These Hearings Will Help Determine Our Congressional Map for the Next Decade

Earlier this week, we learned some great news: Massachusetts will keep all 9 of its seats in the US House of Representatives.

However, since the country as a whole grew (as did Massachusetts), the size of each Congressional district must grow from about 728,849 after 2010 to 781,497.

Some parts of the Commonwealth grew over the last decade, and some didn’t — and the lines all have to be redrawn.

Here’s where you come in.

The Legislature will be holding hearings about what those new lines should look line.

Next Tuesday (5/4), at 5 pm, the Legislature will hold a hearing about the future boundaries of MA’s 5th Congressional District. You can sign up to testify here.

  • Where’s the 5th? Arlington, Ashland, Belmont, Cambridge (partially), Framingham, Holliston, Lexington, Lincoln, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Natick, Revere, Sherborn, Southborough, Stoneham, Sudbury (partially), Waltham, Watertown, Wayland, Weston, Winchester, Winthrop, Woburn
Map of MA-05

On Monday, 5/24, at 5:30 pm, the Legislature will hold a hearing about the future boundaries of MA’s 2nd Congressional District. You can sign up to testify here.

  • Where’s the 2nd? Parts of Central Mass in & around Worcester and the Pioneer Valley in & around Northampton (See a full list here)
MA-02 map

So What is Redistricting Anyway?

Every 10 years, the MA Legislature — like state legislatures around the country — uses census data to redraw legislative districts for both state and federal officials. This includes your state representative, your state senator, and your Representative in the US Congress.

Redistricting is about more than just changing lines on a map: it’s about issues of equity and representation that are the bedrock of democracy. When done right, redistricting can increase the power of the communities that are so often disenfranchised — communities of color, low-income communities, and immigrant communities — and give them a greater voice in our political system.

But that doesn’t happen on its own.

In the coming months, we’ll be working with partners in the Drawing Democracy Coalition — community organizations, civil rights lawyers, policy advocates, data experts, and political scientists — to help make that happen.

Drawing Democracy

We’ll keep you posted in the coming months about how to best take action. For now, the first step is to make sure you stay informed. Subscribe to Drawing Democracy’s weekly newsletter, follow the coalition on Twitter, and like the coalition on Facebook.

Standing in Solidarity with the AAPI Community

Earlier this week, a white supremacist mass shooter targeted three spas in Atlanta, killing eight people, six of whom were Asian-American women. We condemn such actions and the dehumanizing rhetoric that fuels them, and stand in solidarity with the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community.

This tragedy was a reminder of how the epidemic of gun violence in this country is deeply intertwined with legacies of white supremacy and misogyny, and it is disturbing to see individuals already trying to deny the racist motivations behind the shooter’s actions. 

Hate crimes against Asian-Americans have risen sharply over the past year, although such xenophobia is not a new phenomenon — as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Japanese internment camps demonstrate. Charting a future that is different from the past requires us all to commit to fostering a culture of solidarity borne out not just in words but in laws that strengthen the rights and protections for immigrants and workers who are most at risk.

For resources about how to take action and be an effective ally, visit the Asian American Commission website.

Let’s Talk about the House

With the retirement of Speaker Bob DeLeo imminent, news reports have asserted that House Majority Leader Ron Mariano (D-Quincy) already has the votes lined up to be Speaker–something that has been an open secret for years.

If you’ve been worried about the conservative and authoritarian drift of the MA House under Speaker Bob DeLeo, you should be even more worried about what’s to come under a Speaker Ron Mariano, who is more conservative than DeLeo and no less top-down in his approach to legislating.

Legislators who have not yet pledged their support should be asking hard questions about whether Ron Mariano plans to ensure a vote on the Fair Share Amendment next year (given his past opposition to it), whether he plans to diversify the all-white and almost-all-male House Leadership team, and whether he will ensure that important climate and housing legislation gets passed before this year’s session runs out.

With the economic depression we’re facing as a Commonwealth, progressive legislators need to work together to make concrete demands on Leadership for both bold policy and open process, or we’ll just end up seeing more of the same.

Governor Baker Needs to Stop Trying to Dilute Police Reform

In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.

Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.

Baker’s amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.

Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.

Can you email Baker today to urge him to stop trying to water down the Legislature’s bill?

To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, “The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for.”

The Legislature Stood Up to Baker. They Can Do It Again.

This week, the MA House and Senate did something that they so rarely do: they stood up to Governor Charlie Baker.

Rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access. Thankfully, they rejected his amendments by wide margins. You can see the votes below.

But they need to stand up to him again.

They need to stand up to him again by rejecting his harmful amendments to the police reform bill.

And they need to stand up to him by rejecting his effort to strike vital oversight language in the budget to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Email your legislators in support of key language on police reform and prison oversight.

The House Rejected Baker’s Anti-Choice Amendment. But There’s Still Work to Do.

Last month, the House and Senate finally took action to strengthen reproductive rights here in MA by passing a slimmed down version of the ROE Act that, although it didn’t go as far as the ROE Act would have, contained important measures to protect and expand equitable access to abortion.

Rather than signing the measures into law, Republican Governor Charlie Baker sent back an amendment to nearly gut them entirely.

Fortunately, the House refused to go along.

Yesterday, they voted down his amendment 107 to 49.

Republican Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) put forth another amendment that would promote disinformation and stigmatize individuals seeking abortion care. That amendment also went down, by an even wider margin of 120 to 34.

It now goes to the Senate, which plans to vote tomorrow.

But there’s more work to do.

Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.

Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Can you email your state legislators about the importance of standing up to Baker and for civil liberties?

Charlie Baker Wants to Water Down the Police Reform Bill. Don’t Let Him.

Last week, the MA House and Senate passed their consensus version of a police reform bill, sending it to the Governor’s desk.

Baker had three options. (1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listened to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn’t care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn’t care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill.

He chose #3.

In his letter to the Legislature earlier today, Baker outlined a series of amendments that he is demanding that the Legislature pass. Each one would water down the progress made toward accountability and oversight. 

Here’s what they were–and why they should be rejected. 

  • Restoring the Municipal Police Training Committee: The Legislature’s bill takes the Municipal Police Training Committee from its current location in the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and places it under the oversight of the civilian-majority POST Commission. Baker argued that only police know best how to train police. If that were true, then we wouldn’t be seeing all of the problems that gave rise to the bill. Civilian oversight is necessary for real accountability and for any meaningful reform of the practice of policing.
  • Designating a Seat for Police Unions on the POST Commission: Baker insists that the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Policy Group be able to submit police union representatives for consideration for one of the law enforcement seats on the commission. Police unions have been bullying legislators and lying about the bill. They should not be rewarded for that with an opportunity to work against real oversight.
  • Removing the Ban on Facial Surveillance Technology: Facial surveillance technology is very racist and very dangerous. Baker wants to eliminate the ban on this tool and create more work for a commission to study it.
  • Weakening the Use of Force Regulations: Baker wants to strike the definitions in the bill for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” to make it easier for police officers to say that deadly force was justified.
  • Defining “Bias-Free Policing” out of Existence: The bill creates an affirmative right to bias-free policing, defined as “policing decisions made by and conduct of law enforcement officers that shall not consider a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status or socioeconomic or professional level.” Baker wants to add exceptions large enough to exclude obvious cases of racial profiling.
  • Delaying the Bill: Baker wants to delay implementation of the bill until July, but as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

Let your legislators know that you oppose these amendments.