One Month Until Primary Day: Our New State Legislative Endorsements

The Massachusetts state primary is just one month away: Tuesday, September 1st. And the general election just three months and two days.

The basics for getting prepared for the next month:

But beyond just being registered, we want you to be informed. Read questionnaires from candidates running for State Legislature across the state here.

There are a lot of questionnaires, so we decided to break up our endorsements into multiple batches as in years past.

Our Elections Committee reviewed questionnaires, spoke with allies, and made recommendations for our second round of endorsements, and then our members voted.

And we’re proud to endorse the following candidates, who will be progressive champions in the MA House and Senate.

🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳

SENATE 

NorfoBlk, Bristol & Middlesex: Becca Rausch

Becca Rausch is a first-term senator and a progressive champion. We endorsed Becca in 2018, and she’s been one of our strongest allies in the Senate, with a perfect score on our 2019 scorecard. She’s been a tireless fighter for health equity, civil rights, and strengthening our democracy, and we need more senators like her.

Learn more at https://www.beccarausch.com/.

Where’s the District?: All or parts of Attleboro, Franklin, Millis, Natick, Needham, Norfolk, North Attelborough, Plainville, Sherborn, Wayland, Wellesley, and Wrentham

Norfolk, Bristol & Plymouth: Jarred Rose

Jarred Rose is a Town Meeting Member in Stoughton, a member of the Stoughton Cultural Council, and a former policy adviser in the MA Senate. He is running to fight for a Massachusetts Green New Deal, affordable housing for all income levels, and a more equitable and inclusive commonwealth.

Learn more at https://www.jarredrose.com/.

Where’s the District?: All or parts of Avon, Braintree, Canton, East Bridgewater, Easton, Milton, Randolph, Sharon, Stoughton, and West Bridgewater

Plymouth & Norfolk: Meg Wheeler

Meg Wheeler is the founder of One for Women, an online community and marketplace devoted to connecting and empowering women. She is running to fight for universal child care, a more aggressive response to climate change, and an economy that works for all, not just those on the top.

Learn more at https://www.megwheeler.com/.

Where’s the District?: Cohasset, Duxbury, Hingham, Hull, Marshfield, Norwell, Scituate, and Weymouth

🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳🗳

HOUSE

1st Essex: Amber Hewett

Amber Hewett is an environmental advocate who has advanced offshore wind policy in a number of states at the National Wildlife Federation. She’s ready to continue the fight for bold policies to mitigate climate change and address the intersectionality of the climate crisis with inequality and systemic racism.

Learn more at https://www.amberhewett.com/.

Where’s the District?: Amesbury, Newburport, and Salisbury

2nd Essex: Christina Eckert

Christina Eckert is a community advocate who has worked for Merrimack River Watershed Council, Masconomet Education Foundation, and the Community Giving Tree. She is running to fight for environmental protection and housing security and address the district’s status as public transit desert.

Learn more at https://www.eckertforrep.com/.

Where’s the District?: All or parts of Boxford, Georgetown, Groveland, Haverhill, Merrimac, Newbury, and West Newbury

8th Norfolk: Andrew Flowers

Andrew Flowers is an economist and the chair of Walpole’s affordable housing committee. He is running to fight for greater investments in public transit, make Massachusetts a more welcoming state for all, and strengthen democracy in the State House and the state as a whole.

Learn more at https://andrewflowers.com/.

Where’s the District?: All or parts of Mansfield, Sharon, Stoughton, and Walpole

16th Suffolk: Joe Gravellese

Joe Gravellese is former legislative director and mayoral aide and has the hands-on experience of crafting policy. He’s running for office in order to fight for greater investment in public transit, solutions to our affordable housing crisis, and an accelerated transition to 100% renewable energy.

Learn more at https://www.joegrav.com/.

Where’s the District?: Parts of Chelsea, Revere, and Saugus

Will Any True Reform Have Taken Place?

