50+ human rights groups sign letter opposing MA “age verification” bills, hold press conference at State House with Rep Mike Connolly

BOSTON, MA—A growing coalition of human rights, LGBTQ+, civil liberties, racial justice, and environmental advocacy groups will release a letter signed by more than 50 organizations on Wednesday, May 13th, expressing grave concern about dangerous and unconstitutional online ID check bills proposed by the Massachusetts House and Governor Maura Healey.

Leaders from organizations that signed the letter will hold a press conference in front of the State House at 10am on Wednesday, May 13th, urging the Governor and the House to work with experts and impacted communities to make significant changes to the legislation.

Signers of the letter, led by Fight for the Future, include the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Sierra Club of MA, Partners in Sex Education, United American Indians of New England (UAINE), The Coalition for Student Mental Health, Progressive Massachusetts, Muslim Justice League, Mass 50501, Act On Mass, and dozens more. 

See a preview of the letter and current list of signers here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

Rep. Mike Connolly, who voted against the House bill H.5366, will join advocates for the press conference. Advocates will hold signs, make short remarks, and take questions from the press before going into the State House to deliver the letter to House and Senate leadership as well as the Governor’s office. 

Fight for the Future has released a working draft proposal of an alternative model bill that would address Big Tech harms without undermining privacy or human rights. The group has met with Governor Healey and the Attorney General’s office after holding a protest outside the governor’s broadcast on WGBH last week. Fight for the Future director Evan Greer and Nathalie Marachél of Northeastern University penned an op-ed for the Boston Globe explaining the privacy, civil liberties, and free expression problems with the current legislation. 

Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org or 978-852-6457, to RSVP for the press conference or arrange a separate interview. We will have photos and video available for press later in the day.

Members of the coalition have offered the following statements to press:

“Health education is built on the principle that young people are best protected not by cutting them off from information but by giving them the tools they need to navigate a complex world. We are especially concerned about LGBTQ+ teens, young people in abusive homes, and adolescents in mental health crises who rely on online communities for support they may not find anywhere else. This bill would put those young people at greater risk, not less. A real legislative response should focus on privacy protections and algorithmic accountability, not surveillance and restricted access to information. We urge Massachusetts lawmakers to scrap H. 5349 and pursue policy that is genuinely centered on the wellbeing of young people.” -Megara Bell, Director of Partners in Sex Education

“Mass 50501 stands firmly against handing our personal data to large tech companies — especially when they are so willing to share that data with our federal authoritarian government. We also stand with marginalized youth who often feel isolated until finding their communities online. It is true that social media can do harm, especially to the mental health of children. However, the way this bill is written will disproportionately affect LGBTQIA+, disabled and neurodivergent youth, while opening the door to surveillance overreach for all citizens of Massachusetts by for-profit tech companies. The problem is real, this solution is reckless, invasive, and puts the very people it claims to protect at greater risk.” – Rebecca Winter (she/her), Executive Director, Mass 50501

“The Intersex community is still so young that we don’t have accessible resources; and the sex and gender resources that do exist don’t know how to support us. Intersex youth and adults alike are totally dependent on social media for peer support, patient centered medical support and the lived experiences of our elders.” -Esther Morris Leidolf, President and Founder of MRKH Intersex

Online verification policies have proven to be a data privacy nightmare. Rather than reining in Big Tech, as legislators have portrayed the bill as doing, it expands new frontiers for them to profit from our data and puts marginalized communities at risk.” -Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts 

“We share the concern about young people’s wellbeing online, but this bill raises serious questions that lawmakers haven’t answered. Age verification means collecting government IDs and face scans — data that can be hacked, sold, or misused. The solution to protecting young people is not putting their private information at greater risk. It’s ensuring they have access to comprehensive sex education that builds the critical thinking and media literacy skills they need to navigate the digital world safely.” – Callie Simon (she/her), Executive Director, SIECUS

“As an organization grounded in the Unitarian Universalist faith, we oppose H.5366 as this bill directly threatens many of our UU principles including; ‘justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.’ This bill endangers the safety of our children and youth, puts them at risk, robs them of their right not to be surveilled, and in this way denies them the justice, equity, and compassion to live free from surveillance and censorship.” –Rev. Jo Murphy, UU Mass Action

