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

VOTE buttons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Argument #5: The clerks oppose it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Argument #9 This would allow voter fraud.

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

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

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

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

How Two Ballot Referenda Propose to Reduce State Income Tax Revenues

Fred Berman, Mystic Mashup Indivisible

How Two Ballot Referenda Propose to Reduce State Income Tax Revenues and the Implications

While much attention has been understandably focused on the threats posed by the Trump Administration to our democracy, to the civil and constitutional rights of our neighbors, to our safety net programs, to our school systems and universities, and to our ability to sustain and strengthen the physical infrastructure that our economy needs to grow while protecting the environment – housing, public transportation, clean energy …  another less well-known threat has been brewing.

To learn more about two tax-cutting ballot referenda sponsored by the Mass. High Tech Council, the Pioneer Institute, and their anti-tax allies, I attended a workshop at the 2026 Progressive Mass annual meeting, led by Harris Gruman, Executive Director of the SEIU Mass. State Council and a co-founder of Raise Up Mass., the coalition that led the successful fight to pass the Fair Share millionaire tax constitutional amendment.

The two tax-cutting ballot referenda championed by the High Tech Council, et al. would, if passed, undermine our state’s ability to adequately support health care access, human services, public and post-secondary education systems, and the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of essential infrastructure – transportation, energy, natural resource protection – that make Massachusetts such an outstanding state to live in.  Of course, all of these sectors have already been targeted by the Trump Administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which will cut $3.7 billion in federal funding over the three-year period that began in 2025. Like the metaphoric frog in boiling water, we might not feel the impacts of these referenda in the first year, but by years two and three, when we have lost $7-10 billion of the state’s $60 billion budget, the hemorrhaging will have become all too apparent.

One ballot question calls for reducing the state income tax rate from 5% to 4% over a three-year period.  The Mass. Budget and Policy Center (“Mass Budget”) calculated that when fully implemented, that 20% income tax cut will cost the state about $5 billion/year or about 11.5% of the state’s total $43.7 billion tax revenue. 

A second ballot question calls for changing the so-called Chapter 62F formula that prescribes the annual limit or cap on tax revenue collection.  The mechanism proposed by this ballot initiative to reduce tax revenues is more arcane, but here’s my best shot at an explainer, based on what I learned at the workshop and online: 

How the Current Tax Revenue Limit Works

Established in 1986, Question 3 added Mass General Law Chapter 62F creating a state tax revenue limit and set it equal to the sum of the prior year’s state tax revenue limit plus the average growth of Mass. wages and salaries over the prior three years.(*1)  

That is,

This year’s total tax revenue limit

=

Last year’s total tax revenue limit

X

1 + percent of 3-year average wage/salary
growth (or 1, if the wage/salary growth avg. was negative)

Under the existing provisions of Chapter 62F, if this year’s revenue cap was $46.38 billion and statewide wage/salary growth over the past 3 years averaged 2.5% per year, the revenue cap for next year would be $46.38 billion X 1.025.  Note that the 4% millionaire’s tax is not taken into account (*2).  Importantly, the existing formula almost always results in an annual increase in the total tax revenue cap, and never lowers that cap, with the amount varying based on the magnitude of wage and salary growth. Only twice in the past 38 years, in 1987 and 2022, has tax revenue exceeded the cap and required a refund to taxpayers.

How the Ballot Referendum Revising the Chapter 62F Tax Cap-Setting Algorithm Would Change Things

The Chapter 62F Referendum would revise the formula for the state tax revenue limit in two ways: (1) It would add the millionaire’s tax into the equation, and (2) instead of basing this year’s tax revenue limit on last year’s tax revenue limit, it would base this year’s tax revenue limit on last year’s net tax revenues:

This year’s total tax revenue limit

=

Last year’s total net tax revenues 

X

1 + percent of 3-year average wage/salary
growth (or 1, if the wage/salary growth avg. was negative)

This is a subtle change with profound implications. 

