’s renewed appreciation for the contributions of immigrants, we must also end our state’s longstanding involvement in deportations by supporting this critical legislation, which was reported out favorably last year by the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

The COVID-19 crisis has underscored the detrimental impacts of this involvement—undermining testing, treatment and contact tracing efforts in immigrant communities, and impeding immigrant access to court and police protection.

In the interest of public health, public safety, and an equitable recovery that includes all state residents, I hope I can count on your support for this bill.

Talking Points / Sample Tweets 

  • We believe ALL immigrants are welcome in our community. The #SafeCommunitiesAct would be a step toward delivering on that promise. #mapoli 
  • The #SafeCommunitiesAct is about safety: when communities are ripped apart, we are all less safe, and when communities are whole and everyone has access to justice, we are all safer. #mapoli 
  • Deputizing state and local law enforcement to ICE makes us all less safe, leading to families being ripped apart and increasing racial profiling. #SafeCommunitiesAct #mapoli 
  • Deportations disrupt the economy by depleting the workforce and pushing the undocumented into the underground economy. We all benefit from the #SafeCommunitiesAct. #mapoli 
  • The #SafeCommunitiesAct makes sure that we aren’t spending public money in ways that make the public less safe. That’s basic fiscal responsibility. #mapoli 
  • We can’t wait for the federal government to take action to protect immigrants’ rights. It’s time to pass the #SafeCommunitiesAct. #mapoli 
  • A new White House doesn’t mean the fight for immigrants’ rights is over. The #SafeCommunitiesAct is just as important than ever. Let’s get it done. #mapoli 
  • If we want a successful and equitable recovery from COVID-19, we must pass the #SafeCommunitiesAct. #mapoli 

Learn More 

Finish the Work of Last Year’s Police Reform Bill by Banning Facial Surveillance

Facial surveillance

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Dear Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did last session in passing police accountability legislation that created better standards for police professionalization as well as stronger limitations on the use of force. But there is more work to be done. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.135/S.47: An Act to Regulate Face Surveillance.

Last year, the House and Senate adopted a strong framework for government use of face surveillance in the Commonwealth, but the legislation was significantly weakened by Governor Baker before ultimate passage. H.135 and S.47 are nearly identical to the original language passed by the House and Senate. They would allow controlled use of this technology for legitimate police investigations while strengthening protections for our privacy, freedom of speech, racial justice, and civil rights.

From last year’s debate, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety).  

The current regulations on facial surveillance are deficient in several key ways:

  1. They only regulate facial recognition technology as used by law enforcement agencies, neither prohibiting nor regulating when this technology can or cannot be used by public agencies of different nature, for example schools or local parks departments.
  • They do not establish any limitation regarding who can directly use and operate a facial recognition system and impose very weak standards governing police requests, court orders, and the use of the technology in criminal investigations.
  • They fail to provide any due process protections for defendants who have been subject to the use of facial recognition systems.
  • They lack any enforcement mechanism to ensure that public officials comply with the law.

Thankfully, H.135 and S.47provide for useful policy solutions to these problems. They would, among other steps, prohibit all public entities, including public schools, the department of transportation, and other public agencies in the Commonwealth, from using and possessing this technology; create a notice-and-disclosure framework that will let persons know when facial recognition was used to identify them; and establish an exclusionary rule that would apply when law enforcement uses facial recognition in a manner that does not conform with the law.

We encourage you to give a favorable report to H.135 and S.47. We need strong regulations to ensure it doesn’t infringe on our civil rights and civil liberties, and this legislation provides an excellent model.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

Lifting up MA’s Families with the Common Start Bill

Common Start MA logo

Today, the Joint Committee on Education held its hearing on the Common Start bill. Read our testimony below — and find out how to take action at progressivemass.com/common-start-2021.

Testimony of Progressive Massachusetts in support of H.605 and S.2362: An Act providing affordable and accessible high quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth

October 23, 2021

Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Massachusetts. We are urging you to give a favorable report to H.605 and S.362: An Act providing affordable and accessible high quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth, jointly known as the Common Start bill.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the weakness of our child care infrastructure, but families were already struggling before. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Massachusetts has the most expensive infant care in the country, after the District of Columbia, with the annual cost for infant care or child care of a four-year-old higher than that of college tuition. [1] The $20,913 average annual cost of child care and $15,095 average annual cost for care for a four-year-old is more than half what a minimum wage worker would earn in a year. These costs are prohibitively expensive for low- and middle-income families, who are forced to choose between making ends meet and saving for the future on one hand or affording child care on the other.

The Common Start bill will lift up Massachusetts families by providing child care and early education that is affordable for everyone.  It is most essential to lower-income families, but it will also aid middle-income families who must cope with the highest cost child care in the nation.  We need the quarter million workers who have left the workforce to return to their jobs so they can have income stability and we need them employed for our economy to prosper.

