Your legislators tend not to be creative…
Continue readingTop 10 Excuses You’ll Hear When Lobbying Your Legislators
Two Months Until Primary Day
The Massachusetts state primary is two months from today: Tuesday, September 1st.
The basics for getting prepared for the next couple months:
- Make sure that you are registered to vote at your current address.
- Register to vote or update your registration.
- Find your polling location and districts.
But beyond just being registered, we want you to be informed. Read questionnaires from candidates running for State Legislature across the state here.
There are a lot of questionnaires, and we will break up our endorsements into multiple batches as in years past.
Our Elections Committee reviewed questionnaires, spoke with allies, and made recommendations for a first batch, and then our members voted.
And we’re proud to endorse the following candidates, who will be progressive champions in the MA House.
17th Essex: Marianela Rivera
About the District: Precincts 2, 3 and 4, of Andover, precincts 1, 2 and 3, of ward C, ward D, and precinct 1 of ward E, of Lawrence, and precinct 2 in Methuen
Marianela Rivera is a special education professional, Coordinator of the Greater Lawrence Education Justice Alliance, and the Vice Chair of the Lawrence School Committee, where she has fought for greater equity and community empowerment. She is running to fight for equity and justice in education, health care, and our response to climate change.
Learn more at https://www.riveraforstaterep.com/.
17th Middlesex: Lisa Arnold
About the District: Precinct 4, of Chelmsford, ward 1, precinct 3 of ward 2, precincts 2 and 3 of ward 4, and wards 10 and 11, of Lowell
Lisa Arnold is a quality systems manager, founding member of Solidarity Lowell, and member of the Lowell Bike Coalition. She is running to fight for increased access to care for mental health, bold and immediate climate action, improved public transportation, and solutions to the affordable housing crisis.
Learn more at https://lisaforstaterep.com/.
27th Middlesex: Erika Uyterhoeven
About the District: Precincts 2 and 3 of ward 2, and wards 3, 5 and 6, of Somerville
Erika Uyterhoeven is an antitrust economist, organizer, and the founder of Act on Mass, where she has worked to activate grassroots organizers and voters to hold the Massachusetts State House accountable on progressive issues. She is running to fight for progressive revenue, a Massachusetts Green New Deal, and increasing investments in public schools and public housing.
Learn more at https://www.electerika.com/.
29th Middlesex: Steve Owens
About the District: Ward 9, precinct 3 of ward 10, and precinct 2 of ward 11, of Cambridge, and precincts 1–9, of Watertown
Steve Owens is a community activist, member of the Watertown Transportation Task Force, and transportation consultant, helping public sector clients use data-driven analysis to develop freight transportation plans. He is running to fight for bold action to reduce the impact of climate change, greater investment in public transit, and expanded access to sustainable and affordable housing.
Learn more at https://votesteveowens.com/.
2nd Suffolk: Damali Vidot
About the District: Ward 2 (Charlestown), of Boston, and Wards 1 and 2, precincts 1 and 3 of ward 3, and precincts 1 and 4 of ward 4, of Chelsea
Damali Vidot is a community activist, youth mentor, and Chelsea City Councilor. She has fought for affordable housing, environmental justice, community empowerment, transit equity, and a more equitable economy in her role on the City Council and is running to continue that fight in the Massachusetts State House.
Learn more at https://www.votedamali.org/.
14th Suffolk: Gretchen Van Ness
About the District: Precincts 9–20, 22 and 23 of ward 18, precincts 3, 8 and 9 of ward 20, of Boston
Gretchen Van Ness is a civil rights lawyer who has litigated and advocated against all forms of discrimination and recently served as General Counsel and Legislative Director for progressive State Senator Becca Rausch. She is running to fight for an accelerated transition to an equitable green economy, fully funding our public schools, and health care as a human right.
Learn more at https://www.gretchenvanness.org/.
17th Suffolk: Jordan Meehan
About the District: Precincts 3, 5–12 and 15 of ward 21, and precincts 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 in ward 22, of Boston (Allston/Brighton)
Jordan Meehan is a lawyer, environmental activist, and the Policy Coordinator for the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth, where he advocates for policies to help homeless youth, reform our juvenile justice system, and build safe and supportive school environments. He is running to fight for housing justice, transit equity, and a Green New Deal for Massachusetts.
Learn more at https://www.jordanforma.com/.
12th Worcester: Ceylan Rowe
About the District: Berlin, Boylston, Clinton, Lancaster, precincts 2 and 4 of Northborough, and precinct 2 of Sterling
Ceylan Rowe is a small business owner, community activist, and Commissioner on the MetroWest Commission on the Status of Women, where she has fought for legislation to support women and girls. She is running to fight for bold solutions on climate, local economic development, gender equity, and educational opportunity for all.