“This House bill is in effect an ID check for everyone to go online. Digital Fourth strongly opposes legal mandates for technological verification of people’s ages online. This bill won’t protect kids from the negative consequences of Big Tech; instead, they will kill the non-Big Tech Internet, by imposing expensive burdens on volunteers who operate community forums, listservs and blogs. The House should focus on proven, non-corporate-sponsored solutions, like education on online harms and universal user protections that don’t target or disempower youth, and that therefore don’t require invasive online ID checks.” –Alex Marthews, Co-Chair, Digital Fourth

“After witnessing the current horrors of the Trump administration and the failures of social media platforms like Discord to adequately prevent data breaches, I cannot imagine how anyone thinks that age verification would make a single person in Massachusetts safer. Our personal information should not be put on the marketplace for anyone to buy and abuse, from Meta to Stephen Miller. The legislature should drop this effort and instead send the Consumer Data Privacy Act to Gov. Healey’s desk and actually keep us safe online.” – Noah Risley (they/them), Jamaica Plain Progressives Steering Committee Member.

“Intersectional Innovation and Impact Labs opposes age verification requirements and similar forms of digital surveillance targeting youth due to serious privacy concerns and the ways these measures widen existing digital divides, particularly for vulnerable communities seeking access to critical resources. With 28% of Boston’s population being foreign-born, surveillance measures such as ID checks will not effectively address online harms against youth, but instead risk deepening economic and health inequities by limiting access to essential information and support.” -Muhammad Burhan (They/Them), Executive Director of III Labs.

NEW LETTER: Massachusetts social media ban will help Trump and will not keep kids safe from Big Tech

See the original at https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2026-05-11-new-letter-massachusetts-social-media-ban-will-help-trump-and-will-not-keep-kids-safe-from-big-tech/

The Massachusetts House has advanced H. 5349 (now H. 5366), a draconian and unconstitutional bill that would ban minors from social media, force social media platforms to enable parental surveillance of teenagers’ online activity, and subject everyone to privacy-invading online ID checks in order to access information or speak out online.

Dozens of civil liberties, racial justice, LGBTQ+, press freedom, abortion access, and human rights organizations have spoken out against these dangerous and misguided “age verification” laws, several of which have had their constitutionality questioned by the courts.

And a Massachusetts-based coalition of LGBTQ groups including the The Queer Neighborhood Council, III Labs, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, ACLU of MA, and the Transgender Emergency Fund have specifically been pressuring local lawmakers on this issue. Late last year, the Boston City Council introduced a resolution condemning “age verification” and censorship legislation, citing harm to the city’s LGBTQ youth. 

Trans youth in Massachusetts are already terrified of losing their health care. They’re being terrorized by a bigoted administration. Now Massachusetts lawmakers are advancing legislation that would cut them off from access to lifesaving online resources and support? Shameful doesn’t begin to cover it. 

Big Tech social media companies cause real harm, and lawmakers are right to want to do something about it. They should pass privacy, antitrust, and algorithmic justice legislation that actually makes sense and is enforceable. Instead, Massachusetts legislators are actively helping Trump’s authoritarian takeover by pushing for legislation that expands censorship and surveillance. This bill is a gift to the Palantirs of the world—expanding Trump’s surveillance state by forcing everyone to associate their government ID with everything they post at a time when the DOJ is sending subpoenas to social media companies demanding they hand over the names of people running accounts critical of ICE. 

This legislation would make kids less safe, not more safe, while forcing everyone to upload their government ID or submit to a facial recognition scan in order to post online. The definition of “social media” in the bill is so wildly broad it would sweep in almost the entire Internet, including resources like Wikipedia. 

Even red states with conservative supermajorities have avoided some of the parental surveillance provisions present in the Massachusetts bill that raise serious concerns for the safety of LGBTQ youth and young people’s right to privacy. Requiring social media platforms to verify parental consent is completely unworkable. The logistics of this requirement are a nightmare: proving that an adult is a guardian of a child requires giving very sensitive information to social media platforms that are already ripe for data breaches and presents even more obstacles for young people in abusive families, foster care, and parents navigating complicated custody dynamics. This is an impractical and invasive idea that has been abandoned in almost every other version of this type of legislation across the country. 

