Tell Beacon Hill to Finish the Job

The current legislative session in Massachusetts ends in just three short weeks, with a few holidays in between.

And there’s a lot left to do.

The Legislature has to reject harmful amendments proposed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker to weaken police accountability legislation and strike vital language on equitable abortion access and prison oversight from the budget.

Important climate and housing legislation has been languishing in secretive conference committees while crises fester.

Key protections for workers like emergency paid sick time and for our immigrant communities like the Safe Communities Act and the Work and Family Mobility Act (driver’s license bill) were voted out of committee months ago but remain stuck in limbo.

It’s time to stop delaying and take action.

Can you email your state legislators today to demand swift action on these priorities?

We can’t let the clock run out with so much still on the table — and so much at stake.

It’s Time for the Legislature to Stand up to the Governor

This week, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed repeatedly that he doesn’t have the best interests of the commonwealth at heart. And we’re not just talking about his stubborn refusal to close in-door dining, casinos (?!), and gyms or ensure that workers and small businesses have the supports they need to weather the dark winter. (Although more on that later.) 

We’re talking about his refusal to sign good policies passed by the Legislature and his desire to run out the clock on all of them.

Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.

And rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access.

Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

That’s not okay. And the Legislature shouldn’t let him get away with it.

Email your legislators in support of reinstating key language on police reform, reproductive justice, and prison oversight.

Charlie Baker Wants to Water Down the Police Reform Bill. Don’t Let Him.

Last week, the MA House and Senate passed their consensus version of a police reform bill, sending it to the Governor’s desk.

Baker had three options. (1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listened to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn’t care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn’t care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill.

He chose #3.

In his letter to the Legislature earlier today, Baker outlined a series of amendments that he is demanding that the Legislature pass. Each one would water down the progress made toward accountability and oversight. 

Here’s what they were–and why they should be rejected. 

  • Restoring the Municipal Police Training Committee: The Legislature’s bill takes the Municipal Police Training Committee from its current location in the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and places it under the oversight of the civilian-majority POST Commission. Baker argued that only police know best how to train police. If that were true, then we wouldn’t be seeing all of the problems that gave rise to the bill. Civilian oversight is necessary for real accountability and for any meaningful reform of the practice of policing.
  • Designating a Seat for Police Unions on the POST Commission: Baker insists that the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Policy Group be able to submit police union representatives for consideration for one of the law enforcement seats on the commission. Police unions have been bullying legislators and lying about the bill. They should not be rewarded for that with an opportunity to work against real oversight.
  • Removing the Ban on Facial Surveillance Technology: Facial surveillance technology is very racist and very dangerous. Baker wants to eliminate the ban on this tool and create more work for a commission to study it.
  • Weakening the Use of Force Regulations: Baker wants to strike the definitions in the bill for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” to make it easier for police officers to say that deadly force was justified.
  • Defining “Bias-Free Policing” out of Existence: The bill creates an affirmative right to bias-free policing, defined as “policing decisions made by and conduct of law enforcement officers that shall not consider a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status or socioeconomic or professional level.” Baker wants to add exceptions large enough to exclude obvious cases of racial profiling.
  • Delaying the Bill: Baker wants to delay implementation of the bill until July, but as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

Let your legislators know that you oppose these amendments.

Beacon Hill Just Passed a Final Police Reform Bill. Here’s Where You Come In.

Last night, the MA Senate and House passed a consensus version of the police reform bills from the summer. Read our write-up here.

Let’s break down how it went and what’s next.

How Did Your Legislators Vote?

The Senate voted 28 to 12, with 8 conservative Democrats joining the 4 Republicans in voting against it. Note that the Senate had a veto-proof majority.

The House voted 92 to 67, with 35 conservative Democrats joining the 31 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting no. Note that this falls 14 votes shy of a veto-proof majority.

Let your legislators know what you think of their vote!

Thank them if they voted yes — and express your disappointment if they didn’t. Find their contact info here.

So What’s Next?

The Senate, to their credit, had a veto-proof majority, but the House didn’t. So that puts things in Governor Baker’s hands.

Call Charlie Baker at (617) 725-4005 and demand that he sign the bill.

