The Legislature ended the session with a flurry of bills. Baker needs to sign them.
Continue readingGovernor Baker Needs to Stop Trying to Dilute Police Reform
In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.
Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.
Baker’s amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.
Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.
Can you email Baker today to urge him to stop trying to water down the Legislature’s bill?
To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, “The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for.”
The Legislature Stood Up to Baker. They Can Do It Again.
This week, the MA House and Senate did something that they so rarely do: they stood up to Governor Charlie Baker.
Rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access. Thankfully, they rejected his amendments by wide margins. You can see the votes below.
But they need to stand up to him again.
They need to stand up to him again by rejecting his harmful amendments to the police reform bill.
And they need to stand up to him by rejecting his effort to strike vital oversight language in the budget to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.
Email your legislators in support of key language on police reform and prison oversight.
The House Rejected Baker’s Anti-Choice Amendment. But There’s Still Work to Do.
Last month, the House and Senate finally took action to strengthen reproductive rights here in MA by passing a slimmed down version of the ROE Act that, although it didn’t go as far as the ROE Act would have, contained important measures to protect and expand equitable access to abortion.
Rather than signing the measures into law, Republican Governor Charlie Baker sent back an amendment to nearly gut them entirely.
Fortunately, the House refused to go along.
Yesterday, they voted down his amendment 107 to 49.
Republican Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) put forth another amendment that would promote disinformation and stigmatize individuals seeking abortion care. That amendment also went down, by an even wider margin of 120 to 34.
It now goes to the Senate, which plans to vote tomorrow.
But there’s more work to do.
Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.
Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.
Can you email your state legislators about the importance of standing up to Baker and for civil liberties?
Tell Beacon Hill to Finish the Job
The current legislative session in Massachusetts ends in just three short weeks, with a few holidays in between.
And there’s a lot left to do.
The Legislature has to reject harmful amendments proposed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker to weaken police accountability legislation and strike vital language on equitable abortion access and prison oversight from the budget.
Important climate and housing legislation has been languishing in secretive conference committees while crises fester.
Key protections for workers like emergency paid sick time and for our immigrant communities like the Safe Communities Act and the Work and Family Mobility Act (driver’s license bill) were voted out of committee months ago but remain stuck in limbo.
It’s time to stop delaying and take action.
Can you email your state legislators today to demand swift action on these priorities?
We can’t let the clock run out with so much still on the table — and so much at stake.
It’s Time for the Legislature to Stand up to the Governor
This week, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed repeatedly that he doesn’t have the best interests of the commonwealth at heart. And we’re not just talking about his stubborn refusal to close in-door dining, casinos (?!), and gyms or ensure that workers and small businesses have the supports they need to weather the dark winter. (Although more on that later.)
We’re talking about his refusal to sign good policies passed by the Legislature and his desire to run out the clock on all of them.
Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.
And rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access.
Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.
That’s not okay. And the Legislature shouldn’t let him get away with it.
Charlie Baker Wants to Water Down the Police Reform Bill. Don’t Let Him.
Last week, the MA House and Senate passed their consensus version of a police reform bill, sending it to the Governor’s desk.
Baker had three options. (1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listened to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn’t care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn’t care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill.
He chose #3.
In his letter to the Legislature earlier today, Baker outlined a series of amendments that he is demanding that the Legislature pass. Each one would water down the progress made toward accountability and oversight.
Here’s what they were–and why they should be rejected.
- Restoring the Municipal Police Training Committee: The Legislature’s bill takes the Municipal Police Training Committee from its current location in the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and places it under the oversight of the civilian-majority POST Commission. Baker argued that only police know best how to train police. If that were true, then we wouldn’t be seeing all of the problems that gave rise to the bill. Civilian oversight is necessary for real accountability and for any meaningful reform of the practice of policing.
- Designating a Seat for Police Unions on the POST Commission: Baker insists that the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Policy Group be able to submit police union representatives for consideration for one of the law enforcement seats on the commission. Police unions have been bullying legislators and lying about the bill. They should not be rewarded for that with an opportunity to work against real oversight.
- Removing the Ban on Facial Surveillance Technology: Facial surveillance technology is very racist and very dangerous. Baker wants to eliminate the ban on this tool and create more work for a commission to study it.
- Weakening the Use of Force Regulations: Baker wants to strike the definitions in the bill for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” to make it easier for police officers to say that deadly force was justified.