Age verification and censorship legislation will hurt kids and benefit Big Tech. If Massachusetts lawmakers want to address harm, they should listen to experts, scrap this terrible bill, and instead advance privacy legislation that strikes at the heart of social media companies’ harmful business practices.

We recommend Massachusetts lawmakers engage with human rights groups on their concerns with this bill. We oppose any version of this bill that mandates invasive age verification, bans young people from social media, requires parental surveillance of teenagers, and strips everyone on the internet regardless of age of their anonymity.

Additional resources on this topic:

Signed,

Act on Mass
Advocates for Youth
Arts Equity Group
ArtsWorcester
Asian American Resource Workshop
Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network – Massachusetts
Boston Democratic Socialists of America
Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective
Brandeis Democrats
Digital Fourth
EducateUS
Episcopal City Misson
Fight for the Future
For Artists By Artists
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Frizz Media
GreenRoots
Guardian Project
IfNotNow Boston
Indivisible Upper Cape
Intersectional Innovation and Impact (III) Labs
Jamaica Plain for Palestine
Jamaica Plain Progressives
Jewish Voice for Peace – Boston
Kavod Boston
Mass 50501
Massachusetts Pirate Party
Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC)
MassEquality
Matahari Women’s Worker Center
Mid Cape Indivisible
MRKH Intersex
Muslim Justice League
Neighborhood Grow Plan
North Shore Progressives
Old Pros Org
Pa’lante Transformative Justice
Parenting is Political
Partners in Sex Education
Progressive Massachusetts
Protect Trans Futures
Secular Student Alliance
SIECUS
Sierra Club Massachusetts
Somerville for Palestine
Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice (SCIJ)
Student Press Law Center
The Coalition for Student Mental Health
The Cordial Eye
The Queer Neighborhood Council
The Tor Project
Unitarian Universalist Mass Action Network
United American Indians of New England (UAINE)
V’ahavtah: A Judaism Beyond Zionism Synagogue
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Yale Privacy Lab

Follow-up to Spring Forward Webinar “Spring Forward: Investing in People, not Prisons: The Prison Moratorium and Beyond”

Thank you so much to everyone who joined our Spring Forward webinar on Wednesday about the prison moratorium and the important work happening on decarceration with Mallory Hanora of Families for Justice as Healing!

Follow-Up Links

  • You can watch the video here

MEJA Letter to State Reps re: FY 2027 Budget

Dear State Representatives, 

Our local public schools face a growing and dire funding crisis, and we need the state to step up and support our students. The recently released House FY26 budget takes several significant steps toward delivering the funding our schools and students need, including increasing per pupil minimum aid to $160, proposing an enrollment decline mitigation fund, and funding the Special Education Circuit Breaker at 75% eligibility for reimbursement. By supporting critical K-12 school funding amendments in the House budget next week, you have an important opportunity to chart a stronger course for our nation-leading public education system. 

As we reach the end of the Student Opportunity Act’s six-year implementation period, we have the chance to continue advancing toward an education system that fully supports every student throughout their educational journey. But the progress we’ve made toward repairing past inequities in education funding is threatened by the high inflation of the past few years, which is forcing districts across the state to make impossible choices. Federal changes impacting our schools and students have made the outlook even worse. 

As a result of high inflation not accounted for in the Chapter 70 funding formula, districts across the state are being forced to cut their budgets, lay off educators and staff, and cancel long-needed investments in programs such as Advanced Placement, arts, and music. Inflation exceeded 7% in FY23 and FY24, but Chapter 70 funding only increased by 4.5%. The costs our students and schools face for out-of-district special education, school transportation, health insurance, and school building projects have increased at an even higher rate. That means cuts to programs our students depend on. 

And as immigrant families face the challenge of surviving under the administration’s deportation regime, families are living in fear and keeping children home from school to avoid ICE. As a result, school enrollment has dropped in dozens of Massachusetts communities this year. Fewer students means cuts to funding — and real consequences — for everyone. 

