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 Many were adopted or rejected by voice vote, or simply withdrawn.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).

CommonWealth: Make National Voter Registration Day worth celebrating

“Make National Voter Registration Day worth celebrating” — Jonathan Cohn, CommonWealth (9/26/2017)

TODAY IS National Voter Registration Day. It also happens to be the day of Boston’s preliminary election.

But there’s one way that Boston residents won’t be able to celebrate today’s holiday: registering at the polls.

That’s because Massachusetts remains an outlier in New England in not embracing same day registration. Maine has allowed people to register at the polls since the 1970s; New Hampshire, since the 1990s; Vermont and Connecticut joined in more recently. Even Rhode Island has a form of same day registration—albeit just for presidential elections. If our fellow New England states can manage same day registration, so can we.

Read the full article here.

Time for Bold Criminal Justice Reform

When I talk to allies on Beacon Hill, they say that criminal justice reform is going to be one of the top issues the Legislature takes up this fall. But whether it will be real reform, or just tinkering around the edges, remains to be seen. Massachusetts needs to turn the tide on a failed “tough on crime” paradigm that has wreaked havoc on communities and fueled mass incarceration without making us any safer.

And that’s where you come in.

Representative Claire Cronin, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, is planning to meet with every state rep about the bills in her committee. She needs to hear from her constituents and her fellow representatives that Massachusetts wants real reform.

Call your state representative today and ask them to tell Chairwoman Cronin that Massachusetts wants bold criminal justice reform this fall.

Here’s a sample script to use. Feel free to personalize it and explain why the issue is important to you.

My name is [NAME], and I’m from [BLANK]. The Massachusetts Legislature is expected to take up criminal justice reform this fall, and it is important that we take bold action to address the systemic racial and economic inequalities of our criminal justice system, rather than resort to tinkering around the edges. I urge you to meet with Chairwoman Claire Cronin of the Judiciary Committee and recommend that the Committee advance the following bills:

H.741, which would repeal mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug-related offenses and give discretion back to judges

H.967, which would raise the felony threshold so that people’s lives are not ruined for small offenses

H.2359, which would end excessive probation and parole fees so that we don’t criminalize poverty and turn our jails into debtors’ prisons

H.2308, the gold standard omnibus bill that combines these and other reforms and reinvests the savings into job training and expanded economic opportunities

You don’t need to explain every little detail about the bills to the aide or legislator over the phone–they just need to know the bill numbers and why you care about the issue.

Why are Democrats Pushing Voter Fraud Myths in Massachusetts?

Yesterday was the 52nd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. And it was an important reminder that we still have work to do.

Two weeks ago, in a major win for democracy, the Suffolk Superior Court ruled that Massachusetts’s 20-day voter registration deadline is unconstitutional, noting that it arbitrarily and unnecessarily excludes thousands from the democratic process.

Unfortunately, not everyone is cheering the decision. Secretary of State Bill Galvin is planning to appeal the ruling, suggesting that it would create “chaos” for town and city clerks if people could register closer to an election, despite the fact that we are in the 21st century. But it gets worse. While Galvin is parading around Massachusetts and getting good press for supposedly opposing the Trump agenda by (rightfully) refusing to provide voter information to the Trump-created “Election Integrity” Commission, he has also been peddling the same dangerous voter fraud myths that Trump and Republicans have been pushing on the national level and in states seeking to roll back voting rights.

We can’t allow that here. Massachusetts is the only state in New England without some form of Election Day Registration (EDR). It has worked for our neighbors, and it would work here. And it’s one of the most reliable ways to increase turnout.

Call/Email Secretary Galvin (617-727-9180; cis@sec.state.ma.us) now to demand that he drop his appeal, and that he stop spreading lies about Election Day Registration.

But there’s more that you can do to fight for voting rights.

We have the opportunity this session to pass two key bills that will strengthen our democracy:

H.2091/S.373 (Automatic Voter Registration) would bring our elections into the 21st century by automatically registering citizens who interact with government agencies (“opt-out” instead of “opt-in”).

H.2093/S.371 (Election Day Registration) would make sure no eligible citizen is prevented from voting on Election Day.

Massachusetts often lags behind our peers when it comes to voting rights, and these bills can help change that. Our democracy is strongest when everyone is able to participate.

Call your legislators now to demand that they co-sponsor these essential bills and lobby their colleagues and Leadership to do so as well.