We need to make sure that this passes, but there’s far more work to be done because, as has become clear, new rules, regulations, and reforms — while still helpful — cannot solve the problems in policing and incarceration in this country. We need to rethink what public safety means and move money away from policing and prisons and toward building thriving communities where everyone has the resources and opportunities they need and deserve.

So You Want to Know What’s in the Police Reform Bill?

Earlier this evening, the Conference Committee working to harmonize the House and Senate police reform bills passed in the summer released their much-awaited final report: S.2963: An Act relative to justice, equity and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth.

Shortest take: The bill creates a POST Commission with fewer voices for real police accountability than in the Senate bill, establishes a lot of new commissions that may not actually produce anything, creates new regulations on the use of force with various strength (stronger on facial surveillance on chokeholds, pretty loophole-ridden elsewhere), makes notable strides on juvenile justice (from expungement to school policing), bans racial profiling, and lacks meaningful reforms on qualified immunity. (A lot of ups and downs in that sentence.)

GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) IN THE FINAL BILL:

  • Expanded access to juvenile records expungement
  • Stronger language around protecting students from profiling (with some unfortunate caveats, though)
  • Making school resource officers (SROs) optional for school districts
  • Ban on racial profiling

GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) *NOT* IN THE BILL:

  • Strong limitations on qualified immunity doctrine (The bill only limits QI in case of decertified officer, as in House bill, and creates a commission on QI.)
  • Requirement of a democratic process around municipal acquisition of military equipment
  • Investment of funds equivalent to savings on incarceration into workforce development and job training/opportunities
  • Strong representation from civil rights groups and impacted communities on the police standards & training commission

GOOD THINGS (HOUSE-ONLY) IN THE BILL

  • Language actually banning chokeholds (unlike the weak Senate language)
  • Stronger language around no-knock warrants (although loopholes still abound)
  • Facial surveillance technology ban (as opposed to just a moratorium) 

Okay, let’s dig deeper, section by section.

Section 1: Commissions —  Creation of Commissions on the Status of African Americans, Status of Latinos/Latinas, Status of those with disabilities, Status of Black men and boys (pp. 1-15)

Section 2: Public records — Elimination of personnel records from public records law exemption (page 15)

Section 3-25, 27: Police Training & Certification Committee (pp. 16-22): This section makes some minor text changes to existing law to reflect the new bill and sets some requirements for police training, such as…

  • requirement of de-escalation training, promotion of “procedural justice,” alternatives to the use of force in interacting with minors
  • requirement of training related to interacting with victims, witnesses, or suspects with mental illness, substance use disorder, trauma history, or developmental or intellectual disabilities
  • requirement of de-escalation training with regard to protests
  • requirement of cultural competency training
  • training for school resource officers with regard to legal standards for police interaction with minors, child and adolescent cognitive development, trauma/behavioral addiction/mental illness/developmental disabilities, conflict resolution and diversion, and de-escalation. Also with regard to hate crime identification, anti-racism, and bullying. Requirement of consultation with experts on child and adolescent development and child trauma and with educators and 415attorneys experienced in juvenile and education law and preventing and addressing youth hate crimes in developing such training.

Unfortunately, however, the police training and certification committee consists entirely of law enforcement or their designees (See pp. 39-40 in Section 30).

Section 26: Facial/biometric surveillance (pp. 22-26): This section bans the use of facial recognition surveillance absent express authorization and provides language governing the role of the Registry of Motor Vehicles in facial surveillance. Section 105 (see below) creates a commission to explore that further.

Section 30 — Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission — Composition  (pp. 26-50)

In the conference bill, the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, i.e., the commission in charge of certification and decertification, would have 9 members (no more than 3 of whom would come from police officers).

Here’s how that breaks down:

  • 3 of them would be appointed by the Governor
    • 1 police chief
    • 1 retired justice of the superior court
    • 1 social worker from a list of 5 nominations from NASW-MA
  • 3 of them would be appointed by the AG
    • 1 law enforcement officer below the rank of sergeant
    • 1 law enforcement officer from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers (MAMLEO)
    • 1 attorney licensed to practice law in the commonwealth appointed from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the civil rights and social justice section council of the Massachusetts Bar Association
  • 3 of whom shall be appointed jointly by the governor and AG (with 1 from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts commission against discrimination, no specifications on the other 2).

