Op-Ed: Our State Legislators Must Protect Our Human Rights by Sponsoring the Safe Communities Act

Heather Ford, “Op Ed: Our State Legislators Must Protect Our Human Rights by Sponsoring the Safe Communities Act,” Westwood Minute, March 6, 2026.

ICE’s (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) actions are making our community less safe: from the murders of Minnesota’s Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to the detainment of Milford teen Marcelo Gomes da Silva. The Burlington ICE facility that held Gomes da Silva is a mere twenty-five miles from Westwood.

ICE was founded in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act. Paradoxically, the above actions make my homes of Massachusetts and America less secure. The right to a trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest are human rights named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here in Massachusetts, resistance and dissent are baked into our pedigree: we are the home of the Boston Tea Party and the “shot heard ‘round the world” in Concord. This historic resistance has not met this moment. States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington have all passed legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. ICE is pressuring local police departments to sign up for its 287(g) program, which turns street-level officers into ICE agents. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE.

Governor Healey and Beacon Hill legislators are finally getting the memo that the public wants to see action. But it matters that we pass legislation that meets this unprecedented moment.

Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests (taking people into custody when no crime has been committed) or ask members of the public about their immigration status.

Neither Westwood’s State Representative Paul McMurtry nor its State Senator Mike Rush have sponsored the Safe Communities Act (H2580/S1681). The Safe Communities Act limits local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents, bars law enforcement and court personnel from inquiring about immigration status, protects access to justice in our courts, and ensures due process protections. Immigrant workers, survivors of domestic and sexual assault, and tenants must feel safe reporting crimes, abuse, or exploitation without fear of deportation. I urge my neighbors to contact Rep McMurtry and Sen Rush about this Act.

Testimony: “The Best Time to Ban Collaboration with ICE is Yesterday. The Second Best Time is Now.”

Thursday, March 4, 2026

Chair Cahill and Members of the House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Thank you so much for holding today’s public forum. I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has made it his mission to terrorize immigrant communities across the country, including here in the Commonwealth. The violent, reckless, and blatantly racist nature of ICE activities have been making communities less safe. They are not enforcing laws; they are violating them with abandon and impunity, a secret police that is occupying cities, engaging in large-scale racial profiling, and committing murder.

We appreciate the work that the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus has put into the creation of the PROTECT Act (H.5158). Good policy comes from consulting both people on the ground and policy experts, and they have done this to put together a multi-part bill addressing problems that have gotten worse and problems that have newly arisen.

The most important action that Massachusetts can take right now is to establish clearly in our laws that our state and local law enforcement will not be collaborating formally or informally with ICE.

First, Massachusetts must ensure that our state and local law enforcement are never deputized as ICE agents. Despite the massive infusions of money into ICE, Trump knows that he cannot achieve his full detention and deportation agenda on the basis of existing staffing: he needs state and local law enforcement to do the work for him to extend reach. Since Trump took office, we have seen a rapid rise in the number of 287(g) agreements across the country. We must be proactive in ensuring that these agreements do not spread across Massachusetts.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington have all taken action. We should too, and we should follow their lead in passing a ban without any loopholes.

Second, we need to ensure that our local law enforcement are not assisting ICE. When the line between local public safety officials and federal immigration enforcement get blurred, communities become less safe.

The PROTECT Act’s ban on police asking about immigration status is critical in this regard. When people fear that reporting a crime could lead to the deportation of themselves or a loved one, then they will be less likely to do so, and that will tip the scales in abusive power dynamics–whether abusive spouses, exploitative bosses, predatory landlords, or more.

Similarly, we support the bill’s prohibition on police and court staff sharing non-public information with ICE and the prohibition on the use of state and local resources for the primary purpose of facilitating civil immigration enforcement–although removing the word “primary” will close what could become a dangerous and exploitable loophole.

The PROTECT Act’s protections are critical, and they must extend to all levels of law enforcement, including state agencies, municipalities, and county sheriffs. The majority of 287(g) agreements around the country are signed by sheriffs. We used to have such county-level agreements, and we need to make sure none of them come back.

Let’s be clear: the best time to ban collaboration with ICE is yesterday. The second best time is today.

Finally, if we want to have a justice system in this country, then people need to feel safe going to courthouses, whether as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a witness. We support the protections of courthouses because they make sure that due process, a bedrock right, still exists.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Our New “Spring Forward” Series

This weekend, it will be simple to move the clocks forward, but it will take a lot more work in the coming weeks to move Beacon Hill forward.

To help educate and drive action, we are thrilled to host a series of virtual events about critical policies that the State House needs to pass and how we can work together to make it happen. This March, we’re kicking it off with the following two events:

Wednesday, March 11: How MA Can to Stand Up to ICE

7 pm, Zoom, RSVP here

Every day brings new horror stories about ICE’s violent, law-breaking activity across the country and here in Massachusetts. What can a state like Massachusetts do to stand up to ICE? Laura Rotolo, the Field Director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, will explain what we can get done this legislative session in Massachusetts and how you can help make it happen.

Wednesday, March 18: How MA Can Opt Out of Trump’s Corporate Tax Cuts

7 pm, Zoom, RSVP here

Trump’s regressive corporate tax cuts are going to cost Massachusetts nearly half a billion dollars this year alone — on top of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other federal programs we rely on. States across the country are already saying NO and opting out, protecting essential revenue, and Massachusetts needs to join them. Phineas Baxandall of Mass Budget explains what’s at stake.

In solidarity,
Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts


TOMORROW: Hearing on the PROTECT Act

Wednesday, March 3, 11 am, State House, B1

The PROTECT Act (H.5158) was filed just over a month ago by the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus to strengthen protections for our immigrant communities and make sure that state and local law enforcement are following their duty to serve and protect, rather than doing the work of federal immigration enforcement.

The House Public Safety Committee is holding a hearing tomorrow, and the Protecting Massachusetts Communities Coalition has put together a testimony guide to help you write testimony to the committee about why it is so vital for Massachusetts to take action to stand up to ICE and protect our immigrant communities.

Letter: Legislative action needed to protect immigrants

Becca Kornet, “Letter: Legislative action needed to protect immigrants,” Hometown Weekly, February 27, 2026.

To the Editor:

Every day, we see horrific violence by ICE agents across the country, including here in Massachusetts. This has hit pretty close to home, with Milford and Framingham being among the communities hardest hit by ICE in 2025. ICE’s actions are making all our communities less safe. Massachusetts residents have turned out in big numbers to protests and standouts demanding that our elected leaders do more leading and stand up to the cruelty and lawlessness of the Trump administration. There was a recent surge of ICE activity in Maine, and Massachusetts could be targeted next. We need to be ready for that now.

Many of our beloved immigrant neighbors are rightfully scared to leave their homes for fear of being detained by ICE. Parents are staying home from work and children are staying home from school. Others who are not immigrants but have black or brown skin, or an accent, or just find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time can all too easily find themselves in the middle of an ICE detention raid. Once someone is detained by ICE, the harrowing process has been known to move extremely quickly, with individuals transferred to Burlington, then to Plymouth, then to someplace like Louisiana – often over the course of a single day, before their families even know what happened, and before they have had a chance to secure legal representation. It is a dehumanizing experience.

While Massachusetts can’t stop everything ICE is doing, we must stop being complicit. Although many of us are proud of Massachusetts’s reputation as a liberal bastion, when it comes to protecting our immigrant communities, we have often lagged behind other states. States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington have all passed critical legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. Governor Healey and Beacon Hill legislators are finally coming around to the idea that the public wants to see action. But it matters that we pass legislation that truly meets the moment.

Beacon Hill should make it clear: state and local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents. Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests (taking people into custody when no crime has been committed) or ask members of the public about their immigration status. ICE is pressuring local police departments to sign up for its 287(g) program, which turns street-level officers into ICE agents – Massachusetts should prevent this misuse of public safety resourcesfrom happening within our borders. Massachusetts is the only state with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature to still have a statewide 287(g) agreement with ICE. Governor Healey can end this collaboration with a stroke of the pen.

I urge you to look up your local legislators and find out if they have supported similar legislation.  You can find out if they are supporting the Safe Communities Act here. Other relevant legislation includes the Dignity Not Deportations Bill and the Black and Latino Caucus’s PROTECT Act. Call on them to build support with their colleagues behind robust legislation.

Becca Kornet
Medfield

Did Your State Rep Vote to Save Mass Save?

As we wrote yesterday, MA House Democrats were preparing to gut the state’s energy efficiency program Mass Save, scapegoating it for rising utility bills while doing nothing to prevent the gas infrastructure expansion that is really behind the increase.

Energy efficiency investments are the quintessential win-win: they save residents money, they create jobs in weatherization, and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But when state representatives had the opportunity to restore the $1 billion in cuts to Mass Save yesterday, only 17 of them voted yes (see the recorded vote below). That’s right: only 17.

If you’re happy with how your state rep voted, you should thank them. If you aren’t happy with how your state rep voted, make sure they know about it.

State representatives are defending their cuts to Mass Save by saying they are just cutting a marketing budget. But let’s be clear: these cuts go far deeper than that, and marketing is how Mass Save ensures that its programs can actually reach equity goals and deliver real savings to working-class, POC, and immigrant communities across the commonwealth.

The House voted 128 to 27 to pass the underlying energy bill (H.5151). Every Republican voted no, and progressive Democrats Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) and Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voted no in protest of the bill’s deep cuts to the Mass Save energy efficiency program.

There are good things in the bill to expand solar, wind, and geothermal and to rein in predatory third-party electricity suppliers. And it’s a win that the House is no longer trying to eliminate the state’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets.

But here’s the problem: if we gut energy efficiency programs, we are setting ourselves up to miss these targets by even more, and we are already far behind. Targets need to be matched with action. Make sure your state senator​ knows you want bolder action than what the House passed. 


More Solar, But Little Sunshine

The process around the bill was illustrative of Beacon Hill’s top-down, closed modus operandi.

The bill was only released to representatives and the public on Tuesday. Members of the Ways and Means Committee didn’t even have a full hour to read a 100+ page bill before casting a vote. Representatives had to then scramble to file amendments, which were due the next day, followed by a vote yesterday (Thursday).

How many people actually read the bill? Your guess is as good as mine.

In the lead-up to the vote, representatives filed a total of 126 amendments, but very few received any actual public discussion.

3 amendments were withdrawn, and 3 were rejected via a voice vote. (For one of those voice votes, the amendment’s filer asked for a roll call vote, but not enough people stood to allow it.)

11 amendments received recorded votes requested by Republicans, and 1 amendment (the Mass Save amendment shown above, filed by Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven) received a recorded vote requested by a Democrat.

The remaining 108 amendments were fed into the sausage-making machine known as the “Consolidated Amendment” process. In this process, House Leadership gathers together amendments, sets them all aside, and then picks from their carcasses what, if anything, they want to include in the bill. By virtue of this process, 108 amendments were grouped into 3, with little of their original text still standing.

The 11 aforementioned Republican amendments were rightfully rejected, on party line or almost party line votes.

  • Amendment #7, which would make the state’s 2030 emissions targets non-binding, as the House’s original energy bill tried to do 
  • Amendment #8, which would require the state to expand gas pipeline infrastructure 
  • Amendment #13, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #21, which would create bureaucratic hurdles for renewable energy generation (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #24, which seems to be an attempt to allow bootlegged propane  (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #38, which would strike the increased solar and wind procurement targets 
  • Amendment #46, which would decrease the yearly Renewable Portfolio Standard (i.e., % of renewables that utilities must supply) increase from 3% to 1% indefinitely (The House’s original energy bill wanted to do this through 2022; the new bill made no changes) 
  • Amendment #78, which would ban stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards for five years (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #101, which would outsource our clean energy and climate policies to corporate lobby groups 
  • Amendment #105, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance 
  • Amendment #109, which would eliminate minimum renewable energy standards for electric suppliers

Letter: State Legislation Needed to Stop Local Police From Assisting ICE

Rita Colafella, “Letter: State Legislation Needed to Stop Local Police From Assisting ICE,” Watertown News, February 23, 2026.

Across the US, we are witnessing ICE violence perpetrated with apparent impunity. On TV and social media, we see lawlessness and general chaos. A functional society needs the rule of law — built on stable precedents, clear processes, and established procedures to ensure the safety of every resident. Currently, that safety is being undermined by a federal administration that shifts rules on a weekly basis, while operating without a transparent strategy or the tactical oversight necessary to protect civil liberties.

Americans from across the political spectrum have turned out in droves to demand accountability. Recent polling reflects this growing national consensus: 60% of Americans disapprove of ICE’s conduct, including 68% of independents. Even among those who generally support the agency’s mission, there is unease because 65% of ALL those polled believe ICE has “gone too far.” It is no different in Massachusetts. Maine is experiencing a sudden and sharp increase in ICE activity. If Massachusetts is next, then we need a decisive local response. We along with 100 of millions of other Americans urge our elected leaders to act. It is time to implement safeguards that prevent federal overreach from compromising the safety, dignity, and legal stability of our communities. 

I grew up in the shadow of the Soviet Union and 40 years after World War II, and this issue transcends modern politics — it is about the fundamental preservation of human dignity and the sanctity of the law. When one is raised with the historical memory of how quickly state power can turn arbitrary and unchecked, one understands that “rules” are only meaningful when they are consistent and transparent. We learned that America’s promise is rooted in the idea that one’s safety is guaranteed by the rule of law rather than the whims of a shifting administration. When enforcement agencies operate without accountability, it echoes the very instability and overreach that many sought to escape. Protecting this idea matters because both heritage and history have demonstrated countless times that once the precedent for lawlessness is set, no community is truly secure.

While the Commonwealth cannot directly overturn federal ICE policy or obstruct its operations, we are under no obligation to be complicit in its actions. Massachusetts is failing to uphold its historic “rebellious reputation” — the same spirit that ignited the American Revolution and stoked the flames when other states wavered. Today, we are falling short of protecting our residents. Other states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, have already passed decisive legislation to prevent state and local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE. The national tide is turning, and it is time for the Governor and Beacon Hill to recognize this shift. Our leaders must do their jobs by passing legislation with real “teeth” — laws that reflect the will of the people and effectively address the wrongdoing occurring within our borders.

Our legislation must be crystal clear: state and all local law enforcement should not be assisting ICE and should not be acting as ICE agents. Massachusetts law enforcement must never assist ICE in making civil immigration arrests — taking people into custody when they have not committed a crime. Nor should they ask any members of the public about one’s status. Locally funded resources must remain focused on protecting our communities, not assisting ICE in civil arrests or interrogations. ICE is pressuring local departments to sign 287(g) agreements, which effectively deputize local officers to perform federal immigration duties.

Massachusetts remains the only state with a Democratic governor and a Democratic-majority legislature to maintain such a statewide agreement. The chaotic civil immigration enforcement is not just a moral failure — it is a strategic one. Diverting highly trained and handsomely paid officers to apprehend people for status violations — often without a judicial warrant — moves resources away from responding to overdoses, domestic violence and armed robberies. The data is undeniable: U.S.citizens are 2.5 times more likely to commit drug crimes, and over four times more likely to commit property crimes compared to undocumented immigrants. By many metrics, focusing on civil violations does not make us safer; it only erodes the trust necessary for effective community policing. The Governor has the power to end this collaboration with a stroke of her pen. It is time for Beacon Hill to pass legislation to protect every resident of this Commonwealth.

Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan recently came to Watertown, and described what we can do to protect people. It included informing people of their rights to properly labelling areas as Private. She then said the most effective actions are demonstrating on the streets and contacting your representatives. So I ask you to look up your local legislators and find out if they have supported ending such agreements with ICE.

Rita Colafella
Watertown Resident

US House Republicans Just Voted to Attack Energy Efficiency. Why Are MA House Dems Joining Them?

Yesterday, down in DC, before the garbage fire of Trump’s State of the Union address, House Republicans voted — yet again — to roll back energy efficiency standards and programs. It’s clear why: they know that energy efficiency means less in profits for the dirty energy CEOs who fund their campaigns.

But then why are Massachusetts House Democrats doing the same?

Yesterday, Massachusetts House Democrats advanced a redrafted version of their formerly corporate-lobbyist-written energy bill.

Although there are some good things in the bill (more on that below), there’s a big poison pill: a $1 BILLION cut to the Mass Save budget.

This would effectively shut down Mass Save in 2027, taking with it the tens of thousands of clean energy jobs that are supported by energy efficiency and electrification work. It would immediately strip Massachusetts families’ ability to get the energy efficiency and electric upgrades that can result in healthier, more affordable homes while likely causing enormous cost to restart the program. Let’s be clear: when the Legislature cuts that much funding from a program, it’s never just temporary.

Meanwhile, gas bills have been increasing 10% each year thanks to continued gas pipeline spending, something the bill does nothing about.

Can you call your state representative today and urge them to stop scapegoating Mass Save while utilities spend billions on fossil fuel infrastructure and lobbying?

Here’s a sample script from our friends at Mass Power Forward:

“Hello, I am your constituent [YOUR NAME] calling from [YOUR ADDRESS]. I am calling about H.5151, the Energy Omnibus Bill. While there are some exciting provisions in the bill that we have advocated for around solar energy and clean heat, as well as curbing toxic biomass, I urge you to oppose the $1 billion cuts to Mass Save. Mass Save is saving us $2.72 for every dollar invested. We need to take on the biggest sources of high utility bills: utility companies spending billions on dirty, expensive fossil fuel infrastructure and millions on lobbying and executive salaries.”

Calling is more valuable than emailing (find your rep’s number here), but if you only have time to send an email, we’ve got you covered with an email template here as well.


Bad Process and Bad Outcomes

The House’s energy bill exemplified the perennial problem of bad process leading to bad policy. State representatives on the House Ways & Means Committee had only 45 minutes to read a 100+ page bill and decide whether to vote yes, vote no, or reserve their rights.

Many didn’t even have the time to vote due to the quick turnaround. Thank you to Rep. Natalie Higgins (D-Leominster) and Rep. Sam Montaño (D-Jamaica Plain) for voting to reserve rights, sending a message at the very least of “let me read this before I put my name to it.”

And the turnaround to a floor vote is similarly quick. They are voting on Thursday. Never mind that parts of the state are still without power due to the recent storm, and some representatives will have difficulty even getting to the State House.


But Some Rays of Sunshine

Although the bill needs the massive poison pill removed to be worth voting for, there are a few good things to highlight:

  • No changes to the 2030 climate goals (a major win!)
  • No more subsidies for toxic biomass
  • Removes the “pipeline tax” from the November House energy bill which would have allowed electric bills to pay for gas infrastructure
  • Positive regulations around labor and network geothermal clean heat generation
  • Positive regulations around balcony solar panels and vehicle-to-grid technology
  • Stronger regulations around reining in scammy third-party electricity suppliers

But at a time when the federal government is sabotaging climate action across the country, we shouldn’t be settling for poison-pilled climate legislation that leaves us committed to a dirty energy future.

PM in the News: Markey Endorsement

Our endorsement of Senator Markey was featured in MASSterlist:

Advocacy group Progressive Mass formally endorsed Sen. Ed Markey for reelection on Tuesday as Democratic Party caucuses ramp up.

“Ed Markey has been a stalwart champion for workers’ rights, immigrants’ rights, LGBTQ rights, bold climate action, and so much more,” Jonathan Cohn, the group’s policy director, said in a statement. “He is not only fighting every day in DC against the chaos, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration, but also continuing to introduce and endorse the big ideas necessary to make a more equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth and country.”

Markey, who was endorsed by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu a day earlier, is facing Rep. Seth Moulton in a primary for the Democratic nomination. John Deaton, who ran against Sen. Elizabeth Warren two years ago, is the expected GOP nominee. 

Moulton also went for the Progressive Mass endorsement. He sent a six-page letter instead of answering a lengthy questionnaire, a move that invalidated his application. His letter said he wanted to “outline my agenda rather than reduce such important questions to yes/no answers.”

Another Democrat running, Alex Rikleen, and socialist Joe Tache, both filled out the questionnaire along with Markey.

“I am deeply grateful for Progressive Mass’ endorsement and proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them in this fight as we take on corporate greed, defend our democracy, protect LGBTQ+ and immigrant communities, and accelerate the transition to clean energy,” Markey said.

Endorsement Alert: Ed Markey for US Senate

At our annual meeting, we got to hear in person from candidates for US Senate.

And we invited US Senate candidates to put their positions down on paper in our comprehensive policy questionnaire.

Our members voted, and the decision was clear: Progressive Mass is proud to endorse Senator Ed Markey for re-election.

Over 91% of our members voted to endorse Markey in our recent member ballot. Here’s a sampling of the reasons why:

“Markey has been on the side of regular people (not billionaires) his entire career. I have complete faith in him.”

“Ed has proven he is a strong environmentalist, labor supporter and fighter for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights and all around progressive champion.”

“Senator Markey continues to be such an important policy leader, looking out for us, our communities, and our climate. From the ICE Out of Our Faces Act because he recognizes the threat of becoming a surveillance state, to the FATCAT Act, which would add a fuel tax for people with private jets to reinvest in public transit, and many other bills, he leads the way. He consistently shows that he’s focused on making life better for all of us, not focused on his own ambition.”

“Senator Markey is a proven supporter of Progressive causes. Markey has proven time and time again that he is willing to listen and engage with Progressive groups, the working classes, and society as a whole. I trust Senator Markey to continue standing up against authoritarianism while maintaining connections with the various communities of the commonwealth.”  

Why Your State Rep Opposed Election Day Registration…and Why They’re Still Wrong

VOTE buttons

Four years ago, the MA House voted to block the inclusion of Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration in the VOTES Act, despite the Senate having voted yet again in support.

Senator Warren, Senator Markey, all 9 of our US Representatives, and the Democratic members of the MA Senate are all in favor of allowing eligible voters to register or update their registration at the polls, and yet the MA House has been a persistent obstacle. As the Legislature considers Election Day Registration again soon in light of the ballot initiative filed by Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, it’s timely to look back at the arguments that Democratic state representatives were making in 2022, why they were wrong then, and why—of course—they are still wrong.

During that floor debate in 2022, several House Democrats—then Assistant Majority Leader (now Majority Leader) Mike Moran (D-Brighton), Rep. (and now First Division Chair) Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough), Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham), Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy), Rep. Kip Diggs (D-Barnstable), Rep. Joan Meschino (D-Hull), Rep. Dan Hunt (D-Dorchester), and Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston)—spoke against implementing Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration (terms often used interchangeably, but divergent in the treatment of the early voting period), delivering remarks filled with specious arguments and factual inaccuracies.

In 2022, I categorized the arguments being made into 12 key arguments. Two of those arguments are irrelevant now: you can no longer say that we can’t have Election Day Registration because of the COVID-19 pandemic, nor can you point to former Republican Governor Charlie Baker’s opposition. But with those out of the way, there are still 10, and all 10 are still wrong.

Bad Argument #1: We are already a leader on voting rights.

When I think about what we have done — pre-registration, where we allow our young kids ages 16 and 17 to pre-register so they automatically are registered — you can go online right now. We require the secretary of state to have an online portal where you can register to vote online. It takes approximately 12 to 15 minutes to register to vote online on your phone. If you’re moving and you need to change your address or change your voter registration address, you can do it online. You can follow your ballot online, much like FedEx lets you track your package. We’ve also done election day audits and early voting by mail. All of these are part of the package we should be very proud to talk about in this Legislature. The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters.” (MORAN)

We have enacted the most sweeping voter protection laws in the nation. No one is more frustrated about what is going on in this country and the attacks on voting.” (GREGOIRE)


Based on some of the debate some might conclude we’re sitting in the Georgia State House. We seem to be losing sight of the gains we are making. Our constituents expect us to determine what’s best for here, not other states. Here in Massachusetts, we lead the country in making the franchise available and accessible to all eligible voters. No other state offers pre-registration, mail-in voting, outdoor ballot boxes, automatic and online registration and online updating.” (DAY)

The gentleman from Stoneham was saying some say this is voter suppression. I say give me a break. Massachusetts has been a leader. I think our work today proves that.” (HUNT)

Massachusetts Democrats often like to describe our state as a leader in small “d” democracy, but it’s a claim in desperate need of a reality check. Massachusetts only began allowing early voting, pre-registration, and online registration after the election reform package in 2014 (we were a late adopter). Massachusetts was not the first state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration; we were the 14th. Eight states mail every eligible voter a ballot, going further than the reforms from the VOTES Act.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (and the Movement Advancement Project), California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Vermont, and Washington have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, and all-mail elections (with the equivalent of in-person early voting with the drop-off centers). DC, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Minnesota have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, in-person early voting, and no-excuse absentee voting. So our current laws, or even the bill passed by the House, do not make us a leader.

Of the 10 states with the highest turnout in 2024 (we weren’t one of them), 8 of them have Election Day Registration.

But what if we were a leader? What if our election laws were the best in the country? Simply “being better than other states” is not a sufficient benchmark; the question is always whether we are doing all that we can. And we’re not.

Bad Argument #2: It is a solution in search of a problem.

“The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters. We have an opt out system, so when you engage with the Registry of Motor Vehicles or other agencies, you have to tell them you don’t want to be registered. I can tell you when we passed that vote, I won’t divulge names, one of the advocacy groups said to me, “You’re making it very, very challenging for us to make the case for same day voter registration.” I agreed with her then, but I think we have something to do in that direction, and that is what this further amendment is about.” (MORAN)

I rise in support of the further amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the underlying proposals are solutions looking for problems. We do not have a voter registration problem, we have a perception problem here. This past November, in the election, that was historic, only 28.9 percent of registered voters cast a ballot. In the last municipal election before COVID in Marlborough, the turnout was 25 percent… However, enacting solutions to non-existent problems does nothing to change the national discourse. It creates issues and opens us to unprecedented criticism.”  (GREGOIRE)

People move, and that includes moving close to Election Day. Especially when our state primary is often close to a major move-in day. Indeed, this year, it is on the state’s biggest move-in day, i.e., September 1. The act of moving close to Election Day, or even being evicted close to Election Day, can lead to disenfranchisement if people are far away from their old polling location, and that is an injustice.

Moreover, these arguments are ignorant of the many stresses that working-class people face: planning more than 10 days in advance can be difficult for those balancing family commitments and multiple jobs with erratic work schedules, not to mention an array of bills and other responsibilities. Missing deadlines is common (the legislature does it all the time), and managing a deadline that far in advance can be difficult for those with ADHD (one Election Day is easier to get a handle of than the many steps that need to be juggled prior). None of that should make someone less worthy of participation.

Imagine as well how likely of a scenario it could be that someone thought they had registered but, indeed, hadn’t (they already get to fill out a provisional ballot, so why not let them register? ) Or imagine if someone’s pre-marriage or pre-divorce name, or deadname, were the one on the rolls, differing from what they use now and what their ID shows. Or, since poll workers are human, imagine if there was a clerical error in the books. Why should none of this be able to be fixed?

Automatic Voter Registration is great, but it will never capture everyone, both for the reasons stated above and for the fact that not everyone would be interfacing with a designated agency (not everyone has a license!).

Beyond all of this, we can see the clear existence of a problem in rejected provisional ballot data. In the 2022 general election, 1,600 or 64% of provisional ballots cast were rejected; in 2024 3,309 provisional ballots rejected. In just the two statewide elections nearly 5,000 were failed by the arbitrary deadline.

That legislators would not see a need for Election Day Registration shows that they are not talking with their constituents with the greatest need. And that’s a problem.

Bad Argument #3: It doesn’t even lead to any demonstrable increases in turnout.

To the contrary of the lady before me, I found the National Conference of State Legislatures, research from them has concluded that there is no demonstrable increase in voter participation in states that have same day or election day registration.” (GREGOIRE)

From the very website referenced: “There is strong evidence that same-day and Election Day registration increases voter turnout, but the extent of the impact is difficult to conclude. Immediately following the implementation of SDR, states usually see a boost in voter numbers. SDR states also tend to outperform other states in terms of turnout percentages. Many states that have implemented SDR have historically produced higher voter numbers, making changes hard to gauge. Multiple studies place the effect between an increase of 3% to 7%, with an average of a 5% increase.”

Bad Argument #4: We haven’t done the research, and we don’t know the cost and the impact. We need to study this.

Now we come to the further amendment. The further amendment would call on the secretary of state to create a report. One of the things that having some institutional knowledge gives you is you have some sense of where this comes and where this is going. For years, it was something we talked about, it was debated in bills, but it wasn’t something that we really took in a serious way and did any real prudent research on.” (MORAN)

When you’re talking about paying for same-day voter registration or the mechanisms you need to put in place and what that means to 351 cities and towns that range in size from 89, which is Gosnell, to Boston, it means very different things to very different cities and towns. What this report would hopefully do is identify some of those challenges that we would have.” (MORAN)

I think it’s important to get it right and reject the argument this is suppression. It’s not a study in procedure only. It’s a true study. We have 351 cities and towns because when they were founded, individuals in one town got fed up with government, went to the next plot of land and started over. I think it’s important to spend some time and get down to the facts and get it right. The argument that this is voter suppression is not unlike Mona Lisa Vito. It does not hold water.” (HUNT)

The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on the VOTES Act in May of 2021 and has held two hearings on Same Day Registration and Election Day Registration in the two sessions since. SDR has been filed each session at least going back to the 2000s, and it was voted on by the MA Senate at least three times.

Moreover, Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, our top elections official, was quite clear that we don’t need a study to make this happen; we can and should just do it.

Galvin has been even more specific: he explained that implementing same-day registration statewide in Massachusetts would cost at least $1 million. He noted this would cover initial administrative costs, but that the total could be higher if cities and towns required additional funding for equipment, staffing, or other local needs. Those costs would be subject to existing reimbursement models. The Legislature approved a $61 billion budget for FY 2026. Adding another $1 million would be a 0.0016% increase.

Bad Argument #5: The clerks oppose it.

I had a chat with the clerk with the city of Marlborough and his assertion was that if we implement same day or election day voting in addition to codifying emergency measures, the additional burden would be a logistical nightmare he was unsure of how it would work.” (GREGOIRE)

A lot has been said today about clerks. Yes, we do read every single thing you send us. Reading the letters and the communications from the clerk and speaking with the women, the clerks, in my communities, they actually share our commitment to increasing voter access and engaging voters. These women are trained and knowledgeable in every facet of elections, including the parts you don’t see. They are committed to ensuring integrity, making sure it is a smooth easy process. They do a fantastic job. If they are the ones reaching out and asking us to just take a small pause, I think we owe it to them to listen to the people who do this work. I’m asking you to join me in supporting the further amendment.” (MESCHINO)

In speaking with the clerks in my district, same day registration would be an overwhelming task to add to what is already a daunting process.” (LANATRA)

To the contrary, the Town Clerks’ Association expressed support for Election Day Registration (see their letter here).

Bad Argument #6: This would be burdensome for staffing.

In our caucus earlier, the gentlelady from Gloucester brought up some of the staffing issues and staffing levels that would have to happen in the state to do this. Also brought up was training people to know how to do this correctly. There’s more than 2,000 precincts in Massachusetts and approximately 1,220 polling locations, and there are 391 early voting locations. All of those would need to be looked at to see how they could appropriately carry out the process of same-day voter registration. In many of those locations, they’ve never even considered it.” (MORAN)

Other issues we need to consider: bilingual residence. How many additional staff do we need across the commonwealth to make sure those people coming in have their voices heard?” (MORAN)

Those who spend quite a bit of time at polling locations know that there is a challenge regarding staffing election days. The expansion of early voting prompted a lot of questions about staffing. Challenges were met and overcome but it took some time. The same issue applies to linguistic access to polling places, people that you can find on election day to work polls, to talk to people who don’t speak English to help them to vote. I want to have a system where no one is disenfranchised or one that makes people feel small when they have the opportunity to cast a vote.” (CHAN)

Our poll workers, on whom our democracy depends, have to prepare for full turnout every election. We never get close to that unfortunately; turnout more than 50% is often deemed impressive. But what that means is that going into Election Day, we need to assume that everyone who has not yet voted by mail or voted early could show up to vote. The additional voters that EDR could turn out will be small in comparison to that (although meaningful in terms of election results).