Dear Conference Committee Members,


I am writing today as the chair of the Issues Committee and Secretary of the Board of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots progressive advocacy

We urge you to the inclusion of the following provisions in a final bill, We would specifically note that without strengthening the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and limiting qualified immunity, most other reforms in the bill will fail to deliver on their promise. If our legal system continues to allow police officers to violate the basic constitutional rights of Massachusetts residents, especially those who are Black or Brown, with impunity, then little if any “reform” will have taken place.

From the SENATE Bill:

(1) Section 10, which enables victims of police abuse to seek redress in the courts

(2) Sections 34-40, which require transparency and public decision-making about local police acquisition of military equipment such as tanks, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles

(3) Section 37, which establishes a Justice Workforce Reinvestment Fund

(4) Section 49, which prohibits schools from transmitting to law enforcement personal information about students or their family members

(5) Section 50, which permits school superintendents to determine whether or not police should be assigned to local schools.

(6) Section 52, which bans racial and other profiling, requires data collection for all stops, frisks, and searches with, analysis, reporting, and accountability if the data demonstrates profiling

(7) Sections 59-61, which clarify that individuals petitioning for expungement may do so for more than one record and creates a limited, rather than indefinite, lookback period for expungement eligibility.

(8) Language in Section 55 – 2(f) that requires police to plan for de-escalation in advance of protests or gatherings

From the HOUSE bill:

(1) Section 2, which clarifies that law enforcement misconduct records are public records

(2) Section 25, which restricts government use of facial surveillance

(3) Section 78, which establishes reasonable safeguards around the use of no-knock warrants

(4) The definition of “choke hold” in Section 29

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Secretary, Board

Progressive Massachusetts

Fight for the Strongest Police Reform Bill

House and Senate Leadership have appointed a conference committee to reconcile their respective bills. The conference committee — Sen. Brownsberger, Sen. Sonia Chang Diaz, Sen. Tarr, Rep. Cronin, Rep. Gonzalez, and Rep. Whelan — will work on a consensus bill, which will have to be voted on and then sent to the Governor.

Please urge your legislators and Governor Charlie Baker to support the strongest bill possible.

From the SENATE Bill:

(1) Section 10, which enables victims of police abuse to seek redress in the courts

(2) Sections 34-40, which require transparency and public decision-making about local police acquisition of military equipment such as tanks, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles

(3) Section 37, which establishes a Justice Workforce Reinvestment Fund

(4) Section 49, which prohibits schools from transmitting to law enforcement personal information about students or their family members

(5) Section 50, which permits school superintendents to determine whether or not police should be assigned to local schools.

(6) Section 52, which bans racial and other profiling, requires data collection for all stops, frisks, and searches with, analysis, reporting, and accountability if the data demonstrates profiling

(7) Sections 59-61, which clarify that individuals petitioning for expungement may do so for more than one record and creates a limited, rather than indefinite, lookback period for expungement eligibility.

(8) Language in Section 55 – 2(f) that requires police to plan for de-escalation in advance of protests or gatherings

From the HOUSE bill:

(1) Section 2, which clarifies that law enforcement misconduct records are public records

(2) Section 25, which restricts government use of facial surveillance

(3) Section 78, which establishes reasonable safeguards around the use of no-knock warrants

(4) The definition of “choke hold” in Section 29

Fight for Housing Justice & Immigration Justice

On Monday, the House voted on key housing amendments to its economic development bill.

State reps overwhelmingly ignored housing justice activists, voting AGAINST allowing municipalities to impose real estate transfer fees to combat speculation and raise money for affordable housing, AGAINST allowing municipalities to pass rent-stabilizing regulations, and AGAINST making it easier for municipalities to pass inclusionary zoning ordinances.

Some of these state reps — embarrassingly — voted against the text of bills they co-sponsored earlier in the session.

The Senate will be taking up its version of an economic development bill tomorrow, so that means there is another opportunity to fight for housing justice and immigration justice.

Can you call your senators in support of the following amendments? 