  • Instead of steadily increasing the tax revenue cap, the Mass High Tech Council’s proposed algorithm would base this year’s tax revenue cap on the magnitude of last year’ net tax revenue; that is, the tax cap would decrease if the product of last year’s net tax revenue <times> last year’s wage/salary growth factor was lower than the prior year’s net tax revenue, and the tax cap would increase by only a small amount, if last year’s net tax revenue was only marginally higher than the prior year’s net tax revenue and/or if last year’s calculated 3-year average growth in wages/salaries was low.  Three subtle factors to note:
  • The inclusion of the 4% millionaire tax in the calculation of net tax revenue adds volatility to the calculation of the tax cap, because most of a millionaire’s income typically comes from investments, (e.g., the stock market) whose payouts may significantly vary from year to year. So even if other tax revenues increase from year to year, a bad stock market year could result in a lowered tax cap. 
  • Basing this year’s tax cap on last year’s net tax revenue – rather than basing it on last year’s gross tax revenue – means that if gross tax revenues were high enough last year to require a refund to taxpayers, this year’s tax cap will be based on the level of tax revenue remaining after that refund.
  • That is, (a) a low tax revenue year results in a lower increase or even a decrease in the tax cap; (b) a higher tax revenue year coming after one or more years of low tax revenues will be subject to a lower tax revenue cap, necessitating issuance a tax refund; and (c) the refund requirement in a strong tax revenue year will result in a lower tax cap the following year, because the tax cap is based on net (not gross) tax revenues.  In summary, the proposed revision to the Chapter 62F algorithm for calculating the tax revenue cap does exactly what the ballot referendum’s sponsors intended: it reduces the State’s tax collections.

To see how big an impact on net tax revenue (i.e., after required tax refunds) the Chapter 62F formula change might have, I simulated 15 years of tax collections under the following assumptions about the average annual increase in non-4% (millionaire tax) tax revenues: simulation #1 assumed a 5.25% average annual increase, simulation #2 assumed a 4.25% average annual increase, simulation #3 assumed a 3.25% average annual increase, and simulation #4 assumed a 2.25% average annual increase. In each simulation: (a) I allowed gross tax revenues (including the 4% millionaire tax) to decline in two of the 15 years. Each simulation used the same projections about annual growth in salary/wages (ranging from 1.5% to 3% and averaging at 2.48%/year) and the same projections about the annual level of revenues from the 4% millionaire tax (ranging from $1.3 to $3 billion/year and averaging $2.7 billion/year.  Here’s what I found:

 

Average Annual Revenue Increase (excludes 4% tax)

Total Revenue Collected (15 yrs.)

(includes 4% tax)

Taxes Refunded Using Current Algorithm (15 yrs.) 

(% of Total Revenue)

Taxes Refunded Using Revised 62F Algorithm (15 yrs.)

(% of Total Revenue)

# Years Chapter 62F Algorithm Required Refund

Existing Algorithm

# Years Chapter 62F Algorithm Required Refund

Proposed Algorithm

Simulation 1

5.25%

$1,055.59 billion

$97.11 billion (9.2%)

$231.86 billion (21.96%)

11 of 15

15 of 15

Simulation 2

4.25%

$973.12 billion

$30.71 billion (3.16%

$104.91 billion (10.78%)

 

6 of 15

15 of 15

Simulation 3

3.25%

$898.10 billion

 

0

$46.40 billion (5.17%)

 

0 of 15

15 of 15

Simulation 4

2.25%

$829.83 billion

 

0

$23.85 billion (2.87%)

 

0 of 15

11 of 15

  • If annual growth in gross tax revenue (incl. the 4% millionaire tax) consistently exceeds annual growth in salary/wages, gross tax revenue will start to consistently exceed both the current tax cap and the tax cap proposed by the ballot referendum. As noted above, for simulation purposes, annual growth in salary/wages averaged 2.48%, varying year to year and ranging from 1.5% to 3%.
  • The more consistently gross tax revenue (incl. the 4% millionaire tax) exceeds the annual cap, the higher the percentage of gross tax revenues that will be refunded to taxpayers – with the largest sums, of course, going to the wealthiest taxpayers.