On behalf of tens of thousands of students, parents, caregivers, educators, and community members across the state, we ask you to support the following amendments to the House’s FY27 budget: 

  • Amendment #41 filed by Rep. Margaret Scarsdale – Ensuring Adequate and Equitable Funding for Public Education
  • Amendment #316 filed by Rep. Jim Hawkins – In District School Transportation
  • Amendment #389 filed by Rep. Sean Reid – Community Schools Program
  • Amendment #1066 filed by Rep. Brandy Fluker-Reid – Charter School Reimbursements
  • Amendment #1203 filed by Rep. Jim Hawkins – Strengthening the Special Education Circuit Breaker Program
  • Amendment #1284 filed by Rep. Orlando Ramos – Chapter 70 Inflation Adjustment
  • Amendment #1586 filed by Rep. Adam Scanion – Special Commission on Chapter 70 Funding
  • Amendment #1713 filed by Rep. Marjorie Decker – Whole Child Grant Program 

We look forward to your support of these much-needed amendments that will ensure that all students in Massachusetts receive the support they need to thrive. 

Thank you, 

Vatsady Sivongxay, Executive Director, Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance (MEJA) 

Jessica Tang, President, American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts (AFT MA) 

Keondre McClay, Executive Director, Boston Education Justice Alliance (BEJA) 

Erik Berg, President, Boston Teachers Union (BTU) 

Lisa Guisbond, Executive Director, Citizens for Public Schools (CPS) 

Viviana M. Abreu-Hernández, President, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MassBudget) 

Tatiana Begault, Executive Director, Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health (MassCOSH)

Alicia Thomas, Co-Director, Pa’lante Transformative Justice (Pa’lante) 

Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director, Progressive Mass (PM) 

Vanny Huot, Director, Revere Youth in Action (RYiA) 

MEJA is a coalition led by Massachusetts students, parents, educators, school and college staff, and education advocates with a shared vision: that all students, regardless of income, race, gender, identity, religion, birthplace, or abilities, have access to high-quality, equitable, and democratically controlled public education that addresses the educational needs of the whole student and where every student thrives to reach their full potential.

Less Than 100 Days Until the End of the Legislative Session

The formal legislative session in the Massachusetts State House ends in less than 100 days, on July 31.

Although the session will continue on an informal basis through January 5 of next year, the vast majority of all legislative action will happen between now and the end of July. So what’s happened so far?

There have been 167 bills signed into law:

  • 122 were home rule petitions for one city or town
  • 22 were administrative matters for specific state employees
  • 10 were budgets or supplemental budgets
  • 4 were awareness days
  • 2 were bond authorizations

That leaves 7 stand-alone bills:

  • Temporarily extending hybrid meeting access for local meetings
  • Updating the state’s shield law protecting access to gender-affirming and reproductive health care
  • Setting the primary election for September 1
  • Strengthening protections against assault & battery for transit workers
  • Making car rentals more affordable
  • Updating the collection of birth and death statistics
  • Modernizing cannabis regulations

Now, to be fair, the Legislature has passed various new policies through the budget, such as banning tenant-paid broker’s fees and creating an immigrant legal defense fund (both big wins). And we have been able to see transformative investments in education and transportation due to Fair Share revenue that YOU helped win on the ballot in 2022.

And some bills have passed one chamber and not the other. You can see some of those on our Legislator Scorecard, through February.

But what this shows us is that there is still so much work left to do this session. We’re ready to keep fighting. So keep making calls and emails (an getting friends and neighbors to do so as well).

The House Redrafted the PROTECT Act. How is the new bill different?

On Friday, the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee reported out a redraft of the PROTECT Act, the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus’s bill to strengthen protections for immigrant communities in Mass.

Original: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5158 

Redraft: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/H5293 

The bill is a mashup of the PROTECT Act and Healey’s bill. For example, it takes language around protecting courthouses from Healey’s bill, not the PROTECT Act  (see comparison chart here).