#2 (Crighton): Work and Family Mobility, which eliminates immigration status as a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license

#6 (Crighton): Tenant’s Right of First Refusal, which guarantees the right of refusal for tenants when a large building is up for sale or foreclosed

#47 (Boncore): Promoting Housing Opportunity and Mobility through Eviction Sealing (HOMES), which seals evictions when they are pending, until and unless an allegation is proven; seals all no-fault evictions, and seals all evictions after 3 years

#57 (Cyr): Compromise local option transfer fee on high cost home sales to support low and middle income housing, which enables municipalities to impose a real estate transfer fee on sales above $1 million, with money going to affordable housing

#96 (Collins): City of Boston Inclusionary Development Policy and Linkage Fees, which incorporates Boston’s Inclusionary Development Policy (requires affordable units within new residential projects) and Linkage Fees (requires payments from large commercial developments to fund affordable housing and job training) into Boston’s zoning code and allows for future rate adjustments 

#175 (DiDomenico): Tenant Right to Counsel Pilot, which establishes a right to counsel pilot program to provide full legal representation to eligible individuals vulnerable to evictions

#249 (Jehlen): Supporting Affordable Housing With A Local Option For A fee To Be Applied To Certain Real Estate Transactions, which enables cities and towns to impose transfer fees on real estate sales with appropriate exemptions (e.g., for low- and middle-income homeowners)

Housing Stability Is an Essential Part of the Cure for COVID

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Housing.

Thank you chairs and members of the committee for reading our testimony.

As municipal leaders scramble desperately to find solutions to the onslaught of evictions they know are headed their way, the people must turn to the state legislature to quell the oncoming tsunami of homelessness that will destroy families and traumatize children if the state legislature does not act.

We urge you to pass S2831/H.4878 in order to end the threat of evictions posed by the sudden end of the current eviction moratorium in October. If families are required to pay back rent for almost half a year, there is no way those living paycheck to paycheck will be able to stay in their homes. If we don’t provide a solution to this problem, we will have a catastrophe unlike any we have confronted before, as families are turned out of their homes en masse.

Please vote yes to allow a year long moratorium on evictions to give families the time they need to get back on their feet and forgive them their back rent since living paycheck to paycheck will not allow them the ability to accumulate the savings they will need to pay their back rent. There is no perfect solution to the housing emergency that confronts us, but this bill is the best solution to a difficult problem. It ensures housing stability for renters while also providing funds for smaller landlords who are also victims of the pandemic economy.

If you pass this into law, it would say a lot about who we are as a state and as human beings. Please show the compassion and responsibility to our citizens that we want to see in other states. You have an opportunity to show leadership to the entire country. Please pass S2831/H.4878.

Thank you,

Caroline Bays

Board President, Progressive Massachusetts

Massachusetts House Votes Down Proposals to Help Renters, Promote Affordable Housing

When Governor Charlie Baker sent an economic development bill to the MA Legislature, he included his “Housing Choices” legislation, which had been stalled as a standalone bill. The “Housing Choices” bill addresses one aspect of Massachusetts’s affordable housing crisis: the fact that new construction is relatively rare in the suburbs due to the prevalence of single-family zoning. If you can only build one housing unit per lot, it makes it more difficult to respond to a growing population or growing demand. Currently, zoning changes (such as those that would approve multifamily housing construction) require a 2/3 approval from local government. Baker’s bill, which the MA House retained in their economic development package, would lower that to a simple majority.

The need for more supply, though, is just one part of the problem. There is no guarantee that the new supply would be affordable, nor that the new supply would not push up rents for current tenants, thus running the risk of displacement. There isn’t even a guarantee that any new housing will be built at all (it’s a removal of a barrier rather than promise of new construction).

That being said, as an MIT researcher recently noted in CommonWealth Mag, all this means is that we need to think comprehensively when we approach the affordable housing crisis: we do need zoning reform, but we also need stronger protections for existing tenants. Tenant protections will not address the need for supply: only new construction can. Zoning reform will not address displacement: you need tenant protections for that. This was also an essential takeaway of the book Golden Gates by Conor Dougherty on the housing crisis in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, the MA House voted down efforts at striking such a balance.

Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) filed and roll-called three amendments to strike a better balance.