Why would the Mass. High Tech Council (MHTC), Pioneer Institute, and their conservative anti-tax partners call for income tax cuts that, combined with cuts in President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will cause at least an $8 billion/year budget shortfall – more than three times the losses caused by the 2008-09 Great Recession, when annual state revenues fell by $2.5 billion?

And why would the remaining financial and tech firms and educational institutions represented on the Board of the High Tech Council – a number of organizations formerly on the MHTC Board have left the Board due to the MHTC’s sponsorship of these tax-cutting initiatives – support state revenue losses which will undermine the state’s ability to adequately support economic development, infrastructure maintenance and improvements, public safety, and educational excellence from pre-school to post-secondary … in the state where their families and employees live and work, and where the educational institutions that serve them and train their future staff are located?

Harris Gruman’s and the Raise Up Mass Coalition’s answers are two-fold:

  1. Greed: This isn’t about helping ordinary working people; these initiatives are part of a strategy to claw back some of the income that the Fair Share Millionaire’s Tax has cost members of the MHTC Board and their colleagues. The average annual tax cut that the richest 1% of taxpayers would receive is estimated at $31,600 ($608/week). The average annual tax cut that the bottom 80% of taxpayers would receive is estimated at $534 ($10/week).
  2. Greed: “It is clear that the MHTC intends to use the threat of these ballot initiatives – and the incredible damage they would do to Massachusetts – to blackmail legislators into cutting taxes for the ultra-rich and large corporations. Faced with their inability to defeat the Fair Share Amendment, they have instead chosen extortion: well-financed business interests are seeking to elevate themselves over our state government as final decision makers on Massachusetts fiscal policy.”

Harris cautions that, “This isn’t a serious effort to tackle Massachusetts’ real competitiveness problems, like the sky-high cost of housing and childcare that are driving low- and middle-income working famlies out of the state. It’s just another attempt to make the rich richer.”
He warns that “State leaders should not be tempted to negotiate in response to this blackmail attempt. If they do, the MHTC and its backers will come back with similar threats and new demands every cycle, raiding public coffers for their own benefit, while shifting the costs of diminished public services onto everyone else.”
“Furthermore, while their goal may be to extort targeted tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and corporations from our Legislature and Governor, we can’t rule out some of them taking this all the way to the ballot as a show of force.”
For now and the next few months, the goal is getting the sponsors to end their effort to get these referenda on the ballot, and to get them to stop using the threat of these ballot initiatives to leverage a rollback of the historic Fair Share victory for fair and adequate taxes.

[1] According to an August  2025 Mass. Dept. of Revenue press release, the 5% Mass. income tax generated $23.7 billion and the 4% millionaire tax added another $3 billion in FY 25.  Sales and use taxes added $9.6 billion, corporate and business taxes added $4.7 billion, and “all other” tax collections added $2.7 billion.  Tax collections totaled $43.7 billion.

[2] A September 2025 report from the State Auditor’s office explains how Chapter 62F has worked since its inception in 1987, and in particular,  why taxpayers got refunds from the Mass. Department of Revenue (DOR) for the fiscal years 1987 and 2022.  The third footnote on page 10 explains that per the provisions of the Fair Share Amendment, revenue from the millionaire’s tax is not currently included in calculating net revenue for the purposes of determining whether net revenue exceeded the tax cap. 

2026 Annual Meeting Videos & Links

Thanks to everyone who joined us on the 31st!

You can watch Senate candidate interviews here.

If you’re interested in learning more about what’s involved in starting a chapter in your community, email chapters@progressivemass.com.

Hope to see you soon!

In Solidarity,

Progressive Mass Team

Yes for a Safe MA

Campaign website: yesforasafema.com

Campaign email: info@yesforasafema.com

Key takeaway: The more Massachusetts voters understand the law, and what’s at risk, the more likely they are to vote in our favor. We encourage folks to sign up to get involved and take action by donating, endorsing (as individuals or organizations), hosting an event, or volunteering.