PROTECT 2.0 eliminates the following provisions of PROTECT 1.0: 

  • The section requiring disclosure of ICE or CBP employment in the POST certification process 
  • Several of the protections for individuals in ICE detention
    • The guarantee of 1 free telephone call within the first 2 hours of ICE detention 
    • The requirement that detention facilities maintain a “secure electronic locator system” for detained individuals, replacing it with a less specific requirement for record-keeping. 
    • The guarantee that detained individuals will be provided access to legal services organizations 
    • The requirement that a public hotline enabling people to identify individuals in custody have hours “sufficient to provide timely location confirmation” 
  • Some of the language banning communication between state and local law enforcement and ICE:
    • The ban on communication with ICE, as opposed to simply “initiation” of contact.
    • The ban on “ facilitat[ing] a transfer timed to enable a federal civil immigration enforcement action”  
    • (BUT the language does remove the conditional descriptor of “primary” in its ban on the “use state or local resources for the purpose of facilitating a federal civil immigration enforcement action”) 
  • The expansion of agencies able to certify individuals for U and T visas to include the executive office of the trial court and the juvenile court department; the department of children and families; the executive office of labor and workforce development and any agency within the secretariat with authority over wage and hour, workplace safety, unemployment insurance or labor standards; the Massachusetts commission against discrimination; and any other state or local agency designated by regulation of the secretary of public safety and security in consultation with the attorney general.

PROTECT 2.0 adds the following provisions: 

  • A requirement that employers provide notice to employees within 48 hours of notice of an upcoming ICE workplace raid (“I9 inspection”) 
  • Inclusion of “the likelihood of imminent deportation” to the factors considered at a bail hearing, which could lead to immigration status being treated as an indicator flight risk in and of itself and could exacerbate racial disparities in bail hearing outcomes 
  • Directive to Governor Maura Healey’s administration to create rules around locations where ICE agents would be prohibited and multilingual guidelines for state agencies about how to comply (A watered down version of Healey’s “sensitive locations” language) 

Neither PROTECT 1.0 nor PROTECT 2.0 did the following: 

  • Ban future 287(g) agreements between sheriffs and ICE. More than sixty percent of 287(g) agreements around the country are signed by sheriffs. 
  • Provide a clean ban on 287(g) agreements, as opposed to one with a series of conditions. The conditions in the bill are designed to never be met, but other states have done clean bans.
  • Terminate the one existing 287(g) agreement in the state, i.e., the DOC contract, of which Governor Maura Healey has been a staunch defender.
  • End ICE detention in Massachusetts (e.g., “shutting down Plymouth detention center”) 

Find some more detailed textual analysis here.

Sign-on Letter: Let’s Strengthen Our Vaccine Laws

March 16, 2026
The Honorable John J. Lawn, Jr.
Chair, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
State House, Room 236
24 Beacon St.
Boston, MA 02133


Dear Chairman Lawn and Committee Members,


The Massachusetts Legislature has worked quickly in recent months to ensure that the state’s vaccine recommendations are based on sound scientific evidence and that its residents are able to access immunizations. The undersigned organizations request that the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing report out favorably H.2554, An Act Relative to Routine Childhood
Immunizations, which would remove the non-medical exemption from required school vaccines and enhance data collection and sharing to better track immunization rates.


H.2554 is supported by Massachusetts’s leading medical and public health institutions. It is also popular with voters: polling shows that 70% of Massachusetts voters support H.2554’s passage, with support rising to 72% after respondents considered various arguments for and against the legislation. Support for H.2554 was broadly consistent among voters from various
demographic groups and areas of the state.


Major religious groups agree that immunization is part of society’s moral duty to care for the greater common good. For example, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops disallows religious exemptions in Catholic schools, and released a statement in 2024 affirming its commitment to protecting the health of all children.


With two measles cases already reported in Massachusetts this year, we must act now to prevent its spread. Eliminating non-medical exemptions is the most effective way to prevent outbreaks and ensure strong immunization rates. We respectfully ask that the Committee report H.2554 out favorably.


Thank you for your leadership and your support of this important legislation.


Sincerely,
Katie Blair, JD, Director
Massachusetts Families for Vaccines

Northe Saunders, President
American Families for Vaccines
Patti Wukovits and Alicia Stillman, Co-Executive Directors
American Society for Meningitis Prevention
Azhar Majeed, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
Center for Inquiry
Alicia Stillman, Executive Director
Emily Stillman Foundation
Patti Wukovits, BSN, RN, AMB-BC, Executive Director
Kimberly Coffey Foundation
Chloe Schwartz, MPH, Director of Maternal & Infant Health Initiatives, New England
March of Dimes
Brenda Anders Pring, MD, FAAP, President
Massachusetts Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics
Hemal Sampat, MD & Sunny Kung, MD, Co-Chairs, Health and Public Policy Committee
Massachusetts Chapter of the American College of Physicians
Emily Dulong, Vice President, Government Advocacy and Public Policy
Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association
Olivia C. Liao, MD, FACS, President
Massachusetts Medical Society
Oami Amarasingham, JD, Deputy Director
Massachusetts Public Health Alliance
Michael Constantine, MD, President
Massachusetts Society of Clinical Oncologists
Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts

108 Organizations Call on Legislature to Sign on Letter for Bills to Help Youth, Families, Elders, and Survivors of Violence

March 2026

Ronald Mariano, Speaker of the House 

24 Beacon St., Room 356
Boston, MA, 02133 

Karen Spilka, Senate President 

24 Beacon St., Room 332
Boston, MA, 02133 

Aaron Michlewitz, Chairperson 

House Committee on Ways and Means 

24 Beacon St., Room 243
Boston, MA, 02133 

Michael Rodrigues, Chairperson 

Senate Committee on Ways and Means 

24 Beacon St., Room 212
Boston, MA, 02133 

Dear Speaker Mariano, Senate President Spilka, and Chairpersons Michlewitz and Rodrigues: 

The 110 undersigned organizations represent a wide array of constituents across the Commonwealth. We are organizations including clinicians, lawyers, clergy, formerly incarcerated people, survivors of crime, and advocates for young people, elders, women, children, and families. We have come together to advocate for the passage of six bills that have been vetted and reported favorably and are now in either House or Senate Ways and Means:

  • An act relative to medical and elder parole (H.2693)
  • An act to build restorative family and community connection (H.2591)
  • An act relative to human rights and improved outcomes for incarcerated people (H.2608)
  • An act relative to justice for survivors (S.1256)
  • An act establishing a jail and prison moratorium (H.3422, S.2944)
  • An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Youths (S.1061)

We need strong action now from Massachusetts lawmakers to protect children and adolescents, families, elders, and survivors of violence, uphold our civil rights, and ensure resources are directed to communities that need them. 

Massachusetts communities are under attack. This package is critical to protecting families, young people, elders, and survivors of violence and abuse, groups already bearing the brunt of federal attacks on the social safety net and the human and civil rights of our most vulnerable communities. These bills will promote efficient use of state resources at a time when every dollar matters, uphold the civil rights that Massachusetts is already defending, and break cycles of violence by investing in people rather than in costly systems of incarceration. We urge policymakers to include the above bills among your priorities.

To fully meet the moment, this package of bills must be passed this session.

An act relative to medical and elder parole (H.2693) This bill brings the current medical parole statute into alignment with the original intentions of the Legislature. It closes gaps to ensure equitable access to the medical parole process and then creates a pathway to parole review for elders who have already served lengthy sentences. This bill addresses the reality that we have the oldest incarcerated population in the country and will prevent suffering, reduce costs, and maintain public safety.

An act to build restorative family and community connection (H.2591) protects children and families of incarcerated people, and improves one of the most critical mechanisms we have to pave the way for successful re-entry to the community—visits with loved ones. The bill helps families, friends and other important figures in incarcerated people’s lives stay connected by streamlining the visiting process and making it more equitable, addressing racial discrimination in current policy and practice, and reducing the harms that families experience when they are denied visits.

An act relative to human rights and improved outcomes for incarcerated people (H.2608) supports people to re-enter the outside community successfully after periods of incarceration. It creates universal access to productive out of cell time with programming, education and vocational training for all incarcerated people. The bill would encourage re-entry planning from the moment a person enters the correctional system to ensure that we are creating hope, maximizing people’s chances at successful parole, and breaking cycles of violence. 

An act relative to justice for survivors (S.1256) interrupts cycles of harm by allowing criminalized survivors of abuse, sexual assault, or trafficking to seek relief from extreme punishment. The bill creates a fair and consistent process for courts to use critical information about survivors’ experiences to reach informed dispositions. It also expands diversion, alternative sentencing, and re-sentencing for survivors.

An act establishing a jail and prison moratorium (H.3422, S.2944) would pause expensive prison construction and expansion projects in a moment when capital dollars are urgently needed to address housing, healthcare, and education infrastructure issues. A five year pause would allow time to pursue sensible efforts to further reduce the incarcerated population and implement alternatives. Incarcerated people, formerly incarcerated people, clergy leaders, public health professionals, respected advocates, and constituents broadly support a prison moratorium.