The bill includes House language requiring demographic representativeness (“…shall include people of color and women, at least in such proportion as these groups exist in the commonwealth’s population”) and geographical diversity (“The members of the commission shall represent diverse geographic areas of the commonwealth, including urban, rural and suburban areas.”

Like the Senate bill, the conference bill spells out some necessary expertise for the civilian members of the POST commission (“law enforcement practice and training, criminal law, civil rights law, the criminal justice system, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, crisis intervention, de-escalation techniques, or social science fields related to race or bias”).

The House POST Commission had less police representation than the Senate POST Commission (2 out of 7 vs. 7 out of 15), but it also had less guaranteed representation from those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (0 out of 7 vs. 8 out of 15). The composition here is somewhere in between: police representation (3 out of 9) falls in the middle of the Senate and House bill, as does the representation for those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (again, 3 out of 9). Unfortunately, there’s a real loss with the exclusion of the NAACP, ACLU, and Lawyers for Civil Rights–as well as those directly impacted–who had seats in the Senate bill but not the House. 

The Senate POST Commission, although having more police presence, would have had a likely progressive majority (4 civil rights, 2 directly impacted, 2 from the Black and Latino Caucus); the POST Commission here does not.

Section 30 — POST Commission —  suspension & revocation (pp. 51-57) The division of police standards is able to begin a preliminary inquiry if there is a report, complaint, or other credible evidence of officer misconduct and must give notice within 30 days. The division is also responsible for keeping a database of such complaints as well as any discipline or decertification that results. So what’s next? The POST Commission can suspend an officer in these cases (with the officer having the right to a hearing within 15 days)

  • Immediately suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a felony
  • Can (post-inquiry) before a charge initiate proceedings if conduct consists a felony if preponderance of the evidence
  • Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a misdemeanor, if the commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime affects the fitness of the officer to serve as a law enforcement officer
  • Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer if  the commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety or welfare of the public
  • Administratively suspend officers who fail to comply with training and reporting requirements

Revocation of license requires “clear and convincing evidence” — reasons to revoke (p. 52-54 / note “shall” use vs. “may” use for outlined reasons). Note requirements for record-keeping on decertified officers (p. 57) and requirements that decertified officers not be hired even if on contract basis (p. 57). So what’s the difference between “clear and convincing” and “preponderance.” The “preponderance of the evidence” means that something is more likely to be true than not true. “Clear and convincing” sets a higher standard–say, two to four times more likely to be true than not true given the evidence.

Section 30 — Regulations on the Use of force (S1414, p. 58 – 59): The chokehold ban is the clearest of these regulations. Given the conditional clauses in the others, it’s unclear how much of a “ban” they will be in practice.

  • No use of physical force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & such force is necessary to effect lawful arrest, prevent escape from custody, or prevent imminent harm
  • No deadly force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & force is necessary to prevent imminent harm & the force is proportionate to the degree of imminent harm
  • Chokehold ban — Note that Section 30 includes the House’s definition of a chokehold (intent or result of “bodily injury, unconsciousness, or death”) as opposed to the narrower Senate version (definition on page 27).
  • Ban on firing at a fleeing vehicle unless imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. 
  • Requirement of de-escalation for protests. Ban on tear gas, rubber bullets, or attack dogs unless (i) de-escalation tried & failed or not feasible, (ii) imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. Reporting requirements for such uses of force.

Section 30 — Duty to intervene (S15, p. 59): “An officer present and observing another officer using physical force, including deadly force, beyond that which is necessary or objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, shall intervene to prevent the use of unreasonable force unless intervening would result in imminent harm to the officer or another identifiable individual.”

Section 37. Language around Qualified Immunity (pp. 64-65)

  • The bill drops Senate language on reforming qualified immunity and reforming the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, you can sue if an officer violates your rights by means of “threats, intimidation, or coercion.” But here’s the catch: if someone says, “I’ll punch you,” that counts as a threat, intimidation, or coercion. When they punch you, it doesn’t — the threat merely refers to the intent, not the act. So the act of assault falls outside of scope. The Senate language would have reformed this and provided meaningful limitations on qualified immunity so that victims of police brutality can get their fair day in court.
  • Instead, the bill here contains House language saying that qualified immunity only no longer applies when an officer has been decertified or violates someone’s rights by “threats, intimidation, or coercion” (which, as noted above, courts never find to be the case).