Rent Control

Campaign website: https://www.keepmasshome.com/

Legislative campaign: https://www.homesforallmass.org/policy/

Legislative Reform

Slide Deck: LINK

Campaign website (Stipend Reform): https://www.stipendreform.com/

Campaign website (Public Records): https://www.dianaforma.com/ballot

Saving Our State from the Greedy Tech Bros

Campaign website: https://www.protectmassachusettsfuture.com/

Join an upcoming action: https://forms.gle/opNdicweBFdiUyzK8

Voter Contact 101

Slides: LINK

State Budget

Slide Deck: LINK

MassBudget’s website: https://massbudget.org/

MassBudget’s preliminary analysis of the Governor’s budget proposal: https://massbudget.org/2026/01/28/massbudgets-preliminary-analysis-of-governor-healeys-fy-2027-budget-and-fy-2026-supplemental-budget-proposals/

Sign up for the March 3rd MassBudget webinar on funding affordable housing through a real estate transfer fee on high-priced home sales: https://secure.massbudget.org/np/clients/mbpc/event.jsp?forwardedFromSecureDomain=1&event=54

Sign up for MassBudget’s mailing list:https://secure.massbudget.org/np/clients/mbpc/subscribe.jsp?subscription=34

Care Not Cages

Slides: LINK

If people are looking to donate, these are fundraisers for families impacted by immigration enforcement across MA: Operationmilkweed.org

Join LUCE: lucemass.org

Join BIJAN (accompaniment and bond): https://www.beyondbondboston.org/join

Overview of immigration detention: https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org/detention-timeline

Tell Congress to stop ICE detention: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/464bfff89caa6e21cda6427cbcea52b9

PLYMOUTH

– To understand more about the relationship between detention capacity and ICE Arrests: https://www.ilrc.org/resources/if-you-build-it-ice-will-fill-it-link-between-detention-capacity-and-ice-arrests

– To read about detention in Plymouth County Correctional Facility over 25 years: https://www.bu.edu/law/files/2024/09/ICE-detentions-plymouth.pdf

Holding DAs and Sheriffs Accountable

Slide Deck: LINK

Additional DA resources:https://www.aclum.org/campaigns-initiatives/what-difference-da-makes-0/

Additional Sheriff resources: https://www.aclum.org/know-your-sheriff/

Care Not Cages: Mass Immigrant Justice in 2026

Becca Kornet, Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County

Shannon Flynn and Leela Ramachandran from LUCE led a breakout group at Progressive Mass’s 2026 Annual Meeting about the critical work done by LUCE. LUCE is an acronym: Liberation, Union, Community, Esperanza/Esperança/Espoir/Espwa (hope). LUCE’s work covers two broad areas:

  • Hotline operators available 6am-8pm (call this when you think you see ICE, ask about resources, report detentions)
  • Local hubs of volunteers (ICE verifiers, connecting with local resources, canvassing with “know your rights” info)

The communities hit hardest by ICE in 2025 include Framingham, Milford, Marlborough, East Boston, Chelsea, Revere, New Bedford, Waltham, and more. Even suburban communities like Acton, Newton, Milton, and Hudson have seen ICE activity. From March-December of last year, verifiers responded to over 1,100 incidents in 120 cities and towns in Massachusetts (and this is likely under-counted). People have been detained in a wide range of locations, including district court, businesses, traffic stops, homes, immigration court, on the street, at gas stations, and more. There has been frequent collaboration between local police and court staff and ICE.


We were reminded that we have had bad immigration policy since the 1700s, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. While what’s happening now is particularly horrible, much of it is not new. President Obama truly earned the moniker, “deporter in chief,” as his administration detained more immigrants than all presidents since 1890 combined. The Biden administration didn’t do nearly enough. And Governor Healey, while finally taking a stronger stance on this issue, has also not gone far enough. When you hear about people being transferred, this can mean a dehumanizing experience of being in full body shackles for hours in a van; transfers are often done very quickly and to multiple places, so often by the time detainees’ families know they are gone, they have been moved from Burlington to Plymouth to Louisiana; this quick movement also means they have had no chance to secure legal representation.