First was his amendment 34, which would have enabled municipalities to impose transfer fees on real estate transactions to fund affordable housing. Cities like Boston, Somerville, and Nantucket have filed home rule petitions in order to be able to do so because state law prohibits them from doing so on their own. To be clear, this amendment would simply allow municipalities to pass their own laws to address the affordable housing crisis–and to craft whatever exemptions to the transfer fee’s application as they see appropriate.

The House voted 130 to 29 against it. 9 state reps endorsed *the very same bill* but voted NO here: Barrett, Driscoll, Garballey, Gonzalez, Keefe, Khan, Livingstone, Miranda, and Santiago.

The only argument put forth against it on the floor was from Rep. Ken Gordon (D-Bedford), who said that there is already enough money for affordable housing (false) and that a transfer fee would hurt low and middle-income homeowners (also false, given the allowance of exemptions).

He also filed and roll-called an amendment that reflected the text of his Tenant Protection Act, which would remove the prohibition on rent control and enable municipalities to pass other tenant protections, such as just cause eviction ordinances or limitations on condo conversions. Again, simply allowing municipalities to pass their own laws in response to the affordable housing crisis.

The House voted 136 to 23 against it. Five legislators who co-sponsored the very same bill voted against the amendment: Devers, Hawkins, LeBoeuf, Miranda, and Santiago.

7.27.20 House Vote on RC

Finally, Connolly filed and roll-called an amendment to lower the threshold for approval of inclusionary zoning ordinances to a simple majority. Inclusionary zoning, i.e., the requirement that a certain percentage of new construction meet an affordability threshold, was not included in the list of zoning changes that would no longer need a supermajority.

Given that many suburbs don’t want to build housing at all, there is likely not a rush to adopt inclusionary zoning, but if a suburb were so forward-thinking, it should be able to.

The House voted 139 to 19 against allowing that. Again, five representatives who co-sponsored *the same bill* voted against it: Gentile, Hawkins, Hendricks, LeBoeuf, and Livingstone.

7.27.20 House Vote on Inclusionary Zoning

“The Democratic Party’s Most Confounding Primary” — The Intercept

PM elections committee chair Jonathan Cohn was recently quoted on the MA Senate primary in The Intercept:

“One thing we’ve pointed out is that in 2018, he had the choice to support progressive women of color — Ayanna Pressley and Nika Elugardo — but he didn’t,” said Jonathan Cohn, a leader with Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide advocacy group that has endorsed Markey. In those races, Kennedy endorsed incumbents Capuano and Jeffrey Sanchez, who both lost. (This cycle Elugardo has endorsed Markey, and Pressley is staying out of the race.)

The House Can Strengthen Its Police Reform Bill

Black Lives Matter

Yesterday, the MA House released its police reform bill, and needless to say, we’re disappointed. Although there are some improvements on the Senate bill (stronger language on facial surveillance and chokeholds), the House punted on reforming qualified immunity, weakened language on reducing the school-to-prison pipeline, eliminated the Justice Reinvestment Fund, and dropped a whole section devoted to controlling the transfer of military equipment to police forces.

The House will be voting THIS WEEK, so your state rep needs to be hearing from YOU that you want a stronger bill. We’ve outlined some key amendments below. (Click here to contact your reps.)

Making Sure that Schools Are Safe & Welcoming Spaces

#1 (Sabadosa): Ensuring Public Accountability for School Policing, which provides school districts with discretion about whether or not to hire school resource officers

#88 (Elugardo): Protecting Students From Profiling, which disrupts the school-to-prison pipeline by preventing the transmission of student information to law enforcement agencies

Centering Public Safety around Community

#46 (Keefe): Justice Reinvestment and Workforce Development Fund, which would reallocate an equivalent sum of money from savings from the Department of Corrections into a fund for job training and workforce development for communities disproportionately targeted by the criminal-legal system

#71 (Sabadosa): Alternatives to Policing, which establishes a Community Emergency Response Team consisting of trained social workers under the Department of Public Health to divert certain 911 calls to

#166 (Vargas): Clarifying Expungement, which has the potential to remove major barriers for thousands of young people including access to jobs, housing, education, and other opportunities

#99 (Barber): Work and Family Mobility, which ensures that immigration status is not a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license