Learn more at https://www.roweforrep.com/.
Supporting Black Lives on Juneteenth (and Every Day)
Today is Juneteenth, the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States. On June 19, 1865, Union army general Gordon Granger announced federal orders in the city of Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865, proclaiming that all slaves in Texas were now free.
Juneteenth honors Black freedom and Black resistance. And it serves as a reminder that, despite our country’s founding rhetoric, many were excluded from that promise of freedom — and, indeed, that promise has yet to be fully realized.
Racism, both individual and systemic, remains a pervasive problem in society, especially in policing and the criminal-legal system.
However, as Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley says so well, if policy created these injustices, we need policy to undo them.
An Act to Save Black Lives by Transforming Public Safety
We still have work to do in Massachusetts to address the structural inequities. An Act to Save Black Lives by Transforming Public Safety, introduced by Representative Liz Miranda (HD 5128) and Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem (S.2968), will take important steps in the effort toward equity and justice. This legislation establishes:
- Strengthened use of force rules
- New investigatory requirements within Attorney General’s Office
- Creates a “Duty to intervene” when an officer witnesses abuse of force
- Establishes that unnecessary use of force by an officer violates someone’s civil rights
- Data collection and reporting processes to prevent hire of abusive officers
- Prohibition on no-knock warrants
- Prohibition on the use of choke holds, tear gas, and other dangerous “less than lethal” weapons and tactics
- Public records of police misconduct investigations and outcomes
Massachusetts needs to pass HD5128/S2968 to save Black lives and transform our public safety system.
Can you email your state legislators in support?
Investing in Communities, Not the Carceral State
But reform can only go so far.
As budget season nears, the Legislature will have the opportunity to put words into action and craft a budget that shows that they actually mean it when they say that Black Lives Matter.
What would that look like?
Our allies at Families for Justice as Healing are calling on Governor Baker, Senate President Spilka, and Speaker DeLeo to commit to the following: 1) No capital bond money for new jails or prisons 2) Cutting the budget for the Department of Corrections 3) Cutting the budget for sheriffs 4) Increasing funding for communities, which means housing, healthcare, community-led organizations, and community-led economic development
In short, we should be spending on communities not on criminalization.
Can you email Baker, Spilka, and DeLeo in support?
Want to do more? Of course you do! Families for Justice as Healing also has an ongoing week of action, where you can find new things to do each week to advance a more humane, just, and equitable society.
Black Lives Matter
The killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, David McAtee, and Rayshard Brooks have served as a tragic reminder of the epidemic that is police brutality in the United States.
Over the past few weeks (indeed, over the past few years), we keep seeing more video evidence of how widespread, how dehumanizing, and how fatal police violence is and how disproportionately such violence is used against the Black community. Some say the current wave of protests is a historic turning point; we need to make it one.
It is important to recognize that the graphic imagery of police brutality is just one of the many violent manifestations of systemic racism and white supremacy. The underfunding of schools in communities of color is a form of violence. The denial of health care access is a form of violence. Exclusionary housing policies are a form of violence. The environmental injustices of siting pollution near communities of color is a form of violence.
The statistics of systemic racism in Massachusetts are clear.
Systemic racism is why the incarceration rate among our Commonwealth’s Black population is almost seven times that of the white population (while the population is nine times smaller).
Systemic racism is why the median wealth for a Black household in Greater Boston is $8, whereas the median wealth of a white household is nearly $250,000.
Systemic racism is why Black women in Greater Boston make 52 cents for every dollar that white men make.
Systemic racism is why air pollution increased in Black communities in the Commonwealth while falling statewide.
We are happy to see that our national elected officials like Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley have already filed legislation to increase accountability for police officers.
Beyond such important reforms, we need to fundamentally rethink what public safety means. Bloated and militarized police budgets and ever-expanding budgets for prisons and jails are not what keeps communities safe; indeed, communities are less safe because of them.
What keeps communities safe are investments in schools, in housing, in health care, and in community-led development. Our budgets need to reflect these priorities, and our policymaking should stop being hindered by the constant box-checking desire to have a police endorsement for any piece of legislation around public safety.
Massachusetts could be leading, but we have not. The Governor and Legislature have known about these problems and the many other ways in which systemic racism manifests itself. Progressive legislators, especially progressive legislators of color, have filed legislation to advance racial equity, only to see bills dismissed in committee. The Governor and legislative leadership allow session after session to pass without meaningful action.