As for the detention locations in Massachusetts:

  • The facility in Burlington is an office building, and not set up to keep people long-term; immigrants are often sleeping on floors
  • The conditions in Plymouth are terrible, with detainees reporting freezing temperatures (meaning they have to shell out money to buy sweatshirts if they can afford it) and inedible food
  • There is also the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) in Framingham and Burlington, where individuals are given ankle monitors to wear and rules to follow – and they are still at risk of
    deportation


Currently, Massachusetts allows local/state entities to rent detention space and sign contracts with ICE. Learn more about the Dignity not Deportations Act (H1588/S1122), which would prohibit these contracts and also prohibit MA entities from donating time to or volunteering with ICE. The Detention Watch Network is a great resource. Another great way to help is by volunteering for the Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network (BIJAN); there are opportunities to accompany individuals to court and make financial donations to their bond fees, which can be extremely expensive. 

To learn more, sign up to volunteer, or make a financial contribution, visit https://www.lucemass.org.

The Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts Campaign: How to Help Protect our Gun Safety Laws

Becca Kornet, Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County

Alejandra Rivera, Policy Manager at the Mass Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, led a breakout group at Progressive Mass’s 2026 Annual Meeting on January 31st about the effort to repeal recent gun safety legislation. In 2024, Maura Healey signed a new gun safety bill into law – An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws. While Massachusetts already had strong gun safety laws, this legislation closed many loopholes (e.g., regulation of ghost guns), making it MA’s most significant gun safety legislation in a decade and raising the Commonwealth to an A grade rating on the Giffords Scorecard. The law went into effect in July 2024; by October of that same year, extremists filed a petition to repeal it.


This question will be on the ballot in November 2026. While we won’t know the question number until the spring, we do know that we need to vote YES to keep the current legislation as it is and not repeal it. As is often the case, the yes/no wording on ballot questions can be confusing or counterintuitive, so it’s critical we start getting the word out to our networks now so we can build awareness and education.


The group behind the push to repeal the legislation is GOAL – the Gun Owners Action League. Their messaging is often misleading. For example, their website is TheCivilRightsCoaltion.com, which may lead people to assume a very different intent. They are well-funded, with about $170K in the bank to fund their campaign.


To learn more, get involved, or make a financial contribution to help them combat the spending that is sure to come up from our opponents, go to https://www.yesforasafema.com. Vote YES for a Safe Massachusetts!

Response to Governor Healey’s 2026 State of the Commonwealth Address

Although Governor Healey’s State of the Commonwealth began with sharp criticisms of President Trump, she failed to demonstrate that MA will be a true bulwark against his harmful policy agenda. 

It’s deeply disappointing that Governor Healey offers nothing of substance in how to protect our immigrant communities in Massachusetts from ongoing ICE terrorism and Trump’s un-American, xenophobic agenda. Last year, she offered Marcelo Gomes da Silva a rosary; perhaps it should be no surprise that all she offers here is thoughts and prayers.

Activists have been fighting for years for bills like the Safe Communities Act and Dignity Not Deportations Act to end formal and informal collaboration with ICE. New legislation has been filed to protect court houses and to impose penalties on ICE agents from wearing masks. The Governor offered nothing. Let’s be clear: reining in ICE violence is a kitchen table, as there is no such thing as affordability when families are being broken apart and workers are being kidnapped on the way to work.

In a recent speech, Senator Elizabeth Warren underscored that the major fight within the Democratic Party is whether Democrats will be with billionaires or with the rest of us and whether Democrats will fight entrenched corporate interests and reduce inequality. To that question of “Which side are you?,” Governor Healey doesn’t provide a clear answer. 

An archaic “all of the above” energy strategy locks in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades to come, lining CEO pockets and keeping energy bills high. 

A “Health Care Affordability Working Group” filled with industry insiders is like asking the foxes how to keep the henhouse safe. 