Demilitarizing Police & Strengthening Regulations on the Use of Force

#92 (Elugardo) Pre-Emptive De-Escalation, which requires police departments to make plans for de-escalation in advance of protests

#97 (Robinson): No-Knock Warrants, which bans the use of no-knock raids

#131 (Lewis): Restrictions on the Acquisition on Military Grade Controlled Property, which imposes limitations and democratic oversight requirements on the procurement of military weaponry by state and local enforcement

#194 (Robinson): Use of force tactics, which bans the use of rubber bullets and attack dogs by police

#200 (Connolly): Tear Gas, which bans the use of tear gas

Increasing Police Accountability

#77 (Vargas): Preponderance of Evidence as the Burden of Proof for License Suspension and Revocation, which changes the burden of proof used by the Massachusetts Police Standards and Training Commission to suspend/revoke licenses from “clear and convincing evidence” to “a preponderance of the evidence”

#100 (Provost): Addressing Direct Civil Rights Violations, ​which would allow victims of police brutality and other civil rights violations to bring claims in state court for direct violations of their rights — without having to prove that their rights were violated by means of threats, intimidation or coercion.

​#176 (Hecht): Reforming qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, which would enable victims of police brutality to hold officers accountable in court by allowing officers to claim immunity only if it was clearly established that their conduct was lawful.​

#210 (Malia): Officer identification, which requires all officers to have a badge with their name, identification number, and agency visible, with violations subject to suspension or other discipline

Independence of the Police Standards & Accreditation Commission

#95 (Robinson): Makeup of POSAC, which ensures that the civilian members of the commission are not family members of law enforcement

#96 (Robinson): Designation of POSAC Chair, which takes away the Governor’s ability to appoint the commission’s chair and allows the commission to appoint its own

#202 (Decker): Police Standards Commission, which eliminates the guaranteed law enforcement seats on the commission

Preventing a Gross Misallocation of Funds

#86 (Miranda): Prioritizing Social Equity Spending of Marijuana Revenue, which stipulates that if any money is redirected from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Police Training Fund, an equal or greater amount must be transferred to a social equity training and assistance fund

#94 (Robinson): Police Training Fund & #211 (Vega): Marijuana Regulation Fund, which strike the language redirecting funds from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Police Training Fund


Protecting the Human Rights of the Incarcerated

#2 (Sabadosa): Use of Force within the DOC, which would require the Department of Corrections and sheriffs’ offices to provide a commission on the use of force within prisons and jails with necessary documentation to conduct oversight

#98 (Sabadosa): Decarceration, which would require the release of individuals who are currently in pre-trial detainment or under incarceration if they are a member of a population deemed especially vulnerable by the CDC, are eligible for medical parole, are almost finished with their sentence, or are only being detained due to inability to pay bail or due to minor violations of parole

Go Big or Don’t Go Home

In a mere eleven days — on Friday, July 31st, at 11:59 pm — the legislative session in the Massachusetts State House comes to an end.

The bills that didn’t make it past the finish line this year will disappear into the ether or return like a phoenix from the ashes in January next year, only to face the same grueling process.

But there are many policies that can’t wait until January. Indeed, passing them now is already far later than should have been done. And, frankly, the Legislature shouldn’t get to leave session until they finish.

What priorities are we talking about?

  • Passing the Safe Communities Act so that state and local law enforcement aren’t being deputized as ICE agents
  • Passing the Work and Family Mobility Act because mobility is a basic right, regardless of one’s citizenship status
  • Passing the ROE Act because MA needs to strengthen reproductive rights here at home as they remain under attack on the federal level
  • Passing the 100% Renewable Energy Act because we can’t keep stumbling forward into climate chaos
  • Passing Emergency Paid Sick Time so that no worker has to choose between their health and their job security
  • Passing guaranteed housing stability for at least one more year ​because if we want people to stay at home, they need a home to go back to
  • Passing a budget that raises Progressive Revenue by making sure that corporations and the rich are paying their fair share

The Legislature can’t keep punting session after session and patting themselves on the back.

Can you call or email your state legislators about taking real action before the session ends — or staying in until they do?

Go Big or Don't Go Home