We are grateful to legislators who are reviving past bills and crafting new ones to address systemic inequities and racism. We are talking with our allies inside and outside the State House (as well as on the national and municipal level) about how to best amplify and support their work.
As Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley so often eloquently states, it was policy that created these injustices, and we need policies to undo them. We call on the Massachusetts Legislature, our Congressional delegation, and municipal electeds to listen to the communities who have been most impacted and to start legislating as though they actually believe that Black Lives Matter.
🗳️ENDORSEMENT ALERT🗳️: Alex Morse for CD-01, Robbie Goldstein for CD-08
The pandemic has revealed time and time again the systemic inequalities across Massachusetts (and the country) as well as the need for elected officials who are willing to be bold, progressive leaders and not wait for others to take action.
We need elected officials who will fight for Medicare for All because, as this pandemic shows, our health is connected, and no one should have to go broke to access the care that they need.
We need elected officials who will fight for the rights of immigrants and all marginalized communities.
We need elected officials who understand that the 2020s will be the decade in which we decide whether or not we can have a livable planet — and that we need a response to climate change that meets that urgency.
And we need elected officials who are willing to think creatively and to help chart what a progressive vision looks like for the country (and how we get out of the mess of the past four years).
Our members voted and overwhelmingly said that Alex Morse and Robbie Goldstein are the type of elected official we need, with each securing more than 95% of the vote.
(Stay tuned for more Congressional and down-ballot legislative endorsements in weeks to come.)
Alex Morse for CD-01
At age 21, Alex Morse became the youngest and first openly gay mayor of Holyoke. In his role as mayor, he has helped make Holyoke a more just and prosperous city. He closed the state’s last coal power plant and replaced it with the state’s largest solar field, doubled the school system’s graduation rate, and implemented a needle exchange program to fight the opioid epidemic. Under Alex’s leadership, Holyoke became one of the first sanctuary cities in the country in 2014, and welcomed hundreds of Puerto Rican families displaced by Hurricane Maria in 2018.
Alex has the experience and vision to continue this fight in Congress on issues such as universal health care, reforming our broken immigrant and criminal justice systems, and greening our infrastructure. Learn more at www.alexmorseforcongress.com/.
Robbie Goldstein for CD-08
Dr. Robbie Goldstein is a physician and graduate of Tufts University, where he earned his bachelor’s degree, MD, and a PhD in cancer genetics. After he completed his PhD, he joined Massachusetts General Hospital for medical training and eventually joined the faculty. He now works as a primary care doctor and an infectious disease specialist, and created the hospital’s first Transgender Health Program. Robbie has spent his career in medicine focused on caring for those left out of the system.
He seeks to address our nation’s public health issues by enacting healthcare for all, substance use support services, common-sense gun violence prevention measures, and a Green New Deal. Learn more at www.robbieforchange.com.
While We’re Talking about Elections
The Legislature needs to take action to make sure that we can have high-participation elections in September and November while protecting public health. Email your state legislators today if you haven’t already (and even if you have).
2020 US Senate Endorsement: Ed Markey
Progressive Mass members voted overwhelmingly to endorse Ed Markey because of the vision and experience he brings to the job.
Continue readingMore Than Three Dozen Organizations Call on MA Legislature to Pass Urgent Safety Net Measures by April 10
With the one-month marker for the state of emergency looming, it’s time for the Legislature to start acting with urgency.
Continue readingVoters: Tax the Rich and Big Corporations, Invest More in Transportation
Anybody who has ever waited in a station for perpetually delayed trains, driven through potholes, or sat in traffic congestion for hours on end knows that we have a transportation problem.
Indeed, a report earlier this year found that Boston had the worst rush-hour traffic of any major city. But this isn’t just a Boston issue: voters across the state think that transportation should be a higher priority for the Legislature.
According to a new survey from WBUR and MassINC, 77% of voters support raising new money to invest in the Massachusetts transportation system, with similar numbers across regions.
So what can we do about it?
The WBUR/MassINC poll tested various proposals.
The two most popular proposals for raising revenue were value capture and the Transportation Climate Initiative. In the former, the state would collect contributions from real estate development projects near highways or public transportation to help pay for that transportation infrastructure: in other words, the private developers are making a profit due to public investments, and the public deserves to share in that prosperity. Under the TCI, Massachusetts (and other participating states) would charge gasoline distributors a fee based on the amount of pollution their fuels produce.
What do these have in common? They’re taxing corporations. In a Gallup poll from two years ago, 67% of Americans said that corporations were paying too little in taxes.