Successful policies she rightfully touts, like free community college, universal school meals, and greater investment in the MBTA, all resulted from voters answering Warren’s question: we said yes to taxing the rich and investing in all of us with the Fair Share Amendment. 

As Massachusetts faces the threat of devastating budget cuts because of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill, Healey offers no insight into how or whether she intends to fight back. The Fair Share fight showed us how. 

New initiatives like preventing medical debt from being reported to credit agencies (Even better would be abolishing the idea of medical debt with a single payer health care system) or adopting click-to-cancel policies are good, common-sense steps, but Healey failed to offer a bold vision for a Commonwealth that works for all. 

An Important Deadline Just Passed on Beacon Hill. What Happened?

If you have read news about the State House or seen advocacy alerts or legislative newsletters recently, you may have heard the term “Joint Rule 10 Day.”

In the Joint Rules governing the MA House and MA Senate, Rule #10 creates deadlines for committees to take action.The Senate has a deadline of December 3 (“first Wednesday in December”), and the House had a deadline earlier this week (“third Wednesday in December”).

To meet this deadline, committees can take one of our actions:

  • The committee can give a bill a favorable report: that means the committee thinks the bill ought to pass. It then advances to the next stage of its journey from bill to law, typically moving to the Ways & Means Committee.
  • The committee can give the bill an adverse report: that means the committee thinks the bill ought not to pass, and it is done for the session.
  • The committee can send the bill to study: that means the committee does not plan to take further action on the bill. It is, in other words, a polite way to vote the bill down. No “study” results.
  • The committee can give the bill an extension: that means the committee has not yet decided the fate of the bill and wants more time to decide or redraft/combine bills.

A few of the bills we care about got favorable reports in the past few weeks. So let’s take a moment to celebrate those wins, and since committee votes are now public, take a moment to thank the senators and representatives who voted to advance them.

  • Local Option Real Estate Transfer Fee:Advanced 4 to 0 (with 2 reserving rights) out of the Senate Revenue Committee. Thank you to Senators Mike Brady, Jamie Eldridge, Pat Jehlen, and Becca Rausch for voting yes!
  • Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act: Advanced 9 to 1 (with 1 reserving rights) out of the House Housing Committee and 4 to 2 in the Senate Housing Committee. Thank you to Representatives James Arena-DeRosa, Michelle Badger, Hannah Bowen, Rob Consalvo, Kip Diggs, Rich Haggerty, David LeBoeuf, Chris Markey, and Adrianne Ramos — and Senators Julian Cyr, Lydia Edwards, Paul Feeney, and Patrick O’Connor — for voting yes!
  • Visitation Bill: Advanced 10 to 3 out of the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee. Thank you to Representatives Dan Cahill, Michelle Ciccolo, Rodney Elliott, Homar Gómez, David Linsky, Bridget Plouffe, Amh Mah Sangiolo, Alan Silvia, Richard Wells, and Chris Worrell for voting yes!
  • Preventing Gas System Expansion: Advanced 4 to 0 (with 2 reserving rights) out of the Senate Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy Committee. Thank you to Senators Mike Barrett, Mike Brady, Julian Cyr, and Dylan Fernandes for voting yes!

What does it mean to “reserve rights”? When a representative or senator votes to “reserve rights,” they are typically indicating that they would like to see revisions to the bill before they would feel comfortable voting yes or want more time with it in committee.

Beacon Hill 101: Joint Rule 10 Day

If you have read news about the State House or seen advocacy alerts or legislative newsletters recently, you may have heard the term “Joint Rule 10 Day.” This poses a key question: What is Joint Rule 10 anyway?

In the Joint Rules governing the MA House and MA Senate, Rule #10 creates deadlines for committees to take action. By the first Wednesday of December, i.e., tomorrow, every joint committee needs to take action on every bill in its purview. (It wouldn’t be Beacon Hill without exceptions: The Health Care Financing Committee has a later deadline, and committees aren’t held to the deadline for bills filed after January, when there’s an early session filing deadline).