Let’s not just play catch-up–let’s start serving as a model for other states.

Time to Reinvest in Public Higher Education

The following is testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on Higher Education for its hearing on July 13, 2017. Chairman Moore, Chairman Scibak, and members of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, I, Jonathan Cohn, Co-Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, am pleased to offer this testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a multi-issue, grassroots, member-based advocacy organization committed to an agenda of shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good governance and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.  

Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record IN SUPPORT of bills H.633 and S.681.

Public higher education in the United States and especially in Massachusetts has played a critical role in expanding opportunity. A commitment to public higher education rests on an understanding that such institutions are anchors for the community, drivers of prosperity, producers of socially beneficial knowledge, and cultivators of forward-thinking individuals with skills and abilities that help them to succeed and us all to benefit. It’s quite simple: when public education in our Commonwealth is strong, we are all strong.However, since the early 2000s, we have been balancing the budget on the backs of students, with disastrous consequences.

Higher education has seen a 14 percent cut since 2001 despite substantial increases in enrollment. As a result, we are spending 31 percent less per student.

What does this mean in practice? Higher tuition and greater debt. Tuition now costs $4,000 more, on average, than it did in 2001. Three-fourths of students at public four-year colleges have to take out loans to afford their education, with their debt burden upon graduation more than 50 percent greater than it was at the start of the millennium.

Our chronic underinvestment in public higher education is preventing it from realizing its promise—and instead creating new roadblocks for working families across the state. Moreover, studies have shown that growing student loan debt has been a major drag on the economy, hurting us all.

Fortunately, it does not have to be this way. Bills like H.633 (free public higher education) and S.681 (debt-free higher education) offer a path forward.

Please Give a Favorable Report to H.633 and S.681.

Stop Trump’s Ally in the Corner Office from Slashing Mass. Health Care

While Republicans in DC have been attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, many progressives have been wondering what work can be done here in Massachusetts. We have stalwart progressive senators like Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, and a fully Democratic House delegation. And many of you have stepped up to the plate, calling people in other states to urge them to take action.

For now, activists have stalled the ACA repeal bill. But here in Massachusetts, our Republican governor Charlie Baker is pushing the Republicans’ anti-health care agenda.

Late last month, Baker submitted a list of health care proposals he wanted to see rolled into the budget without any public hearing or debate. That budget is being unveiled later this morning and voted on only hours later. Legislators need to hear from us NOW so they know what to look out for.

Baker’s wish list would make his Republican friends in Washington proud:

  • Cutting MassHealth eligibility for adults with incomes between 100% and 133% of the federal poverty level. This would drop 100,000 low-income parents and 40,000 other adults off MassHealth, subjecting them 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. 
  • Removing MassHealth eligibility for individuals if they have access to so-called “affordable” employer-based insurance. These plans can still be considered “affordable” if the premiums are almost 10% of a family’s income. For people living in or near poverty, there’s no premium that’s affordable.
  • Allowing the Office of Health and Human Services to restructure “optional” services. And “optional” includes fundamental aspects of health care, like prescription drugs, dental care, and vision care, among many other things. Charlie Baker shouldn’t have that much unilateral power to undo protections for working families.
  • Imposing a five-year moratorium on insurance mandates. Even though insurance companies often leave out important types of care.
  • Freezing employer contributions to the unemployment insurance trust fund. A $334 million giveaway that depletes an underfunded program—to sweeten a tax on employers whose workers get coverage from MassHealth. With the economy slowing down, this move isn’t just mean—it’s dangerous.

Massachusetts has been a leader in health care reform. And we must continue to lead, by improving upon the Affordable Care Act with a single payer, Medicare for All system.

Today, we must start by not going backwards.

Call your state senator and state representative today. Urge them to reject Governor Baker’s cuts to health care in the 2018 budget, and to support the real solution of Medicare for All.

Carbon Pricing: Keeping MA a Leader on Climate Action

The following was testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts on June 20, 2017.

Chairman Barrett, Chairman Golden, and members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, I, Jonathan Cohn, Co-Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, am pleased to offer this testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a multi-issue, grassroots, member-based advocacy organization committed to an agenda of shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good governance and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.  

Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record IN SUPPORT of bills H.1726 and S.1821.