An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Youths (S.1061) would gradually raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-20 year olds, so that young people would be tried as adults only after they reach the age of 21. This reform would ensure that young people could get developmentally appropriate interventions towards rehabilitation, rather than exposure to the harmful, counterproductive adult prison and jail system, which is actually criminogenic, meaning it increases chances of recidivism. 

Spending on incarceration continues to increase even as the incarcerated population declines–this makes us all less safe as this excessive spending comes at the expense of investment in communities that need more resources to thrive. 

Together these six bills will help Massachusetts invest its resources where they are most needed right now, and prevent excessive spending on systems that are causing substantial harm with no evidence of public benefit. Massachusetts families are struggling to pay their bills while the Commonwealth spends on average $134,000 every year on each person it incarcerates. Costs per capita range by prison, with the DOC spending well over $200,000 for each woman incarcerated at MCI Framingham, and nearly $600,000 per person to incarcerate the very seriously ill people at Lemuel Shattuck Hospital. 

A quarter of the sentenced population in our state prisons are elders, the population least likely to recidivate and most costly to incarcerate. Access to elder parole and clarifying medical parole would help reduce costs and alleviate the humanitarian crisis created by continuing to incarcerate this rapidly aging population without adequate avenues for relief. Please see a detailed cost savings analysis here. 

The current population of MCI-Framingham is a little over 200 incarcerated women. Many of these women are pre-trial, or may be eligible for elder or medical parole or for sentence reduction if the Survivors Act were passed. Yet, Massachusetts is considering building a $360 million new women’s prison despite the fact that currently incarcerated women oppose this plan

We can better promote public safety by increasing access to visits and implementing universal access to programming and education while people are incarcerated. These are cost effective mechanisms to promote successful reentry, break cycles of harm and ensure people remain safely in their communities.

Raising the age at which a person could be prosecuted as an adult, get a CORI and be sent to the adult prison system helps to protect young people from abuse and trauma that derails young people’s access to what they need to reduce recidivism. We must move towards investing resources we are currently focusing on punishing teenagers as adults into developmentally appropriate rehabilitative interventions, currently in the juvenile justice system, that will improve public safety and are more cost effective. Please see the caseload and cost analysis here.  

As the Commonwealth rightly pushes back against federal violations of due process and individual rights, legislators can lead by example and prioritize addressing serious civil rights concerns that persist within our own correctional system.

Recent years have brought costly litigation over use of force, documented instances of corruption, and conditions that fall far short of constitutional standards – problems that these bills directly address. Massachusetts recently settled a class action excessive use of force case for nearly $7 million dollars after incarcerated people were beaten, attacked with dogs, racially targeted and retaliated against after an attack on correction officers. A young man at Suffolk County House of Correction was killed by correctional officers who remain on duty as of this writing, while assaults have continued. Mr. Kenny’s death was preceded by a rash of suicides at state prisons, which still have not been accounted for. These are consequences of long-standing problems that are ripe for reform.

The Legislature did excellent work seven years ago in passing the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) and more recently in passing No Cost Calls. The CJRA helped to decrease the prison population, yet did not address extreme, racialized, tough on crime era sentencing. Since then we have seen increases in racial disparities and a disproportionately sick and elderly population. 

The CJRA addressed restrictive housing, but conditions at Souza Baranowski Correctional Center and in the DOC’s new segregation units are leading to upticks in deaths by suicide, substance use disorder, and overdoses. No Cost Calls has meaningfully increased family connection, while improving access to in-person visits is still on the table and is a critical next step. Justice-involved survivors of violence, disproportionately women, are routinely erased in conversations about reform while Massachusetts sets out to invest $360 million in a new prison for them.  

More than a decade ago, Massachusetts raised the age of juvenile court to keep 17-year-olds out of the adult system. Since then, juvenile crime has declined, and Massachusetts has seen faster declines in violent and property crime rates than the national average. Not only can the juvenile system absorb this new cohort of young people, the system also has the expertise, policy and programmatic infrastructure to effectively intervene with them. 