Section 78 – – Protecting Students from Profiling (pp. 82-83): This section would protect students from having school officials wrongfully entering them into a gang database and risking their deportation or otherwise criminalization.

  • As in the Senate bill, the language applies to SROs as well as school personnel and contains the Senate’s expanded list of agencies to which information should not be provided.
  • It does, however, drop a few types of information deemed not to be provided in the Senate bill:” (ix) participation in school activities, extracurricular activities outside of school, sports teams or school clubs or organizations; (x) degrees, honors or awards; and (xi) post-high school plans.” Juvenile justice reform advocates are concerned that this information could be used as a proxy for immigration status. And it allows for the transmission of information about gang involvement if deemed “germane” to a “specific unlawful event/activity” that the school is required to report, a possibly large loophole.
  • And it allows for “the sharing of information upon the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student, parent or guardian, to comply with a court order or lawfully issued subpoena, in connection with a health or safety emergency pursuant to the provisions of 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4).” Note that this language could provide opportunities for coerced testimony given the power imbalance that exists.
  • But overall it’s an improvement.

Section 79 — Creation of a model school resource officer memorandum of understanding review commission & other regulations on SROs (pp. 87-90)

  • Note that this includes the language that SROs are hired “at request of” as opposed to “in consultation with” superintendents. Currently, schools are required to have police officers. By changing the language from “in consultation with the superintendent/district” (current law and the House bill) to “at request of” the superintendent or district, it creates space to not make that request. But, unlike in the Senate bill, the power lies with the superintendent and not with a democratic vote of the School Committee.

Section 83 — Ban on racial profiling (p. 91-92): This section adds language to the hands-free driving bill passed last year to ban racial profiling by police and to enable the Attorney General to bring forth civil suits to enforce this. One concern from racial justice advocates was that the law banning texting while driving could lead to an increase in racially motivated traffic stops.

Section 92 — Ban on officers having sex with individuals in custody (pp. 94-97): This section specifies that it is not possible for someone in custody to consent (I mean duh…how was this not law yet?). Note that Section 91 contains House language creating mandatory minimums for “indecent assault on battery” on individuals in custody, with this broken into categories for individuals 14 or over, elders / people with disabilities, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and children under 14.

Section 94 — No-knock warrants (pp. 97-98)

  • Under this section, an officer must submit an affidavit that establishes (a) probable cause that if the law enforcement officer announces their presence their life or the lives of others will be endangered and (b) no reason to believe that minor children or adults over the age of 65 are in the home. Note that (b) comes form the House bill.
  • However, officers can evade this requirement if ” to prevent a credible risk of imminent harm” — a potentially wide loophole.
  • Evidence obtained in violation of this would be rightfully inadmissible in court.

Sections 95-98 — Expanded access to juvenile records expungement (pp. 98-100) The final bill expands eligibility to no more than two convictions or adjudications and not more than two non-convictions/non-adjudications (juvenile justice reform advocates had wanted no limitation), but it does allow for multiple charges from one incident to count as one charge. It maintains the existing list of ineligible offenses, but it does apply retroactively (including for petitions that would have previously been ineligible but now wouldn’t be).

Section 103 — Commission on State & County Correctional Officers and Juvenile Detention Officers  (pp. 103-105): The scope of the commission would relate to regulating use of force, access to records, and suspension/revocation. The commission would consist of the following:

    • a former judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court who shall serve as chair
    • the commissioner of correction or a designee
    • 1 correctional officer who shall be appointed by the New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc.;
    • the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, Inc. or a designee
    • the commissioner of the department of youth services or a designee
    • 1 correction officer who shall be appointed by the president of the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union;
    • 1member appointed by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council who shall be an employee of the department of youth services and who shall have not less than 5 years of experience working in a department of youth services secure facility;
    • the executive director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Inc. or a designee
    • the executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services or a  designee
    • the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
    • the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, Inc. or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
    • the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee;
    • 2 members who shall be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a member of the LGBTQ community and 1 of whom shall be a formerly-incarcerated woman