As a coastal state, Massachusetts is especially vulnerable to climate change. To put it bluntly, we cannot achieve shared prosperity under water.Nine years ago, the Global Warming Solutions Act was signed into law, committing the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below the 1990 baseline in 2020 and by at least 80% in 2050. However, as advocates have often pointed out, and the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last year, Massachusetts is not on track to meet its own goals.

After President Trump moved to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, elected officials from both parties in Massachusetts condemned this misguided move and said that Massachusetts would continue to push forward with climate mitigation. But we need more than just rhetoric. We need concrete policies that enable us to realize and build upon our current commitments.

The carbon pricing bills under consideration—H. 1726 and S. 1821—are such policies. A 2014 study prepared for the Department of  Energy Resources found putting a price on carbon in a scheme akin to that of these bills “would reduce state GHG emissions to a larger degree than most other Massachusetts programs that currently operate for this purpose.” Indeed, it could reduce economy-wide emissions by 5-10%, with much of this reduction coming from the transportation sector, which is the largest source of emissions in Massachusetts.

The environmental benefits of such a pricing scheme are not limited to climate mitigation. The reduction in air pollution resulting from the price incentive could save over 300 lives over the next twenty years.

We are pleased that both H.1726 and S.1821 take important steps to counteract any potential regressive economic effects of a carbon pricing scheme, making sure that low-income residents are not bearing the burden of climate mitigation. And we specifically commend H.1726 for setting aside 20% of collected funds for a new Green Infrastructure Fund that would facilitate the decarbonization of the transportation sector and increase investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience. Changing price incentives is just the first step in the critical task of mitigating climate change.

The situation at the federal level for climate policy ambitious enough to meet the challenges before us is grim. It has thus become increasingly important for states like Massachusetts to redouble their commitments. We must do so to avoid regress, and we must do so to provide models for national policies as our state so often has.

Beacon Hill Rewrites Question 4 — For Better or For Worse?

Over the past week, a group of largely affluent, old white men gathered behind closed doors to craft a bill that they plan to ram through with as little debate as possible.

No, I’m not talking about Senate Republicans in DC. I’m talking about Democrats here in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

Last year, Progressive Massachusetts–like more than 53% of Massachusetts voters–supported Question 4, the ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. Massachusetts voters understood that the drug war has proven costly, ineffective, and socially destructive.

Marijuana legalization went to the ballot because the Legislature punted on the vital questions of how and whether to do it.

Now that Question 4 passed, the Legislature plans to amend it. And they will start voting TODAY.

They can choose to make the law better, or they can choose to make it worse.

Unfortunately, the House plans to make it worse.

How so? The House’s proposed bill…

  • More than doubles the tax on marijuana, creating the conditions for a black market to flourish;
  • Eliminates the ability of voters to have a direct say over local marijuana policy; and
  • Leaves out key measures to advance racial and social justice.

This bill would take us backwards. Please urge your Representative to vote NO.*

The Senate’s proposed bill, led by Senator Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), offers a better way forward.** In contrast to the House bill, it…

  • Maintains the tax level of Question 4 and the local referendum process;
  • Contains language to promote economic opportunities in communities hurt by the drug war;
  • Promotes energy and water efficiency in the industry;
  • Directs the Department of Public Health to create a science-based public awareness campaign to reduce youth usage and promote responsible usage;
  • Directs the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to create a campaign to inform people eligible to have their criminal records sealed; and
  • Seeks to create a more level industry playing field by promoting the inclusion of small farmers, small businesses, and cooperatives.

The Senate bill improves upon Question 4, while remaining faithful in spirit. Please urge your Senator to vote YES.

Don’t know who your legislators are? Look them up here, and then put their numbers in your phone for next time!

*118 amendments to the bill have been filed. Many of them would make the bill better, including Rep. Aaron Vega’s amendments #1 (expungement of marijuana arrest records), #5 (protection of parents of minor children), and #6 (appropriate tax rate); and Rep. Russell Holmes’s #38 (Minority and Women Owned Businesses Inclusion) and #41 (Promote and Encourage Full Participation in Disproportionately Harmed Communities); among others.

**111 amendments to the bill have been filed, including progressive ones such as Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz’s #20 (Sealing Records for Previous Marijuana Convictions), Sen. Joseph Boncore’s #76 (Expungement of Class D Possession), and Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry’s #104 (Intentional Inclusion in the Cannabis Industry), among others.