Also new this year: rather than voting as one joint committee, the House and Senate members of the committee will each vote on their own bills.

What happens next?

  • The committee can give a bill a favorable report: that means the committee thinks the bill ought to pass. It then advances to the next stage of its journey from bill to law, typically moving to the Ways & Means Committee.
  • The committee can give the bill an adverse report: that means the committee thinks the bill ought not to pass, and it is done for the session.
  • The committee can send the bill to study: that means the committee does not plan to take further action on the bill. It is, in other words, a polite way to vote the bill down. No “study” results.
  • The committee can give the bill an extension: that means the committee has not yet decided the fate of the bill and wants more time to decide or redraft/combine bills.

There are several ways your legislators can vote in a committee (and with the new rules, you’ll be able to see):

  • Favorable: the bill ought to pass
  • Adverse: the bill ought not to pass
  • Reserve Rights: the bill ought not to pass barring major revisions
  • No Action: the legislator was not present for the vote

Here are a few bills we’re supporting that have already advanced favorably from their first committee in either House or Senate:

  • Same Day Registration: Advanced 5 to 1 from the Senate Committee on Election Laws
  • Delinking the Municipal Census from the Voter Rolls: Advanced 5 to 1 from the Senate Committee on Election Laws
  • Clean Slate (i.e., automatic record sealing: Advanced 6 to 0 from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
  • Raise the Age (i.e., keeping young people out of the adult prison system): Advanced 5 to 1 from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
  • Prison Moratorium (i.e, putting a five-year pause on new prison and jail construction): Advanced 8 to 0, with 1 reserving rights and 2 taking no action, from the House Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
  • Location Shield Act (i.e., banning the sale of cell phone location data): Included in the Senate’s data privacy omnibus bill in September; Included in the House Committee on Advanced IT’s data privacy omnibus bill (favorable report of 9 to 0, with 2 reserving rights)
  • Right to Free Expression (i.e., reining in politically motivated book bans): Passed by the Senate last month; Advanced 11 to 0 from the House Committee on Tourism, Arts, and Cultural Development

That’s the good news. Unfortunately, at least one of the bills on our priority agenda got sent to study. The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources voted 4 to 0 on sending a bundle of bills to study, including Make Polluters Pay (i.e., requiring major oil and gas companies to pay fee on historic emissions). The vote was 4 to 0, with 1 senator reserving rights and 1 registering a dissent in the Senate Journal.

After bills leave their first committee, then legislators can no longer co-sponsor the bills. But there are plenty of other asks to make of your legislators!

Stay tuned for more updates.

Legislative Session Update

Today was the last day for the MA House and Senate to take recorded votes before going on recess until the new year.

So far, only 61 bills have become law:

  • 31 of them were home rule petitions about specific cities or towns
  • 15 were personnel matters about specific individuals
  • 8 were budgets or supplemental budgets
  • 2 were bond authorizations
  • 2 were disease awareness days

That leaves only three other bills: a temporary extension of hybrid meeting access (good; make it permanent), setting next year’s state primary as September 1 (terrible for turnout), and updating our shield laws protecting access to abortion care and gender-affirming care (good and necessary).

Clearly, there’s work to do.

New State House Accountability Tool Launched

Two weeks out from the Legislature’s new deadline for committees to report out bills, a new tool — Beacon Hill Compliance Tracker (https://beaconhilltracker.org/) — highlights the extent to which the MA Legislature has yet to follow its own new rules.

In June, the MA House of Representatives and MA Senate agreed to joint rules for the first time since 2019. Following years of activist organizing around greater transparency in the legislative process, Beacon Hill adopted key reforms like public committee votes, public bill summaries, and 10-day notice for hearings. The House also adopted a series of rolling deadlines for reporting out bills from committees, with action required by 60 and, at latest, 90 days following a hearing.

The Beacon Hill Compliance Tracker, an independent, citizen-built tool developed in collaboration with us here at Progressive Mass and with Act on Mass, measures how well the Massachusetts Legislature complies with its own new commitments to transparency.