Section 104 – Body Cameras  (pp. 105 – 109): This section creates a 25-member task force to promote regulations for uniform use of body cameras, with the regulations due July 31, 2022. Of the task force, 11 out of 25 represent cops, sheriffs, and DAs. 8 of them represent civil rights. Here is the breakdown:

    • the secretary of public safety and security or a designee
    • the secretary of technology services and security or a designee
    • the attorney general or a designee
    • a member appointed by the committee for public counsel services
    • a district court judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority Law Enforcement Officers Association
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority State Police Officers Association, Inc.
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Latino Police Officers Association, Inc.
    • 1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Association of Women in Law Enforcement, Inc.
    • 2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
    • the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association or a designee
    • 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Inc.
    • the colonel of state police or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association or a designee
    • the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
    • the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
    • the president of the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, Inc., or a designee
    • 5 members appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not fewer than 100,000 people, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not more than 50,000 people, 1 of whom shall be an expert on constitutional or privacy law who is employed by a law school in the commonwealth, 1 of whom shall be an elected official in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and 1 of whom shall be a representative of a law enforcement labor organization.

Section 105 – Commission on use of facial recognition in the Department of Transportation (pp. 109-111)

Section 106 — Commission on emergency hospitalizations (pp. 111-113)

Section 107 — Commission on civil service law reform (pp. 113-116)

Section 108 — Commission on a statewide cadet program (pp. 116-118)

Section 110 — Commission on structural racism in correctional facilities (pp. 118-120)

Section 111 — Commission on structural racism in parole process (pp. 120-121)

Section 112 — Commission on structural racism in probation service (pp. 121-122)

Section 116 — Commission on impact of qualified immunity doctrine (pp. 124-125)

The commission here consists of 15 members:

  • 2 of whom shall be the chairs of the joint committee on the judiciary or their designees, who shall serve as co-chairs;
  • 2 of whom shall be members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house
  • 1 of whom shall be a member of the house of representatives appointed by the minority leader
  • 2 of whom shall be members of the senate appointed by the president of the senate 1 of whom shall be a member of the senate appointed by the minority leader
  • 3 of whom shall be appointed by the gov — 1 of whom shall be a member of a police officers’ union, 1 of whom shall be a member of a firefighters’ union, and 1 of whom shall be a retired justice of the appeals court
  • 1 of whom shall be the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall be the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall be the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Inc. or a designee
  • 1 of whom shall the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee

Based on what we know of these people, what should we expect? There are 5 members we can expect support reform to qualified immunity: the Senate judiciary chair, the 2 designees of the Senate President, the designee of the ACLU, and the Greater Boston NAACP president (or her designee). I am not sure where the Bar or Mass Municipal stands. One should expect that the other 8 members would all be opposed to meaningful reform, making the commission less than useless. Its report (if it happens) is due next September.

Section 117 — Study requirement for the Community Policing and Behavioral Health Advisory Council on a crisis response and continuity of care system to deliver alternative emergency service (pp. 125-127)

The Senate’s Budget Improves the House’s Language on ROE–But Not Much Else

Last night, the Senate passed its much-belated budget for FY2021. Like the House, the Senate failed to take seriously the need for new revenue, abandons the commitment to fund the commitments made in the Student Opportunity Act, and failed to include emergency paid sick time. COVID-19 is expected to get much worse this winter, and our Legislature just simply isn’t taking it seriously.

The Senate did, however, manage to improve upon the House’s language on a slimmed-down version of the ROE Act.

Like the House’s language, the Senate text would do the following:

  • Expand access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in cases of a lethal fetal diagnosis, allowing pregnant people facing serious medical obstacles to their pregnancy to make the decision that’s best for them in consultation with their doctor and receive care here at home.
  • Allow 16 and 17 year olds to make their own decisions about abortion care without having to go before a judge.
  • Streamline access for those under 16 years old by allowing remote hearings, eliminating the need for young people to travel to a courthouse and stand before a judge.