Those at the bottom — a 15-cent gas tax increase, a hike in RMV fees, and adding tolls for driving to Logan — are directly felt by individuals. We can debate how regressive a gas tax is (the poor are much less likely to spend *any* money on gasoline), but what is clear is that it is not a politically sustainable foundation for revenue by itself.
The Fair Share Amendment, or “millionaire’s tax,” won’t be on the ballot until 2022, but we already know that this 4% surtax on income over $1 million is popular. The latest polling showed it had 69% support.
But we can’t wait until 2023. There are a variety of other ways that we can raise money from corporations and the rich right now.
Raise Up Massachusetts, for instance, is advocating for two in particular. First, we can tax GILTI (Global Intangible Low Taxed Income). Many multinational corporations who do business in MA use provisions of the federal tax code to shift their US profits to offshore tax havens. The federal tax code has provisions to tax some of that income; our state tax code should as well.
Second, many large corporations who do business in MA use various tax breaks and loopholes to pay only the existing corporate minimum tax of $456 per year. That’s right: only $465. We can–and should–create a tiered corporate minimum tax so that that larger corporations pay a minimum in proportion to the size of their business in MA.
Moreover, debates about corporate taxes often suffer from a lack of hard numbers–and that’s because of how evasive corporations are. Stronger rules around corporate disclosure would help identify bad actors in the business community and allow us to measure the effects of the loopholes in our existing corporate tax rules.
But why stop there?
If we’re talking about transportation, we can eliminate the absurd tax exemption for the sale and purchase of airplanes. It makes sense to exempt necessary goods from the sales tax, but last I checked, airplanes aren’t necessary personal goods.
We could also raise the capital gains tax. The highest-income 1 percent of households receive approximately 80 percent of capital gains income in Massachusetts, while the bottom 80 percent of households receive only 3 percent. And these high-income individuals clearly reap a benefit from our infrastructure investments: without them, how would they or their employees get to work or to meetings, and how would the goods and services on which their incomes depend get to market?
MassBudget has even more ideas, which they spelled out earlier this year here.
Overall, though, the message should be clear. We need to start investing more in our infrastructure, and in a wealthy state like ours, the rich and big corporations need to pay up.
Withdrawal: Never an Effective Strategy
If we actually had mandatory sex ed in MA, everyone would know that withdrawal is not effective. As it stands, it remains one of the most popular strategies in the Massachusetts Legislature. Legislators file amendments only to withdraw them without discussion or debate.
If you were paying attention to the Senate budget debate last week or the House budget debate last month (You probably weren’t! There’s a lot going on!), then you may have noticed such a lack of robust debate or contentious votes.
Of the 36 recorded votes taken by the State Senate, 25 were unanimous. Most others just had one or two dissenting votes. Hardly controversial stuff.
Of the 15 recorded votes taken by the House, 10 were unanimous, and another 3 just had one dissenting vote.
Here at Progressive Massachusetts, we’re big fans of recorded votes. Ironically, such unanimity is a reason why a recorded vote could actually not be necessary in a given circumstance. If everyone agrees on a few extra thousand dollars for a good program, a recorded vote is just fodder for a press release, rather than a basis for real accountability.
Several senators spoke on the Senate floor about the need for new revenue (due credit to Senators Jamie Eldridge, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Jo Comerford, and Becca Rausch), but there were no votes about raising additional revenue. And in the House, there was even less discussion–and again no votes.
If a budget is a statement of values, why is there so little debate?
One of the reasons is that most of the amendments that would truly raise moral issues about the budget (the lack of revenue, insufficient funding in key programs, etc.) get withdrawn, or, in the House side, they get “consolidated” and hollowed out of all content (more on the “consolidation” process another day).
This issue isn’t unique to the budget, either. When the Legislature takes up major bills, many of the amendments get withdrawn without discussion or debate (let alone vote).
Just check out the four examples from last session below.
So why would a legislator withdraw an amendment?
There are three common reasons:
- Pressure from colleagues
- Pressure from Leadership
- Fear of a bad message if an amendment were to fail
(1) and (2) both stem from the same root: the fact that most legislators don’t want to be put on record. Having recorded votes means that they have to take a side on sometimes controversial issues, and that means that at least some of their constituents will be unhappy. Maybe they are more progressive than their district and afraid of getting calls from rabid right-wingers. Much more likely they are much more conservative than their district and don’t want constituents contented with an image of Massachusetts’s liberalism to know. And they will press upon an amendment’s filers to make sure that no vote happens.
Regarding (2), Leadership can often promise a real debate later or a bit of extra funding for a favored program now (or threaten loss of key perks) to get a legislator to withdraw an amendment. For decades, legislators have been withdrawing righteous amendments while promises from leadership have gone unfulfilled. And yet, progressive legislators keep falling for the same trick.