- Defining “Bias-Free Policing” out of Existence: The bill creates an affirmative right to bias-free policing, defined as “policing decisions made by and conduct of law enforcement officers that shall not consider a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status or socioeconomic or professional level.” Baker wants to add exceptions large enough to exclude obvious cases of racial profiling.
- Delaying the Bill: Baker wants to delay implementation of the bill until July, but as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.
Let your legislators know that you oppose these amendments.
The MA Senate Can Pass a Better Budget Than the House
Last week, we highlighted the good, the bad, and the very ugly of the MA House’s budget.
This week, the MA Senate will be voting on its budget. And they have the opportunity to make it better.
The Senate Can Pass Stronger Language on Reproductive Rights
The House passed a slimmed down version of the ROE Act, which — although not as comprehensive as the ROE Act — has been celebrated by reproductive rights advocates as a major step forward.
Sen. Harriette Chandler’s Amendment 180 (ROE Act) offers even stronger protections for reproductive rights.
So far, Senators Jo Comerford, Cindy Creem, Julian Cyr, Jamie Eldridge, Cindy Friedman, and Becca Rausch have signed on.
If one of those senators is yours, thank them. If not, urge your senator to co-sponsor and vote for Amendment 180. (Find their contact info here.)
The Senate Can Pass Emergency Paid Sick Time
If you follow the news, you know we’re in store for a dark winter, as COVID-19 case numbers and death tolls are expected to rise.
Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.
But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time. No one who is sick should feel like they have to go to work or else they will lose their job. That’s bad for the economy and bad for public health.
Sen. Jason Lewis’s Amendment 360 (Emergency Paid Sick Time) would make sure that all workers have access to at least 10 days of job-protected sick leave during the COVID emergency.
So far, Senators Jo Comerford, Diana DiZoglio, Paul Feeney, and Michael Moore have signed on.
If one of those senators is yours, thank them. If not, urge your senator to co-sponsor and vote for Amendment 360.
Your State Rep Probably Took a Bad Vote Yesterday. But They Can Take a Good One Tomorrow.
If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.
And that requires money.
Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The budget that it’s currently debating fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state.
Legislators have a choice of whether to invest in an equitable economic recovery or accept a dangerous trajectory that leaves the most vulnerable behind.
Yesterday, 127 state representatives chose the latter, voting against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.
Here was the vote.
You should let your legislator know what you think of their vote. But there’s an opportunity for them to do better.
Your representative may have voted the wrong way yesterday. But they can still take progressive votes if the following amendments are brought to the floor.
Emergency Paid Sick Time
Urge your state representative to support Amendment #231 — Emergency Paid Sick Time, which would provide ten additional work-days (80 hours) of job-protected emergency paid sick time for immediate use during the COVID-19 outbreak to workers not covered by federal emergency paid sick time protections.
Strengthening Reproductive Rights
Amendment #759 — Improved Access to Health Care would remove medically unnecessary barriers to abortion care. It doesn’t contain everything from the ROE Act, but it contains many vital provisions and would be a significant step forward. Voters have made clear that reproductive health care matters, and with abortion and other health care under threat from an anti-abortion Supreme Court, it’s time for Massachusetts to act.
Fight for the Strongest Police Reform Bill
House and Senate Leadership have appointed a conference committee to reconcile their respective bills. The conference committee — Sen. Brownsberger, Sen. Sonia Chang Diaz, Sen. Tarr, Rep. Cronin, Rep. Gonzalez, and Rep. Whelan — will work on a consensus bill, which will have to be voted on and then sent to the Governor.
Please urge your legislators and Governor Charlie Baker to support the strongest bill possible.
From the SENATE Bill:
(1) Section 10, which enables victims of police abuse to seek redress in the courts
(2) Sections 34-40, which require transparency and public decision-making about local police acquisition of military equipment such as tanks, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles
(3) Section 37, which establishes a Justice Workforce Reinvestment Fund
(4) Section 49, which prohibits schools from transmitting to law enforcement personal information about students or their family members
(5) Section 50, which permits school superintendents to determine whether or not police should be assigned to local schools.
(6) Section 52, which bans racial and other profiling, requires data collection for all stops, frisks, and searches with, analysis, reporting, and accountability if the data demonstrates profiling
(7) Sections 59-61, which clarify that individuals petitioning for expungement may do so for more than one record and creates a limited, rather than indefinite, lookback period for expungement eligibility.