It also went further than the House version in codifying a prohibition against the Commonwealth interfering with a person’s ability to access abortion care.

Senator Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) attempted to gut the amendment, leaving only the language about fatal fetal diagnoses. His effort failed, with only four other senators joining him — a vote of 5-35, with the only Democrat voting YES being conservative newcomer John Velis (D-Westfield).

The ROE amendment itself, filed by Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester), passed 33 to 7. Voting against it were the four Republicans — Ryan Fattman (R-Webster), Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth), Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), and Dean Tran (R-Fitchburg)–and three conservative Democrats — Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

Of the amendments voted on (rather than simply withdrawn), two others are worth highlighting.

Senator Diana DiZoglio (D-Methuen) filed an amendment to cap the delivery fees that third parties charge restaurants for delivery. Given the brutal winter that many restaurants face, this is a sensible measure good for restaurant owners, consumers, and workers (who won’t bear the brunt of lost revenue as much). Although there was broad agreement that this was a necessary measure, it failed on a vote of 12 to 27. Why? Since the House already passed it, Senate Leadership wanted to exclude it for the sake of having a bargaining chip. Given how unclear it is that the economic development bill will even come out of conference committee, it’s a questionable move.

The amendment yielded an interesting split. The most reliable progressives — Senators Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Jamaica Plain), Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham)–all voted yes. So did some of the more conservative Democrats — Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), James Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) — as well as three out of four Republicans (Fattman, Tarr, Tran).

The second additional amendment of note, filed by Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, contained the text of Governor Charlie Baker’s bill on “dangerousness hearings.” The language in the bill, opposed by civil rights advocates, would significantly expand the list of crimes for which a person can be held pre-trial, permit prosecutors to seek a dangerousness hearing if a defendant has a prior conviction of any of the listed crimes (regardless of the date of that conviction), and relieve a prosecutor who has succeeded in holding a defendant on dangerousness grounds of the obligation to bring the case to trial expeditiously, which will increase the pressure on jailed defendants to enter a plea regardless of their guilt or innocence.

It failed 12 to 27.

“But, wait,” you might say, why, “Why is no vote posted online for this?” In between a roll call vote (where each senator says yea or nay individually) and a voice vote (where no record exists, and the calling of yea’s and nay’s is a mere formality), there exists another option: a standing vote. When legislators have to stand for their position, you can discern how every legislator voted, even if it doesn’t get posted after.

Joining the four Republicans in voting against civil rights were Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), John Keenan (D-Quincy), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), John Velis (D-Westfield), and Jim Welch (D-West Springfield).

Lowell Sun LTE: Supporting Immigrants’ Rights

Dee Halczak of Solidarity Lowell penned a letter in support of the Safe Communities Act and the Work and Family Mobility Act in the Lowell Sun:

There are people in our communities, friends and family and neighbors, who have been here for years providing needed services and stability to our communities. But because they arrived here, the way desperate people do, without dotting all the i’s, under current policies we’re supposed to forget those relationships and the good they’ve done and deport them to places many of them don’t even remember and where they have no connections to help them survive.

It is time someone did the humanitarian thing and found a way to help them stay here and thrive, instead of kicking them out of the only country many of them really know.

One state can’t change federal immigration policy, but it can protect its residents from excessive zeal in the enforcement of unjust rules and regulations.

Massachusetts legislators can lead the way by passing the Safe Communities Act, which allows our police to focus on the jobs we hired them for, and the Work and Family Mobility Act, which allows people to obtain a drivers license so that they can support themselves and their family without providing information on immigration status.

We’ve been arguing over this issue for half of my lifetime. It’s time to stop arguing and do the humane thing. People are already here. Pass the legislation that will let us all go on with our lives and focus on more important things, like standing together to help this country overcome one of the worst crises it has ever encountered.

The MA Senate Can Pass a Better Budget Than the House

Last week, we highlighted the good, the bad, and the very ugly of the MA House’s budget.

This week, the MA Senate will be voting on its budget. And they have the opportunity to make it better.

The Senate Can Pass Stronger Language on Reproductive Rights

The House passed a slimmed down version of the ROE Act, which — although not as comprehensive as the ROE Act — has been celebrated by reproductive rights advocates as a major step forward.