Investments in child care and early education are not only good for the economic security of parents: they are also highly beneficial for children. High-quality early education programs get results. Children benefit with enhanced resiliency and employment opportunities over their lifetimes. Providing children with high-quality early education and child care is one of the most effective ways to further a child’s success in grades K-12 and beyond.

With resources coming in from the federal government through the American Recovery Plan, we have an opportunity to build a child care and early education infrastructure worthy of our Commonwealth. We urge you to take it and to pass the Common Start legislation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] https://www.epi.org/child-care-costs-in-the-united-states/#/MA

MA Legislature Approves New Congressional District Lines. Here’s How They Changed.

This Wednesday, the MA House and Senate passed new district lines for Massachusetts’s 9 Congressional districts.

After every decennial US census, states have to redraw the lines for their legislative and Congressional districts. Massachusetts, fortunately, did not lose any Congressional districts, but population shifts meant that some districts — like the 1st Congressional (Richard Neal) and 2nd Congressional (Jim McGovern) — would need to gain more territory and others — like the 7th Congressional (Ayanna Pressley) and 8th Congressional (Stephen Lynch) — would need to lose territory.

The main point of contention with the Congressional maps concerned Fall River and New Bedford. The Drawing Democracy Coalition, which consists of community groups and civil rights advocates from across the Commonwealth (we’re a member), had been advocating for keeping Fall River whole and uniting it with New Bedford in the 9th Congressional district (Bill Keating) given that Fall River and New Bedford share many concerns as gateway cities with large immigrant populations. Moreover, as coastal cities, they share a clear interest with the Cape communities in the 9th.

The Legislature’s map unites Fall River, but does so by putting all of it in the 4th Congressional district (Jake Auchincloss), a strangely designed district that extends from Brookline and Newton down to Fall River.

The House passed the new map 151 to 8. The 8 dissenting votes came from Democrats Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth) and Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), who heeded the objections from South Coast advocates, and Republicans Donald Berthiaume (R-Spencer), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Joseph McKenna (R-Webster), Lenny Mirra (R-West Newbury), and David Vieira (R-Falmouth). Frost had put forth an amendment about keeping all of Oxford and Webster in the 2nd Congressional district as opposed to moving them to the 1st Congressional, as the new map does, and it’s likely that he and the other Central Mass dissenters voted against the map because of that amendment’s failure.

The debate was far more contentious in the Senate. State Senator Becca Rausch (D-Needham) criticized the map for its scrambling of the lines in MetroWest (“I live in and have the honor of representing parts of Metrowest and this map would slash Metrowest into bits and pieces, divided into five different congressional districts…The Metrowest region has the highest concentration of Brazilian immigrants in the United States.) and separation of Fall River and New Bedford (“We should not divide the two anchor communities of the South Coast. Indeed all of the equity-focused and strong democracy advocates and the strong majority of people who live in Fall River who testified before the committee asked for Fall River and New Bedford to be untied in the ninth district.”) State Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) echoed such criticism (“It continues to send the message to Southeastern Massachusetts that we in the metropolitan area of Boston, we will continue to do what we want with you and we will use you when we need to but otherwise we will just continue to do what we want when we want to.”)

The vote was much closer in the Senate, with the map only passing 26 to 13, with most of the opposition coming from either stalwart progressives or Southeastern senators.

See all the changes to the map here:

PM in the News: “Massachusetts Legislature Ranks Most Liberal Nationwide, Conservative Groups Say”

Hannah Green, “Massachusetts Legislature Ranks Most Liberal Nationwide, Conservative Groups Say,” WGBH News, October 28, 2021.

Others say Massachusetts lawmakers aren’t liberal enough. Jonathan Cohn, chair of the issues committee at Progressive Massachusetts, disagreed with the ranking. The Commonwealth has a high number of Democratic legislators, he said, but the legislation they pass isn’t as progressive when compared to states like California or New York. He believes Massachusetts is behind on key progressive legislation, like same-day voter registration and allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

“My initial thought on Massachusetts being ranked as the most liberal in the country is — I wish,” Cohn said.

Medicare for All: Treating Health Care as a Human Right

Public health image

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Chairwoman Friedman, Chairman Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

Thank you for holding this hearing today. My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization devoted to shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and environmental protection and sustainable infrastructure.

Progressive Massachusetts urges a favorable report for S.766/H.1267: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the flaws of our current system clear. As we recognize the central public health message that our health is intertwined, we must build that recognition into health care delivery and ensure everyone can access the best-quality care possible. When anyone is too afraid of medical bills or debt to seek the care they need, we are all worse off.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Needs to End Poverty Wages

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Cutler, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection. 