(2) and (3) also stem from a misunderstanding of how power works. Too many legislators see power only from the lens of the Golden Dome. But any legislator’s power ultimately comes from their constituents. And their constituents want to see them be champions. Their constituents want well-funded schools, well-funded public transit, clean water and air, sound investments in all kinds of infrastructure, etc., etc. Their constituents probably think Massachusetts is a liberal bastion, and so we should make it just that. If legislators take hard votes, then their constituents will have their backs. And if a vote for popular progressive policy were to fail, their constituents aren’t going to turn their backs on the policy; they will know which legislators to target and to pressure and know how to organize for the next fight. Because, to be short, that’s how politics works.
MA legislators just voted again to disenfranchise people in prison. And the vote wasn’t even public.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 3, 2019 Joint statement from Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts, and the Emancipation Initiative
Mass. legislature rejects voting rights for the incarcerated
As the national discourse around the question of restoring voting rights for those incarcerated heated up, the Massachusetts legislature also quietly took up the issue. The Joint Committee on Election Laws voted on Thursday April 25th to reject a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights for the incarcerated.
Incarcerated people in Massachusetts weren’t always disenfranchised, and the 1974 Supreme Judicial Court case Evers v. Davoren ruled that citizens incarcerated in Massachusetts must be given equal access to absentee ballots to vote. It wasn’t until 2001 that Massachusetts disenfranchised those incarcerated for felonies, after the Massachusetts legislature initiated a process to amend the State Constitution to take away their voting rights while in prison. The process required two votes of the legislature before it could advance to a ballot question. A Republican filed the original bill, but Democrats were more than happy to go along with it judging by the overwhelming vote counts in favor: the first vote in 1998 was 155-34, and the second vote in 2000 was 144-45.
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley pointed out that it wasn’t until prisoners at MCI Norfolk started to organize a political action committee in 1997 to organize for better conditions through electoral pressure, that our State government leapt into action to disenfranchise them. “People who are incarcerated are closest to the problem and therefore closest to the solution. In order to have meaningful criminal justice reform in this state, we must ensure that those most impacted have a seat at the table. Returning the right to vote to people who are incarcerated on felony convictions is that first foundational step,” said Rachel Corey, an organizer with the Emancipation Initiative.
Certain elected officials have publicly stated they voted against this action, including Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa of Northampton and Senator Jamie Eldridge of Acton. But no roll call vote for the 17-person committee was available at time of this release. Act On Mass has reached out to every committee member inquiring how they voted and will provide updates as they learn more.
“The committee doubled down on the legislature’s decision to disenfranchise the incarcerated last week. And we don’t know how our elected officials voted, or even how close the vote was. Democracy can’t function if voters don’t know how their representatives vote, and advocates can’t even make progress on lobbying the members of the committee if they don’t know who agrees with them and who disagrees with them,” said Matthew Miller, co-founder of Act on Mass, a group that advocates for progressive policies and transparency on Beacon Hill.
The legislature considered a proposal earlier this year to change its rules so that all committee votes are published online, but the proposal did not make it into the joint rules of the legislature.
“We are very disappointed that the Joint Election Laws Committee chose not to take this important step in strengthening our democracy and the hold of mass incarceration on our policymaking. In last year’s criminal justice reform bill, the Legislature expressed an interest in focusing on rehabilitation. Allowing prisoners to participate in elections would strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release,” said Jonathan Cohn, Chair of the Issues Committee at Progressive Massachusetts. “Let’s be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters.” ########################
Act on Mass has contacted every member of the Joint Committee on Election Laws to ask them to share their vote on this issue. As of this writing, the following legislators have responded:
- Senator Barry Finegold (voted AGAINST amendment to re-enfranchise the incarcerated)
- Senator Jamie Eldridge (voted FOR amendment)
- Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz (voted FOR amendment)
- Representative Russell Holmes (voted FOR amendment)
- Representative Lindsay Sábados (voted FOR amendment)
- Senator Ryan Fattman (voted AGAINST) amendmen
We are awaiting a response from:
- Senator Brendan Crighton (Lynn)
- Senator Edward Kennedy (Lowell)
- Representative John Lawn (Watertown)
- Representative Bill Driscoll (Milton)
- Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier (Pittsfield)
- Representative Alan Silvia (Fall River)
- Representative Steven Ultrino (Malden)
- Representative Dan Carey (Easthampton)
- Representative Kathleen LaNatra (Kingston)
- Representative Nicholas Boldyga (Southwick)
- Representative Marc Lombardo (Billerica)