Sen. Harriette Chandler’s Amendment 180 (ROE Act) offers even stronger protections for reproductive rights.

So far, Senators Jo Comerford, Cindy Creem, Julian Cyr, Jamie Eldridge, Cindy Friedman, and Becca Rausch have signed on.

If one of those senators is yours, thank them. If not, urge your senator to co-sponsor and vote for Amendment 180. (Find their contact info here.)

The Senate Can Pass Emergency Paid Sick Time

If you follow the news, you know we’re in store for a dark winter, as COVID-19 case numbers and death tolls are expected to rise.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time. No one who is sick should feel like they have to go to work or else they will lose their job. That’s bad for the economy and bad for public health.

Sen. Jason Lewis’s Amendment 360 (Emergency Paid Sick Time) would make sure that all workers have access to at least 10 days of job-protected sick leave during the COVID emergency. 

So far, Senators Jo Comerford, Diana DiZoglio, Paul Feeney, and Michael Moore have signed on.

If one of those senators is yours, thank them. If not, urge your senator to co-sponsor and vote for Amendment 360.

The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly of the House Budget

Late last night, the MA House passed a much-delayed budget for FY 2021.

Let’s dive in.

The Good

The House last night voted to pass a slimmed down version of the ROE Act, which — although not as comprehensive as the ROE Act — has been celebrated by reproductive rights advocates as a major step forward.

The amendment, which passed 108 – 49, would do the following:

  • Expand access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in cases of a lethal fetal diagnosis, allowing pregnant people facing serious medical obstacles to their pregnancy to make the decision that’s best for them in consultation with their doctor and receive care here at home.
  • Allow 16 and 17 year olds to make their own decisions about abortion care without having to go before a judge.
  • Streamline access for those under 16 years old by allowing remote hearings, eliminating the need for young people to travel to a courthouse and stand before a judge.

How did your state representative vote? Find out here.

11.12.20 House Vote on ROE

Want to thank them if they were one of the 108 YES votes? You can do so here.

The Bad

If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.

And that requires money.

Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The House budget fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state, especially public transit.

Legislators had a chance on Tuesday to push back against these cuts and vote to raise additional revenue.

Unfortunately, the House voted 127 to 30 against doing so.

In a time when the billionaires in our state keep getting richer, these representatives overwhelmingly voted against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.

Here was the vote.

The Ugly

If you follow the news, you know we’re in store for a dark winter, as COVID-19 case numbers and death tolls are expected to rise.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time. No one who is sick should feel like they have to go to work or else they will lose their job. That’s bad for the economy and bad for public health.

Unfortunately, even though a super-majority of state representatives signed onto a budget amendment to grant two weeks of job-protected emergency paid sick time, the House punted, choosing to leave workers behind again. Emergency paid sick time didn’t even get a vote or a debate.

Want to tell your representative how you feel? Find their information here.

We plan to keep fighting — for better results in the Senate next week and better results in the session next year.

Your State Rep Probably Took a Bad Vote Yesterday. But They Can Take a Good One Tomorrow.

If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.

And that requires money.

Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The budget that it’s currently debating fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state.

Legislators have a choice of whether to invest in an equitable economic recovery or accept a dangerous trajectory that leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Yesterday, 127 state representatives chose the latter, voting against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.

Here was the vote.

You should let your legislator know what you think of their vote. But there’s an opportunity for them to do better.

Your representative may have voted the wrong way yesterday. But they can still take progressive votes if the following amendments are brought to the floor.

Emergency Paid Sick Time 

Urge your state representative to support Amendment #231 — Emergency Paid Sick Time, which would provide ten additional work-days (80 hours) of job-protected emergency paid sick time for immediate use during the COVID-19 outbreak to workers not covered by federal emergency paid sick time protections.

Strengthening Reproductive Rights

Amendment #759 — Improved Access to Health Care would remove medically unnecessary barriers to abortion care. It doesn’t contain everything from the ROE Act, but it contains many vital provisions and would be a significant step forward. Voters have made clear that reproductive health care matters, and with abortion and other health care under threat from an anti-abortion Supreme Court, it’s time for Massachusetts to act.