(8) Language in Section 55 – 2(f) that requires police to plan for de-escalation in advance of protests or gatherings
From the HOUSE bill:
(1) Section 2, which clarifies that law enforcement misconduct records are public records
(2) Section 25, which restricts government use of facial surveillance
(3) Section 78, which establishes reasonable safeguards around the use of no-knock warrants
(4) The definition of “choke hold” in Section 29
The House Can Strengthen Its Police Reform Bill
Yesterday, the MA House released its police reform bill, and needless to say, we’re disappointed. Although there are some improvements on the Senate bill (stronger language on facial surveillance and chokeholds), the House punted on reforming qualified immunity, weakened language on reducing the school-to-prison pipeline, eliminated the Justice Reinvestment Fund, and dropped a whole section devoted to controlling the transfer of military equipment to police forces.
The House will be voting THIS WEEK, so your state rep needs to be hearing from YOU that you want a stronger bill. We’ve outlined some key amendments below. (Click here to contact your reps.)
Making Sure that Schools Are Safe & Welcoming Spaces
#1 (Sabadosa): Ensuring Public Accountability for School Policing, which provides school districts with discretion about whether or not to hire school resource officers
#88 (Elugardo): Protecting Students From Profiling, which disrupts the school-to-prison pipeline by preventing the transmission of student information to law enforcement agencies
Centering Public Safety around Community
#46 (Keefe): Justice Reinvestment and Workforce Development Fund, which would reallocate an equivalent sum of money from savings from the Department of Corrections into a fund for job training and workforce development for communities disproportionately targeted by the criminal-legal system
#71 (Sabadosa): Alternatives to Policing, which establishes a Community Emergency Response Team consisting of trained social workers under the Department of Public Health to divert certain 911 calls to
#166 (Vargas): Clarifying Expungement, which has the potential to remove major barriers for thousands of young people including access to jobs, housing, education, and other opportunities
#99 (Barber): Work and Family Mobility, which ensures that immigration status is not a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license
Demilitarizing Police & Strengthening Regulations on the Use of Force
#92 (Elugardo) Pre-Emptive De-Escalation, which requires police departments to make plans for de-escalation in advance of protests
#97 (Robinson): No-Knock Warrants, which bans the use of no-knock raids
#131 (Lewis): Restrictions on the Acquisition on Military Grade Controlled Property, which imposes limitations and democratic oversight requirements on the procurement of military weaponry by state and local enforcement
#194 (Robinson): Use of force tactics, which bans the use of rubber bullets and attack dogs by police
#200 (Connolly): Tear Gas, which bans the use of tear gas
Increasing Police Accountability
#77 (Vargas): Preponderance of Evidence as the Burden of Proof for License Suspension and Revocation, which changes the burden of proof used by the Massachusetts Police Standards and Training Commission to suspend/revoke licenses from “clear and convincing evidence” to “a preponderance of the evidence”
#100 (Provost): Addressing Direct Civil Rights Violations, which would allow victims of police brutality and other civil rights violations to bring claims in state court for direct violations of their rights — without having to prove that their rights were violated by means of threats, intimidation or coercion.
#176 (Hecht): Reforming qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, which would enable victims of police brutality to hold officers accountable in court by allowing officers to claim immunity only if it was clearly established that their conduct was lawful.
#210 (Malia): Officer identification, which requires all officers to have a badge with their name, identification number, and agency visible, with violations subject to suspension or other discipline
Independence of the Police Standards & Accreditation Commission
#95 (Robinson): Makeup of POSAC, which ensures that the civilian members of the commission are not family members of law enforcement
#96 (Robinson): Designation of POSAC Chair, which takes away the Governor’s ability to appoint the commission’s chair and allows the commission to appoint its own
#202 (Decker): Police Standards Commission, which eliminates the guaranteed law enforcement seats on the commission
Preventing a Gross Misallocation of Funds
#86 (Miranda): Prioritizing Social Equity Spending of Marijuana Revenue, which stipulates that if any money is redirected from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Police Training Fund, an equal or greater amount must be transferred to a social equity training and assistance fund
#94 (Robinson): Police Training Fund & #211 (Vega): Marijuana Regulation Fund, which strike the language redirecting funds from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Police Training Fund
Protecting the Human Rights of the Incarcerated
#2 (Sabadosa): Use of Force within the DOC, which would require the Department of Corrections and sheriffs’ offices to provide a commission on the use of force within prisons and jails with necessary documentation to conduct oversight
#98 (Sabadosa): Decarceration, which would require the release of individuals who are currently in pre-trial detainment or under incarceration if they are a member of a population deemed especially vulnerable by the CDC, are eligible for medical parole, are almost finished with their sentence, or are only being detained due to inability to pay bail or due to minor violations of parole