It is time to build on the success of the CJRA, no cost calls, and prior juvenile justice reforms and address their unfinished business. 

Legislators can limit the harms of the Trump administration while improving our own local systems and strengthening our communities. These bills are targeted interventions that reflect the specific population dynamics of our criminal legal system in Massachusetts and will address rapidly worsening crises. These bills will protect young people, elders, families, children, and survivors, interrupt cycles of violence, and ensure that the Commonwealth’s own policies and systems reflect the values it is fighting to uphold. We urge you to move them forward without delay.

Sincerely, 

Authors 

Citizens for Juvenile Justice

Families for Justice as Healing

Jane Doe, Inc. 

Keeping Families Connected Coalition

Medical Justice Alliance of Massachusetts

Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts

Progressive Massachusetts

Signatories

ACLU of Massachusetts

Allston Brighton Progressives

Antiracism Working Group of Congregation Beth El of the Sudbury River Valley

Asian American Resource Workshop

Beacon Prison Action

Black and Pink Massachusetts Coalition Inc

Boston College Law School Civil Rights Clinic

Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network (BIJAN)

Boston Workers Circle

Cape Verdean Association of Brockton

CAIR-MA

Casa Myrna Vazquez

CELWOP

Center for Community Health Education and Research (CCHERS)

The Center for Hope and Healing

Central West Justice Center

Citizens for Public Schools

Coalition for Effective Public Safety (CEPS)

Coalition for Social Justice Action

Committee for Public Counsel Services

Communities Not Cages

Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc.

Community Reentry Program Inc.

Congregation Dorshei Tzedek

Criminal Legal Round Table of the UCC

Dignidad/ The Right to Immigration Institute

Disability Law Center, Inc.

Drop LWOP New England

End Mass Incarceration Together (EMIT)

The F8 Foundation

Families and Friends of Individuals with Mental Illness

Family and Community Resources

First Parish in Brookline

First Parish Milton, Unitarian Universalist

The Freedom Unshackled Coalition

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law)

Greater Boston Legal Services CORI & Re-entry Project

Greater Boston Reentry Taskforce

HALT Solitary

HarborCOV

Health in Partnership

High Frequency Academy Ltd., Anthony P. Clay Healing Project

IMPACT Boston

Indivisible Acton Area

Indivisible LAB (Lexington, Arlington, Bedford, & Beyond)

Indivisible Upper Cape

Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center

Justice for Housing, Inc.

Kavod Boston

Law Office of Lisa Newman-Polk

The Life After Prison

Mass NOW

Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Massachusetts Jobs With Justice

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute

Massachusetts Parole Preparation Partnership

Massachusetts Survivors Coalition

Material Aid and Advocacy Program

Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee (MHLAC)

Nashoba Indivisible

National Association of Social Workers – MA Chapter (NASW-MA)

National Lawyers Guild-Mass. Chapter

The Network/La Red

New Beginnings Reentry Services, Inc.

New Hope Inc.

New England Innocence Project

New Vision Organization, Inc

Northeastern University Domestic Violence Institute

Northeastern University Immigrant Justice Clinic

On The Rise

Out Now

PowerUP Massachusetts

Parole Review For All (PRFA)

Portal to Hope

Prison Policy Initiative

Prisoners’ Rights Clinic, Northeastern University School of Law

Progressive Mass Western Norfolk County

REACH Beyond Domestic Violence

The Real Cost of Prisons Project

Releasing Aging People in Prison 

The Remedy Project

Resilience Center of Franklin County

RIA, Inc.

Safe Passage, Inc.

Salasin Project c/o Western MA Training Consortium

The Second Step

Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) North Central MA Chapter

The Social Action Council of UU Wellesley Hills

Social Justice Action Committee of First Church in Jamaica Plain Unitarian Universalist

Solidarity Lowell

Spanish American Center, Inc.

SURJ Boston

Transition House, Inc.

Unitarian Society of Northampton and Florence

Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

United American Indians of New England

Unlock the Box

Visioning B.E.A.R. Circle Intertribal Coalition

We Are Joint Venture, Inc.

Wildflower Alliance

Women & Incarceration Project, Center for Women’s Health and Human Rights

Young Cape Verdean Club, Inc

YWCA Northeastern Massachusetts

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.