Central to our agenda of shared prosperity is good-paying jobs with fair working conditions. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of H.1971/S.1213 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage). 

The tipped minimum wage in Massachusetts stands at a mere $5.55. In 2023, when the recently passed minimum wage increase takes full effect, it will stand at only $6.75. This is not a living wage. [1]

Although employers are supposed to guarantee that workers get the full minimum wage with tips, this has never been common practice, and wage theft is rampant in the industry. The tiered wage system allows this to happen. 

Moreover, sexual harassment remains widespread in the restaurant industry. [2] As our country is slowly but surely starting to grapple with the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault across industries, we must face up to the fact that unequal wage systems create the breeding ground for such inappropriate and predatory behaviors. 

Massachusetts is both one of the wealthiest and one of the most unequal states in this country. Giving a favorable report to H.1971/S.1213 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage) will take us one step further in ensuring that our Commonwealth’s prosperity is shared by all. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts 


[1] http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/25

[2] http://rocunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TakeUsOffTheMenu_Report_2.pdf

“Young adults, especially young adults of color, are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. “

October 13, 2021

Chairman Eldridge, Chairman Day, members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting to make Massachusetts a leader on progressive policy.

Our platform demands justice for all, wherein underrepresented and/or vulnerable communities are protected under the law and treated with dignity and respect and tools for economic mobility. Criminal justice reform is an essential part of that, especially creating a system that ensures public safety, strong communities, and effective use of public funds.

The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed in 2018 took many important steps in such a direction, born out of a recognition of the social and economic costs of mass incarceration. However, the fact that the law was comprehensive does not mean that it was complete, and many vital reforms were left on the table.

One example is raising the age of criminal majority. That is why we are submitting testimony today in support of H.1826/S.920: An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Young Adults.

This bill will gradually raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18, then 19, and then 20-year-olds over a five-year period. The recidivism rate of teens in the juvenile system is less than half of that of young people automatically prosecuted as adults. In the juvenile system, such emerging adults have access to the educational and counseling services that are so vital when they are still developing.

Young adults, especially young adults of color, are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. Reducing the number of young people who experience a system that is not designed for their developmental needs will have a positive impact on such young people, helping them to better be productive, engaged citizens and whole people upon release. And that means stronger, more resilient communities.

We urge you to build on the progress from last session and give a favorable report to H.826/S.920.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Ending the De Facto Disenfranchisement in Our Carceral System

Prison

October 6, 2021

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:

I am submitting testimony in my capacity as Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. We urge a favorable report for S.474 / H.836: An Act to Protect the Voting Rights of Eligible Incarcerated People.

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots organization devoted to advancing policies that would make Massachusetts more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We believe that our democracy is strongest when all are able to participate, but many prospective voters face near insurmountable barriers in seeking to do so.

Take, for example, those who are incarcerated. In Massachusetts, individuals who are incarcerated without felony convictions maintain their right to vote, but too often they are unable to exercise that vote in practice. If individuals do not have timely access to the materials and information they need to vote, then that right does not exist.

It is important to remember that many of these incarcerated individuals are in pre-trial detention: in other words, they have not yet been convicted of any crime, but they are, in practice, losing their right to vote.

When incarceration leads to a loss of voting rights, it is clear that mass incarceration is a form of racist voter suppression. Indeed, while only 21 percent of the state’s population is Black or Latinx, more than 54 percent of the people incarcerated in the Department of Corrections are. Mass incarceration is systematically reducing Black and Brown voters from the electorate.

It is not lost on us that the only two states in the US that have full voter enfranchisement, including for those incarcerated with felony convictions, are Maine and Vermont, the two whitest states. Indeed, we can see the clear connections to the history of racist voter suppression in this country that we routinely call out when it happens elsewhere and need to call out when it happens here.

The practices and procedures around voting within our correctional system have an impact on incarcerated individuals even beyond their time there. When individuals are confused about whether or not they maintain their right to vote, they can be led to believe that they have lost it, even when they return to the community. Even though we have no laws disenfranchising individuals post-incarceration, I have—in my experience volunteering around the commonwealth—encountered individuals who believed they could not vote because of a past conviction. Confusion is a hallmark of voter suppression.

These bills would help us end such disenfranchisement by requiring sheriffs to provide all eligible voters ballot applications, voting materials, and a private place to vote, and to ensure timely return of applications and ballots, among other steps; and by improving registration rates for returning citizens. It also strengthens data and reporting because you can’t fix what you can’t measure.

Studies have shown that voting and civic participation are conducive to successful re-entry by giving returning citizens a stake in the future of their community. When we vote, we are voting for the world we want, or at least prefer, to live in, and we are strengthening the social fabric.

We urge you to vote in support of this bill to make the right to vote meaningful ­­­­­­for all.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts