Why Does Our Democratic Legislature Largely Adopt Our Governor’s Budget?

Last Thursday, the MA House passed its FY2019 budget 150-4. The dissenting votes came from the most conservative quarters of the Republican caucus.

This degree of unanimity seems like the polar opposite of what we see at the national level. Why is that? How do we have such broad bipartisan consensus around the budget year after year?

Let’s turn to the recent analysis of the House Ways & Means budget from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. It begins, “The House Ways and Means (HWM) Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget proposal largely aligns with the Governor’s proposal.”

In other words, this consensus is achieved by Democrats largely agreeing to the Republican governor’s budget. Oh.

Big Picture: Lack of Investment, Lack of Revenue

Where there are differences, they are certainly for the better.

Mimicking his Republican allies in Washington, Baker is still pushing an anti-health care agenda. His budget moved 140,000 low-income adults off MassHealth coverage, which would subject already struggling individuals to higher premiums and a loss of dental coverage and other vital benefits. Massachusetts would have the dubious honor of becoming the only state to repeal the Obama-era Medicaid expansion. The Legislature rejected this push last year, and the House rightfully chose not to include the Governor’s ask in the budget.

Mass Budget also outlines a few modest improvements the House made:

  • Early Education and Care. The HWM budget provides $20.0 million for Center-Based Child Care Rate Increases to improve early education quality by increasing the rates paid by the state to child care providers. That funding should aid in increasing salary, benefits, and professional development for early educators. The HWM Committee also proposes $8.5 million for a new initiative focused on professional development for early educators facilitated by Massachusetts community colleges.
  • K-12 Education. This budget provides $33.5 million more in Chapter 70 Aid (and related reserves) than the Governor proposed. In addition, it funds grant programs at $20.8 million more than the Governor recommended. This includes an added $9.5 million for charter school reimbursements and $8.9 million more for special education costs.
  • Housing. This budget proposal would increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) to $100.0 million, which is $7.3 million more than FY 2018. MRVP provides housing vouchers to help low-income families, including those living in emergency assistance shelters, secure housing.

Given the crisis in housing affordability in Massachusetts, a $7.3 million bump in funding for housing vouchers doesn’t go very far. Consider this: a minimum wage worker would have to work 80 hours per week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at fair market rent.

The bumps in education spending don’t look that impressive when you dig deeper there either. As you might remember from the Question 2 debate two years ago, in Massachusetts, school funding follows the students, but since so many of the costs of education are fixed (think: the school building itself), the state offers a partial reimbursement to public school districts for lost funding when students leave to go to charter schools. Massachusetts, however, has not been meeting its statutory obligation here. According to the Mass Municipal Association, the shortfall is already $75 million and would grow significantly to between $85 million and $100 million under Baker’s budget. The House budget’s addition is only 10% of what’s needed. Baker’s budget underfunded special education reimbursements by $20 million; the House’s additional $8.9 million is less than half of what’s required.

And how does the House fund these modest improvements? By robbing Peter to pay Paul. Back to Mass Budget:

“Without any significant revenue sources beyond those in the Governor’s budget, the HWM budget funds these differences largely by underfunding various accounts – such as for the removal of snow and ice from state roads – that likely need to be funded eventually. This risks leading to challenges maintaining a balanced budget during the upcoming fiscal year.”

A common refrain from us here at Progressive Massachusetts is that if we want a Commonwealth where everyone can thrive–where we have quality public schools, public schools, health care for all, a clean environment, etc.–then we need more revenue (and more investment in our collective, long-term future). However, our Democratic Legislature, like our Republican Governor, has been hostile to raising revenue. We are an affluent state: third highest in per capita income and sixth highest in median household income. In other words, we aren’t lacking in revenue sources; we’re lacking in political will.

The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in both the Governor’s budget and the House budget suffers from this same problem: if we are not meaningfully increasing revenue, then the EITC expansion will just be funded by cuts to other programs on which working people depend.

The Amendment Process: What Happened?

A week and a half ago, we drew attention to a list of amendments that would counteract this chronic underinvestment and improve the quality of life in the state by building on the recently passed criminal legal system reform, investing in public education, protecting our environment, and building strong communities for all.

More than 1,000 amendments were filed to the FY2019 budget. And, unfortunately, the House doesn’t make it easy to follow what happened to them all (in case you’re wondering, yes, it is on purpose).

Some amendments are withdrawn before debate begins, usually under pressure from House Leadership

The following amendments we highlighted were withdrawn:

  • Amendment 781 (Khan), which would set out punishment for police officers who have sex with individuals in police custody
  • Amendment 889 (Provost), which freezes the income tax at 5.1 percent. Automatic declines in the state income tax mean billions of dollars of lost revenue each year and less money to fund vital programs across the Commonwealth
  • Amendment 925 (Walsh, Chris), which would allow local governments and regions of the state to, with local government and voter approval, levy taxes to fund transportation initiatives

Now, the House rarely votes on individual amendments. For the sake of time and opacity, House Leadership will gather together thematically similar amendments to produce a “consolidated” amendment. BUT that “consolidated” amendment often doesn’t include many of the requests from the included amendments. The “consolidated” amendments effectively dispense with the amendments in the guise of addressing them. And then they pass almost unanimously, with everything “controversial” having been removed.

Most of the amendments we supported saw just such a fate.

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment A” (Education and Local Aid)

  • Amendment 156 (Higgins), which would provide much-needed funding for public colleges and universities
  • Amendment 246 (Garballey), which would revise our outdated education funding formula along the lines of the the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations
  • Amendment 715 (Moran, Mike), which would ensure that immigrant students receive in-state tuition
  • Amendment 924 (Higgins), which would create new consumer protections for student loan borrowers and allow state to crack down on unscrupulous lenders
  • Amendment 950 (Koczera), which would increase funding for adult education and English classes (essential for new immigrants) by $1.9 million, to $34.5 million
  • Amendment 952 (Ultrino) / 977 (Coppinger), which would increase charter school tuition reimbursements for sending public school districts from $90m to $170m so that our public schools have the funding they need
  • Amendment 1343 (Decker), which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment B” (Energy and Environmental Affairs)

  • Amendment 640 (Ferrante), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program by $2m to $20m — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 864 (Walsh, Chris), which increases the funding for the Department of Environmental Protection’s hazardous waste clean-up program by $2m — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 906 (Rogers, David), which requires the state to issue a report on measures necessary–including new staffing, monitoring, permitting and other measures–to address water pollution and comply with the federal Clean Water Act — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 1005 (Muratore), which would provide initial funding and regulatory authority for the state to implement decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment E” (Public Safety and Judiciary)

  • Amendment 54 (Livingstone), which would provide funding for the Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, a restorative justice program in the Department of Corrections with proven benefits for reducing recidivism
  • Amendment 219 (Livingstone), which increases funding for community-based re-entry programs from $3 million to $5 million

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment F” (Housing, Mental Health and Disability Services)

  • Amendment 269 (Connolly), which would increase housing voucher rent caps to current fair market rents, get vouchers out faster, set aside a portion for extremely low-income households, and increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program overall — Consolidated F
  • Amendment 801 (Khan), which increases the funding for Juvenile Court Clinics, which provide mental health evaluation, consultation, and liaison services for children and families in the juvenile court system, from $3.5m to almost $10m

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment G” (Public Health)

  • Amendment 867 (Garlick), which would boost funding for Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Prevention services by $3.5 million, to $37.6 million, to increase access to culturally and linguistically appropriate crisis intervention and safety planning, legal services, and advocacy — Consolidated G

One amendment did pass (👏👏👏), although the House modified it to begin in FY2020 and did not provide the necessary funding. It’s a victory, but as with most victories, the fight continues.

  • Amendment 1361 (Decker), which would lift the “cap on kids.” The “cap on kids”/”family cap”  denies welfare support to children conceived while the family receives assistance. 8,700 Massachusetts children are currently harmed by this policy that many other states have already repealed.

Funding increases for the Massachusetts Legal Services Corporation (Amendment 243-Balser) and Regional Transit Authorities (Amendment 743-Peake) did make it into the budget via other consolidated amendments, but in much reduced form. MLAC got $750,000 extra, rather than $2 million. And RTAs got $2 million in additional funding, rather than the requested $8 million. The extra money is important, but the Legislature’s refusal to offer robust funding speaks to systemic indifference.

They Don’t Pass The Good Ones. But, Thankfully, They Don’t Pass the Bad Ones Either.

Marc Lombardo’s xenophobic Amendment 113, which would have taken away money from cities that choose not to be accomplices to a mass deportation regime, was withdrawn. Geoff Brad Jones’s Amendment 508, which mirrored Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision, was subsumed into “Consolidated E” and eliminated. So were Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would have expanded state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication

Jim Lyons’s Amendment 347, which sought to create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants along the lines of a bill filed by Governor Baker, failed 10 to 145 (RC 334). One Democrat–Jim Dwyer–joined 9 Republicans in voting for it. Geoff Diehl’s amendment, which was akin to Lombardo’s withdrawn amendment in its assault on cities that choose not to have local law enforcement be deputized to ICE, was sent to further study on a 136 to 19 vote (RC335). The study, of course, will never happen (which is the point). Colleen Garry and Jim Dwyer joined 17 Republicans in voting for it.

Rep. Howitt’s Amendment 979, which would have curtailed the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (Think: the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa), was subsumed into and eliminated by “Consolidated H” (Constitutional Officers, State Administration, and Transportation).

If you’re still with us: The Senate will be voting on its budget (and its own series of amendments) mid-May. The two bodies will then go to conference and hash out a final budget.

2018 Statewide Elections

Statewide

Governor

In his convention speech, Baker touted his support for a Trumpian mass deportation agenda, racist and misguided policies that have fueled mass incarceration, and a vision for the state that leaves behind the most underserved communities so that millionaires and billionaires have the money to buy their sixth private jet.

Republican Governor Charlie Baker has fought to roll back the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, promoted the development of new dirty fossil fuel pipelines across the state, and attacked the unions and public services that make our state strong.

We can do better. We need to do better.

Read the questionnaires:

Jay Gonzalez
Bob Massie
Setti Warren

Lt. Governor

A progressive Governor needs a progressive Lieutenant Governor to serve as an ally, someone who can be an effective liaison to the Legislature and to the cities and towns across the Commonwealth.

Read the questionnaires:

Quentin Palfrey
Jimmy Tingle

Secretary of the Commonwealth

This race can often fly under the radar, but it is an important one, with power over election administration, campaign finance, public records, and even the census.

In Attorney General Maura Healey, we have a statewide official who takes on a leadership role and sets an example for other states. We need a Secretary who will exhibit such bold, progressive leadership as well.

*No questionnaire received from Secretary Bill Galvin

Read the questionnaires:

Josh Zakim
Return to Elections & Endorsements >>

Want to see more questionnaires?

2017 in the House: Midterm Review

A guide to the Mid-session Scorecard

The 190th legislative did not have a very auspicious start.

Both House and Senate fast-tracked a bill to give pay increases to the Senate President, Speaker of the House, judges, the governor, and other constitutional officers; raise stipends to appointed committee chairs and select other legislative leaders; and increase the number of legislators eligible for stipends (1h).

Here at Progressive Mass, we understand that it is important that elected officials be paid well for the work that they do (especially so that they don’t seek more lucrative work that leads to a host of conflicts of interest), but the bill reflected the endemic problems of Beacon Hill.

  • It lacked any semblance of deliberative, democratic process, and its ultimate effect was to centralize power further in Leadership, creating a more hierarchical and less democratic Legislature.
  • It also left out woefully underpaid staffers from the pay increase—and the countless workers across the Commonwealth facing stagnant and sub-livable wages. In short, we deserve better from our Legislature.

It’s unfortunate that, in the House, Republicans tend to be the only ones calling for transparency and a more democratic process (Would they if they were in control? Probably not). Republicans pushed an amendment at the start of the session requiring committee roll call votes be published online. This would help citizens better hold their elected officials accountable. Accordingly, it was voted down by the Democratic majority (2h).

Apart from the restoration of line-item-vetoed budget programs and earmarks (most of which were worthwhile), the pay raise remains the only time the Democrats of the Legislature used their overwhelming supermajority to override Governor Baker’s veto.

That budget also left much to be desired, as it largely continued the austerity that hamstrings our ability to invest in our future:

Budget season in the House tends to follow a particular script. Amendments from progressive representati ves proposing new revenue or creative new ideas will be withdrawn, often without floor debate. Amendments from Republicans will be debated on the floor and then “sent to further study,” i.e., tabled indefinitely. And the leadership will decide behind closed doors which line item increases will get into the final budget, bundling them into large, omnibus amendments. Votes, including that on the final budget, will mostly be either party-line or (nearly) unanimous (with occasional splits in the Republican caucus or defections from the likes of Colleen Garry of Dracut or James Dwyer of Weymouth on the Democratic side).

The amendments sent to study (studies that will never happen — and shouldn’t) sought to stymy the state’s ability to collect revenue (3h, 4h) or prevent people from accessing the benefits that they need and deserve (5h, 6h).

Later in the spring of 2017, the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaire’s tax”) secured its place on the November 2018 ballot, as both houses overwhelmingly voted to support it in its second Constitutional Convention (7h). The Fair Share amendment, which would impose a 4% surtax on income above $1 million and allocate the revenue to a designated education and transportation fund, is an important start to counteracting the chronic underinvestment described above.

Speaking of ballot initiatives, the Legislature decided to rewrite Question 4, the marijuana legalization ballot initiative that passed in 2016. The House bill, which violated the spirit of what citizens had voted for, would have more than doubled the tax on marijuana, creating the conditions for black market to flourish; eliminated the ability of voters to have a direct say over local marijuana policy; and created new law enforcement agencies with broad and poorly defined powers. Important racial equity provisions were added via the amendment process (9h), but did not counter the fundamentally flawed nature of the bill. In addition to overwhelmingly passing this bill (10h), the House voted down an amendment to make sure that the funds from the bill don’t end up flowing to the cities and towns that ban marijuana (8h).

On the health care front, both the House and Senate beat back a terrible proposal from Governor Baker to drop more than 100,000 individuals from MassHealth and impose other restrictions on coverage (13h), as well as his proposals to freeze employer contributions to the unemployment insurance trust fund (12h). Despite Baker’s claims to moderation, his proposals would make his Republican colleagues in Washington proud. Thankfully, they failed last year, but we must be vigilant because Baker has not given up hope of passing it.

The House had strong bipartisan support for committing Massachusetts to the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement (14h) and guaranteeing access to birth control without copay (15h) — although it’s important to note that Massachusetts is already committed to the Paris goals by way of the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Criminal justice reform dominated the rest of 2017. As is often the case with the budget, many Democratic amendments were withdrawn or bundled and rewritten. Republican amendments were often sent to further study (which, given how bad they are, is better than passage). Democrats thankfully dispensed with Republican amendments to undermine the recent Lunn court ruling on immigrants’ rights (16h), double down on a punitive approach to the opioid epidemic (17h, 23h), and violate individual privacy rights by expanding state surveillance (18h).

Some good amendments did pass. The House voted to increase the threshold at which larceny gets prosecuted as larceny from the current $250 to $1,000 (lower than the Senate bill, but better than the status quo) (20h, 22h). Massachusetts, despite our liberal reputation, has the third lowest such threshold in the country. The House also voted to strengthen to strengthen juvenile justice reforms (18h).

Not every roll call vote involved in improving the bill or fending off efforts to weaken it. The House also voted overwhelmingly to expand the witness intimidation statute to cover more people and transactions and have higher penalties, opening up possibilities for police and prosecutorial abuse given the lack of requirement for an empirical foundation for such charges (21s).

Note: If legislators were not present for a vote but submitted a letter to the Clerk about how they would have voted, we recorded the intended vote in the scorecard. Relevant references here are available upon request. If a legislator was absent but did not make his/her intent clear, that absence was scored equal to a vote against the progressive position.

2017 in the Senate: Midterm Review

A guide to the Mid-session Scorecard

The 190th legislative did not have a very auspicious start. Both House and Senate fast-tracked a bill to give pay increases to the Senate President, Speaker of the House, judges, the governor, and other constitutional officers; raise stipends to appointed committee chairs and select other legislative leaders; and increase the number of legislators eligible for stipends (1s). Here at Progressive Mass, we understand that it is important that elected officials be paid well for the work that they do (especially so that they don’t seek more lucrative work that leads to a host of conflicts of interest), but the bill reflected the endemic problems of Beacon Hill. It lacked any semblance of deliberative, democratic process, and its ultimate effect was to centralize power further in Leadership, creating a more hierarchical and less democratic Legislature. It also left out woefully underpaid staffers from the pay increase—and the countless workers across the Commonwealth facing stagnant and sub-livable wages. In short, we deserve better from our Legislature.

The pay raise remains the only time the Democrats of the Legislature used their overwhelming supermajority to override Governor Baker’s veto, aside from the restoration of line-item-vetoed budget programs and earmarks (most of which were, granted, worthwhile programs and earmarks).

The base of that budget also left much to be desired, as it largely continued the austerity that has been harming our ability to invest in our future. That said, several of the amendments for which we had advocated did pass unanimously (2s, 3s, 4s).

One of those amendments (4s) would have established a schedule for implementing the 2015 recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, which found that the Commonwealth is underestimating the cost of K-12 education by $1-2 billion each year due to outdated assumptions regarding the costs of special education and health care as well as of closing the achievement gaps for low-income students and English Language Learners. This mirrors one of our priority bills — Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz’s S.223. Unfortunately, it did not make the Conference budget, although the fact that S.223 was reported out favorably by the Joint Education Committee offers hope.

Almost every single budget vote in the Senate last year was unanimous — adding extra funding to an array of important programs and blunting the overall austerity. The one contested vote was on eliminating the use of student standardized test performance in teacher evaluations (5s). Although testing can provide valuable information to teachers and administrators, the use of student impact ratings in teacher evaluation ignores the many other factors, both individual and social, that affect a student’s performance, and creates problems in subjects where standardized tests are not given, such as in art, music, and gym.

Later in the spring, the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaire’s tax”) secured its place on the November 2018 ballot, as both houses overwhelmingly voted to support it in its second Constitutional Convention (6s). The Fair Share amendment, which would impose a 4% surtax on income above $1 million and allocate the revenue to a designated education and transportation fund, is an important start to counteracting the chronic underinvestment described above.

Speaking of ballot initiatives, the Legislature decided to rewrite Question 4, the marijuana legalization ballot initiative that passed in 2016. The Senate’s bill (unlike the House’s) and, thankfully, the final Conference Committee legislation remained faithful to the will of the voters and contained some valuable social justice and public health improvements (7s, 9s).

Criminal justice reform and health care reform dominated the rest of the session. These votes counted for half of the votes scored in the first half of the 190th session (13s-30s).

Unfortunately, the awareness of the importance of reducing fines and fees did not hold when the Legislature passed its “no texting while driving” bill, as senators voted down an amendment to reduce the fine scale in the bill (8s).

On the health care front, both the House and Senate beat back a terrible proposal from Governor Baker to drop more than 100,000 individuals from MassHealth and impose other restrictions on coverage (12s). Despite Baker’s claims to moderation, his proposal would make his Republican colleagues in Washington proud. Thankfully, it failed last year, but we must be vigilant because Baker has not given up hope of passing it.

During the summer, the Senate also passed the Healthy Youth Act, which requires schools that teach sex ed to uses medically accurate, age-appropriate, and comprehensive curriculum–and beat back efforts to weaken it (10s, 11s).

In the fall, the Senate passed its own version of health care reform, and although it did not go as far we would have liked (single payer, anyone?), it contained many valuable improvements — from a public option to greater cost controls for prescription drugs and hospital bills to the authorization of dental therapists to increase access to dental care, among many other provisions that will improve the health and well-being of the Commonwealth (36s). The Senate beat back several efforts to weaken the bill (31s, 33s, 34s), but also one to improve it (32s). The bill also included a modified version of the so-called “benchmark” bill, which requires the establishment of a “single payer benchmark” and annual reports that compare the actual health care expenditures in the commonwealth for 2016, 2017, and 2018 with those under a single payer system. If the “single payer benchmark” outperforms actual costs, then the Health Policy Commission has to propose a single payer plan.

Note: If legislators were not present for a vote but submitted a letter to the Clerk about how they would have voted, we recorded the intended vote in the scorecard. Relevant references here are available upon request. If a legislator was absent but did not make his/her intent clear, that absence was scored equal to a vote against the progressive position.

2018 MA-01

MA-01

The District:

  • All of Berkshire County, all of Hampden County (except for Precinct 1A in Palmer), and the following towns and cities:
  • In Franklin County: Ashfield, Bernardston, Buckland, Charlemont, Colrain, Conway, Hawley, Heath, Leyden, Monroe, Rowe, and Shelburne.
  • In Hampshire County: Chesterfield, Cummington, Easthampton, Goshen, Granby, Huntington, Middlefield, Plainfield, South Hadley, Southampton, Westhampton, Williamsburg, and Worthington.
  • In Worcester County: Brookfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Warren.

*No questionnaire received from Congressman Richard Neal

Read the questionnaires:

Tahirah Amatul-Wadud
Return to Elections & Endorsements >>

Want to see more questionnaires?

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe  [opinion] (2/2/2018)

YES

Ted Steinberg

Needham resident, community organizer, former Congressional aide, member of Progressive Massachusetts

It’s déjà vu on Beacon Hill.

The decades-long hostility towards raising additional revenue strikes again. It was just last fall that the Legislature let stand $210 million of the $320 million Governor Charles Baker vetoed from the fiscal 2018 budget. The slashing of that crucial spending was, unfortunately, a predictable byproduct of the Legislature’s refusal to implement new taxes or fees in fiscal 2017.

Even with those cuts, this year’s state budget is again facing a potential deficit. The government was forced to rely on temporary revenues and the underfunding of essential programs – like MassHealth, services for homeless families, and snow and ice removal – all while hoping there will somehow be an end-of-the-year surplus. No wonder US News and World Report ranks Massachusetts 48th for balancing its budget.

Budgets are supposed to reflect priorities, but instead of thinking big and investing in our future, we are stuck playing catch-up from previous shortages. The Commonwealth has a variety of complex problems requiring investment. Our transit system malfunctions regularly (even when it’s warm outside), schools grapple with overcrowding, affordable housing remains woefully insufficient, and the opioid crisis continues to devastate our communities.

But we also want to do more than put a band-aid on wounds that require surgery. We want to expand MBTA service, strengthen our schools, provide shelter for struggling families, and move towards universal health care. The last thing we need to do is shut the door on sources of much-needed revenue.

As we look to improve upon state services and protect the laws that make Massachusetts feel like home, we should look for creative opportunities to increase spending capabilities. Whether it be from pollutant fees or new corporate taxes, marijuana sales or tax-deductible donations to government institutions, there are innovative ways to generate sufficient revenue for a responsible budget that won’t hurt the people’s pockets. It would be irresponsible not to even consider, let alone refuse to explore new potential sources of revenue or raising existing ones.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo should work on a game plan rather than punt the ball on first down. Tax increases should definitely be on the table as we look to fix our broken budget.

CommonWealth: Fiscal irresponsibility from Mass Fiscal Alliance

“Fiscal irresponsibility from Mass Fiscal Alliance” — Jonathan Cohn, CommonWealth (12/27/2017)

IN DECEMBER, when you open your mailbox, you’re used to the usual flow of holiday cards from relatives and old friends, as well as end-of-year fundraising solicitations. However, residents of towns from Pittsfield to Hull recently got something else: an incendiary mailer attacking select legislators for their support of the Safe Communities Act and warning of the flood of “illegal immigrants” into their cities and towns. And they weren’t talking about Santa Claus and his elves.

That would have, at least, been closer to the truth.

The source of these mailers was the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, an organization sometimes quoted as a nonpartisan source of “fiscally responsible” expertise in the press, perhaps best known as a thorn in the side of the state’s Democratic Legislature on budgetary affairs. As a supporter of robust public goods, I’m used to disagreeing with Mass Fiscal when it comes to how much we should be investing in our schools, our roads, our public transit, our health care infrastructure, etc. It isn’t that often that I see Mass Fiscal arguing for greater city and state spending, but that’s exactly what’s happening here.

You can read the full article here.

Senate “Report Card” on the Criminal Justice Reform Bill

In the wee hours of Oct. 27, the State Senate passed a historic Criminal Justice Reform bill 27 to 10 (See our “first take” analysis here).

Although four Democrats–Eileen Donoghue, Anne Gobi, Kathleen O’Conor Ives, and Mike Rush–joined the Senate’s six Republicans in voting NO, Senate Democrats still achieved the magic number of 27, the number necessary to override a veto from Governor Charlie Baker.

Progressives fought hard and were able to get a number of big wins. But DAs and police departments also fought hard against true reform (and won some things to). They will be fighting hard again as the House prepares to vote. So should we. 

CJR Roll Calls

The Senate considered 163 amendments to the underlying reform bill. Many were adopted or rejected by voice vote, or simply withdrawn. But those which were roll called offer a great window into whether legislators are fighting for progressive values or not. When the question “Whose side are you on?” gets asked, you can see how they respond.

Roll call votes on amendments are the only record of an individual legislator’s vote. In taking the measure of your legislator, these are the tools before us, and the limitations are obvious: when not all votes are individually recorded (voice vote/not roll called), the picture will be skewed by what roll calls we DO have. The question as to why the Legislature does not routinely take roll calls is an important one, and it gets to issues of transparency and individual voters’ ability to hold legislators accountable to their votes. There were some terrible provisions that passed (or failed) only on voice vote. There were some good ones that passed (or failed) only on voice vote, too. We can’t tell you how your legislator voted on them because we don’t have the record. (But you could ask!).

Methodology

In the Report Card below, we scored 17 amendments and the vote on the final bill. We did not include amendments with unanimous or nearly unanimous votes without a real stand for progressive values or against misguided “tough on crime” fear-mongering.

Overview of Results

Five senators consistently voted to keep a strong bill intact and further improve it: Joe Boncore, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Cindy Creem, Jamie Eldridge, and Pat Jehlen have a perfect score on our CJR report card. If you live in their district, you should thank them. (If you don’t, tell your own Senator how much you appreciate their leadership!)

Following them were a dozen Democrats with (mostly) As or (some) Bs: Mike Barrett, Will Brownsberger, Majority Leader Harriette Chandler, Julian Cyr, Sal DiDomenico, Linda Dorcena Forry, Cindy Friedman, Adam Hinds, Jason Lewis, Tom McGee, Senate President Stan Rosenberg, and Ways & Means Chair Karen Spilka. They almost always held the line and should be thanked as well.

Like the Senate’s six Republicans, eleven Democrats worked hard for their F, voting for the progressive position less than half the time: Michael Brady, Eileen Donoghue, Anne Gobi, Joan Lovely, Michael Moore, Kathleen O’Connor Ives, Marc Pacheco, Michael Rodrigues, Mike Rush, Walter Timilty, and James Welch. That said, Brady, Lovely, Moore, Rodrigues, Timilty, and Welch still voted for the final bill (unlike Rush, Gobi, O’Connor Ives, and Donoghue–Pacheco was absent) and deserve your thanks for that. And, though several Senators (many of whom have been backed by progressive forces in their elections and have cited their liberal cred when it’s easy and useful) were disappointing in their failure to stand up at critical junctures, ultimately, it is a testament to the Senate leadership as well as the work of advocates (like YOU) that efforts to roll back the progress in the bill were defeated

So what actually happened in all those amendments?

A Rundown of the Recorded Votes to the Senate’s CJR Bill

Overview of Results

Five senators consistently voted to keep a strong bill intact and further improve it: Joe Boncore, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Cindy Creem, Jamie Eldridge, and Pat Jehlen have a perfect score on our CJR report card. If you live in their district, you should thank them. (If you don’t, tell your own Senator how much you appreciate their leadership!)

Following them were a dozen Democrats with (mostly) As or (some) Bs: Mike Barrett, Will Brownsberger, Majority Leader Harriette Chandler, Julian Cyr, Sal DiDomenico, Linda Dorcena Forry, Cindy Friedman, Adam Hinds, Jason Lewis, Tom McGee, Senate President Stan Rosenberg, and Ways & Means Chair Karen Spilka. They almost always held the line and should be thanked as well.

Like the Senate’s six Republicans, eleven Democrats worked hard for their F, voting for the progressive position less than half the time: Michael Brady, Eileen Donoghue, Anne Gobi, Joan Lovely, Michael Moore, Kathleen O’Connor Ives, Marc Pacheco, Michael Rodrigues, Mike Rush, Walter Timilty, and James Welch. That said, Brady, Lovely, Moore, Rodrigues, Timilty, and Welch still voted for the final bill (unlike Rush, Gobi, O’Connor Ives, and Donoghue–Pacheco was absent) and deserve your thanks for that.

So what actually happened in all those amendments? Let’s explore.

Protecting the Progress of the Bill

The Senate defeated attempts to weaken or eliminate key parts of the bill, such as the following:

Raising the felony larceny threshold: In Massachusetts, the current threshold at which larceny (or theft) becomes a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, is a very low $250 (third lowest in the country)—in other words, less than the cost of an iPhone. This threshold was set at $100 in the 1800s, and it wasn’t raised until 1987. But if the felony threshold had kept up with inflation, today it would be well over $2,000. An unnaturally low felony threshold means that more people are subject to prison time for theft of a Yeti soft cooler.

Since 2000, 37 states have raised their felony larceny threshold, and property crime has not risen as a result. The Senate bill raises the threshold to $1,500—the same as Rhode Island’s.

 Senator Bruce Tarr attempted to reduce this to $1,000, and the amendment was voted down 15 to 22 (Scorecard 1s).

Curbing the school-to-prison pipeline: The Senate bill, removes disrupting a school assembly as an arrestable offense. To quote Senator Pat Jehlen: “Routine school discipline used to be handled inside a school.” When police get involved, they can often end up escalating a situation, with traumatic consequences for students in their formative years.Senator Bruce Tarr’s amendment sought to retain “school assembly disruption” as an arrestable offense, and his amendment was voted down 11 to 27 (Scorecard 6s).

Eliminating mandatory minimums for some nonviolent drug offenses: Mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion in sentencing and treat every offender with the same blunt instrument, regardless of context. Mandatory minimums have succeeded spectacularly at fueling mass incarceration, but do not reduce crime. We should applaud the Senate for beating back many of the efforts to reinstate this failed policy–but some votes were much too close for comfort, and a few wrong-headed amendments did, embarrassingly, pass (more on that shortly).

70% of prisoners held under the Massachusetts Department of Correction for a drug offense were sentenced under mandatory minimum statutes, at great economic cost to the state and social cost to communities. Even if they are not applied, prosecutors use the threat of mandatory minimums to coerce individuals into confessing to crimes they did not commit. Our neighbor Rhode Island repealed mandatory minimums for drug-related crimes back in 2009: both the prison population and violent crime fell afterwards.

Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr made two attempts to strengthen/restore mandatory minimums relating to non-violent cocaine offenses, but both failed, albeit somewhat narrowly, with votes of 18 to 19 (Scorecard 7s) and 17 to 21 (Scorecard 8s). At least 10 Democrats joined in each effort to undo the progress of the bill.

Tarr also sought to restore mandatory minimums for selling drugs in a school zone. The idea of stricter rules around school might make sense at first (“of COURSE we should extra penalize selling drugs to kids!”–can you see the attack mailer now?)–until you think it through. The 1,000-foot school zone distance is absurd in practice and ends up penalizing just whom you’d expect: black and brown communities, part and parcel of the racist machinery of our criminal justice system that we need to dismantle. But if that isn’t sufficient enough rationale, as Senator Will Brownsberger noted on the Senate floor, a review of cases of selling drugs in a school zone turned up no such cases of selling to minors. The geographic distinction is arbitrary and outdated, and it disproportionately, negatively affects communities of color. Tarr’s amendment failed 15 to 23, with 9 Democrats joining to support this ill-conceived, regressive, fear-mongering pander (Scorecard 9s).

Granting testimonial privilege to the parent-child relationship: Massachusetts law forbids minors from testifying against their parents in a criminal matter, under most circumstances, acknowledging the long-term and irreparable damage it could cause to the parent-child relationship. The Senate bill, also recognizing the personal and community importance of the parent-child relationship, simply codifies the logical inverse. Granting this testimonial privilege to parents means they cannot testify against their minor children. Minor children should be able to to communicate with parents without fearing that those conversations could be held against them in court.

Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr sought to strike this provision. His amendment failed 18 to 20; a dozen Democrats joined the Republican caucus in this regressive, and frankly cruel, effort (Scorecard 10s).

Raising the age of criminal majority from 18 to 19: Under current law, 18 year-olds–often seniors in high school–are tried as adults; the Senate bill changes the age of criminal majority (that is, when you get tried as an adult) from the 18th to the 19th birthday. Ample research shows that teenage offenders served by a juvenile system are much less likely to re-offend and more likely to successfully transition to adulthood. Teenagers in a juvenile system have access to greater educational and counseling services, and they’re much less likely to face sexual assault than at an adult facility.

Senator Michael Moore  sought to strike this from the bill, but his amendment was voted down by a too close 17 to 20. 10 other Democrats (along with all 6 Republicans) joined him in this regressive effort (Scorecard 12s).  

Sealing convictions for resisting arrest: The Senate bill allows individuals to seal felony records after five years and misdemeanors after three, and allows the crime of resisting arrest to be sealed. As Senator Will Brownsberger explained during the Senate debate, “resisting arrest” is a fairly common charge–and, it is often abused.

Arrest records can create significant obstacles for people to re-integrate as productive members of their community, as persons with records can face discrimination when seeking employment. It clearly makes no sense to seal the offense for which someone was arrested, but not the arrest  Like so many other of these amendments, the motivation almost seems arbitrarily vengeful, not like sound policy to rehabilitate offenders or repair communities.

Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr sought to strike this provision, but his amendment failed 8 to 28 (Scorecard 17s).

Defeating New Mandatory Minimums, Harsher Penalties, and the Morality Police

The Senate also defeated several efforts by Republicans (aided by some Democrats) to create new and/or stronger mandatory minimums and other penalties, aiming to undermine the purpose of the bill. Minority Leader Bruce Tarr’s attempt to create new mandatory minimums for drunk driving failed 14 to 23 (Scorecard 2s). Some senators seemed stuck in the worst old thinking of the failed “war on drugs”.  9 Senators, for instance, voted for Sen. Patrick O’Connor’s amendment expanding mandatory minimums for fentanyl (reducing the quantity to trigger the minimums) and broadening mandatory minimums to any Class A drug (Scorecard 11s). And 15 supported Sen. O’Connor’s proposed new mandatory minimum for carfentanil trafficking (22 opposed) (Scorecard 13s). O’Connor sought to empower DAs to charge sexting teenagers with felonies for child pornography failed on a (too) narrow 18-19 vote: a dozen Democrats joined this reactionary move (Scorecard 26s). A Civil Liberties Win and a Civil Liberties Loss

O’Connor also sought a broad expansion of the state’s wiretapping laws. This “unprecedented power-grab” (ACLU) would have granted DAs power to surveill electronic communications and to use their surveillance tools to investigate small offenses with no connection to organized crime, like petty drug distribution. The amendment went down 14 to 23 in a win for civil liberties (Scorecard 15s).

Although there were many great wins for civil liberties, and civil rights, there were a few very low moments. They should remind us of the need to stay vigilant and organized–and to not underestimate the persuasive power of the opponents to reform, or legislators’ willingness to pander to bad legislation that “looks” good.

Most notable among roll called votes was Bruce Tarr’s “Blue Lives Matter” amendment. Relying on a pernicious, racist narrative of a “war on cops” which is belied by statistics, this vote would establish a new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer. Disguised behind seemingly simple “We support our police” sentiments, these policies are often used to defame, deter, and suppress Black Lives Matter activists and others resisting or victimized by police brutality. Or, to be honest, activists in support of any progressive cause. We do not have to draw a special circle around our officers to value their role in our communities. A special law just for them contributes to the right-wing complex that says cops are persecuted victims in need of extra protection.


The amendment first passed on a 22 to 15 vote (Scorecard 3s), with 16 Democrats joining Republicans in voting for it. But then even more Democrats wanted to vote for it, so there was a revote. The amendment then passed 31 to 6 (Scorecard 4s). Giving People a Second Chance

The Senate bill repeals various mandatory minimum sentences. Should a person serving a mandatory minimum sentence for a crime for which the mandatory minimum be repealed have to serve the full term? The cause of justice clearly says no. If we no longer believe that full sentence to be wise or just, we should not be doing more damage to individuals, communities, or state budgets by forcing someone to serve it in full.

Cindy Creem’s amendment to allow such prisoners to be eligible for good conduct credits earned on and after the effective date of the law passed 25 to 13 (Scorecard 5s). By contrast, Tarr’s amendment to require individuals in prison for a mandatory minimum sentence that has since been repealed to serve the full term of the sentence rightly failed 13 to 24 (Scorecard 14s).