Moreover, the VOTES Act did away with check-out tables. We have reduced the need for staffing the last few years. Using the staff levels of just a few years ago would easily account for any added work.

Bad Argument #7: We do not have the technology.

Internet accessibility was brought up by the gentleman from Quincy. There are parts of this commonwealth we have yet to get appropriate access. Are we going to have a closed system, where only clerks are limited to using that system? Or is it going to be held in the cloud? These are lots of challenging things we’ve never really thought about when it comes to same-day voter registration.” (MORAN)

We do not have a plan before us to equip them with technology and access to the internets [sic] they would need to implement these proposals. We do not have a sense of what it would cost. Our clerks describe a normal election day, charitably, as a nonstop fire drill, sometimes ending days later. Clerks have not been provided with information about these changes. This amendment would do just that. You want same day or election-day voting? Let’s figure it out. That’s what this amendment does. As enshrined in this bill voters may register up to the day before.” (DAY)

Maine has had Election Day Registration since the 1970s, and New Hampshire has since the 1990s. We are no less technologically advanced. It is not a question of technology; it is a question of political will.

Moreover, the small towns in Massachusetts that have bad Internet access (digital inequities are real) are places where voting likely occurs at one location: their city hall—a place that will have decent Internet access.

Even more, poll pads have been rolled out across municipalities for election workers, making the technology seamless for enabling voters to register or update their registration at the polls.

Lastly, since the Legislature shortened the voter registration blackout period to ten days via the VOTES Act, there is already a period of time in the early voting window where voters are able to register to vote or update their registration: de facto same day registration. Galvin has issued guidance for this, and cities and towns have handled it smoothly. We should extend that practice to Election Day.

Bad Argument #8: People should have to register in advance; it’s a vital step of responsibility and a part of political education.

It is a privilege and it comes with responsibilities and efforts in registration, in a timely way. We agree that they are benchmarks of our democracy. Forward thinking people of all races walked over the trenches in the South to get here to vote. I am a professional boxer but to have to fight on same day voting is a bit much. I will fight for anyone in the state to vote but I feel that they have to register in time. They have from now until 10 days before our voting day. And then we can give 10 days to mail in or walk in to vote. We have plenty of time to vote and that is the best way to do it.” (Diggs)

I have a different perspective as a person who in his 20s stood on street corners to register voters. This was some 25 or so years ago today. And in Quincy at the time it was predominantly Chinese and people of color. We had to engage them one on one. I didn’t do this sitting at a fair, it was a direct approach for engagement. Voter education is a large part of voter registration and the need to explain why it is important to register. This is very time consuming. Since my days of registering people in person, new ways have come up. The ability to vote online which at the time websites were not used that much back then, but it is very commonplace now. I never thought that we would have automatic voter registration through the RMV. There are many new ways to cross different barriers. I am concerned about the impact on the underlying amendment because the engagement of registering to vote is a one on one experience. To have the linguistic ability present at the polls to explain to people how to manage a ballot, how to register is important.” (CHAN)

To some extent, the response is the same in #2 about the need that Election Day Registration fills, especially among BIPOC communities, working-class communities, immigrant communities, young people, and renters.

But both of these comments ignore the simple fact that figuring out that an election is happening, finding your polling place, and doing some research on candidates—all things that people who show up at the polls have done—is a demonstration of the very responsibility and political education that they are demanding. To Rep. Chan’s remarks, the work of civic engagement is year-round, and that reality is not an excuse for turning anyone away from the polls.

Bad Argument #9 This would allow voter fraud.

From my conversation with constituents, there is a sense that same day or election day voting could give a fog of potential nefariousness. I have faith in our clerks and the secretary to have fair elections but I do have concerns over that sentiment, which I believe is false. I’ve heard from constituents who are looking for this underlying amendment and numerous who have great concern.” (HUNT)

It should be beneath any Democrat, and any elected official, to dignify voter fraud myths that have been debunked time and time again and are only ever invoked as a justification for racist and exclusionary policies.

Bad Argument #10: If we allowed people to register to vote on Election Day, then people in my district I don’t know—such as college students, recent graduates, renters, working-class people, immigrants, members of BIPOC communities, etc.—might show up to vote and not for me.

No one said this out loud, but it’s the dominant reason why many are opposed. And if they want people not to show up to vote for someone else, they should do the work of engaging with their constituents and welcoming new ones. Indeed, isn’t that what representative democracy is about?