Elections Matter: That’s Why We’re Endorsing These Progressive Champions

Elections matter. Our ability to make progressive change in Massachusetts depends on having progressive champions in office — every office.

In particular, primaries matter. Whether you’re ousting a conservative or passive incumbent (of either party) or electing a real champion in an open seat (replacing a retiring one or getting a real progressive upgrade), primaries can send a powerful message.

Massachusetts’s state primary is Tuesday, September 4th.

Over the past couple of months, we’ve been inviting candidates to fill out our comprehensive policy questionnaire — a vital tool for informing voters and for holding politicians accountable. Our Election and Endorsement Committee reviews them and then chooses whether to make a recommendation to our members, the ultimate deciders.

We’re proud to endorse the following candidates, each of whom won an overwhelming majority of the vote among our membership, for our first round of District Attorney and State Legislative primary endorsements.District Attorney

As countless stories from right here in Massachusetts and around the country have shown, a District Attorney has a lot of power. Too often, DAs have used that power in favor of mass incarceration and the attendant racial and economic disparities. From overcharging to lobbying against criminal justice reform, DAs have proven themselves to be an obstacle.

But DAs get away with much of what they do because no one is paying attention. Recent elections and public education campaigns have elevated DA races in the public mind and showed the possibilities of what a progressive DA can do. And with a landmark criminal justice reform bill now on the books in Massachusetts, it’s important to have DAs who support implementing the law — and pushing for bolder reforms as well.

Progressive Mass has been working with a coalition of progressive allies around the Commonwealth called Justice for Massachusetts to elect progressive DAs and hold them accountable to their promises.

Suffolk County: Rachael Rollins

Rachael Rollins has been a lawyer for over 20 years. She is a former state and federal prosecutor and clerk on the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Rachael was the general counsel of both the MBTA and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the Chief Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts Port Authority. Rachael currently sits on Attorney General Maura Healey’s Advisory Council on Racial Justice and Equity. She was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick to the Judicial Nominating Commission, served as past president of the Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association, and served a three-year term on the Boston Bar Association Council. She brings her lived experience as someone whose family has been directly affected by the criminal justice system and is committed to implementing the recently passed Criminal Justice Reform bill, rebuilding the relationship between the DA’s office and the community, and ensuring that the lawyers in the DA’s office reflect the communities they serve. As the first female general counsel for the MBTA and the first person of color to serve as general counsel of MassDOT, Rachael brings the management experience needed to manage the reform process that will be critical in the Suffolk County DA’s Office.

State Senate

First Middlesex: John Drinkwater

John Drinkwater has spent his entire career promoting social and economic justice through the Labor Movement. He joined the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, an umbrella organization for over 700 local unions, in 2006 and served the organization in a variety of roles before being named Legislative Director in 2014. In addition to representing the interests of working people at the State House, he also plays a key role in the Massachusetts AFL-CIO’s political field program which helps to elect pro-worker candidates to office. John has been a part of legislative coalitions that have successfully passed into law: a $15 minimum wage, Paid Family and Medical Leave, workplace protections for temp agency workers, the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights, expanded health and safety standards for public sector workers, and gender-neutral parental leave rights.

Hampshire, Franklin & Worcester: Chelsea Kline

Chelsea Kline is a higher education leader and social justice advocate running for State Senate to be a strong progressive voice for Western Massachusetts’ working families, local businesses, and underrepresented communities. When she became a low-income single mom at 19, Chelsea juggled multiple jobs and relied on food stamps to make sure her daughter wouldn’t go hungry. She was able to succeed not only because she worked hard, but because of public investments in the social safety net and community college. Now, as the social safety net continues to fray, Chelsea is channeling her leadership experience and her 25 years as an activist and organizer into her run for State Senate. She is running on progressive issues, such as Medicare for All, 100% renewable energy, and full funding for public education from Pre-K through higher education, and strongly believes we need bold leadership in the legislature to achieve this vision.

Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex: Becca Rausch

The granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor and the daughter of an activist, Becca Rausch has a life-long commitment to progressive values and social justice. Becca is an elected Needham Town Meeting Member, attorney who has practiced in both the public and private sectors, dedicated community leader, union steward, spouse, and parent of two young kids. Becca has the skills and experience at both the state and local levels of government to be an effective voice in the MA State Senate starting on her first day in office. She believes communities are stronger when progressive social policies are implemented by a transparent and accountable government. She plans to fight for universal health care, innovative and evidenced-based methods of addressing the opioid epidemic, transportation equity, strong public education with healthy learning environments and well-rounded curricula, meaningful voting rights and access, and policies that make government work for working families.

State House of Representatives

2nd Bristol: Jim Hawkins

Since his upset victory in April’s special election, Jim Hawkins has hit the ground running on Beacon Hill. He came to the State House with a history of community engagement and advocacy. In 1999, he was recognized by the National Society of Fundraising Professionals as a partner in philanthropy for his successful fundraising efforts and years of delivering food to the homeless. For twelve years, Jim taught math at Attleboro High School (AHS) and recruited tutors for homeless and disadvantaged students. During his time as a teacher at AHS, Jim founded the Rome Boulevard Road Race, which delivers much-needed funds to student programs at the school. More recently, he was a District Coordinator for the Massachusetts Teacher Association, fighting for the quality public education on which our Commonwealth depends.

1st Hampshire: Lindsay Sabadosa

Lindsay Sabadosa is an activist with a proven track record of advocating for concrete legislation at the State House. She is currently running for State Representative for the 1st Hampshire District, which represents Northampton, Hatfield, Southampton, Westhampton and Montgomery. She’s a mother, legal and financial translator, runner, and lifelong community organizer. She is the Director of the Pioneer Valley Women’s March, serves on the board of Emerge Massachusetts and the Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts, and sits on statewide organizing committees for progressive legislation like Medicare for All and the Safe Communities Act. Her progressive platform includes single-payer healthcare, education funding reform, 100% green energy, East-West/North-South rail, reproductive rights, immigrants’ rights, criminal justice reform, and other progressive legislation.

15th Middlesex: Mary Ann Stewart

Mary Ann Stewart is a community activist and member of the Lexington Democratic Town Committee. Since 2006, she has been a member of Lexington Town Meeting and the League of Women Voters of Lexington. She is a working parent who came up through the school site council and PTA, was elected twice to Lexington’s School Committee, and was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. She has spent countless hours pounding the pavement for workers’ rights and fair and adequate revenue; tirelessly meeting with parents and non-profit leaders, elected officials, and experts to hear their concerns, questions, and recommendations; and educating others on the issues. She looks forward to extending her leadership on these and other issues of critical importance to our families and our future.

19th Middlesex: Erika Johnson

Erika Johnson is currently chair of the Wilmington Democratic Committee. After graduating college with a political science degree, she worked in impact investing and then moved to the energy efficiency field, working to increase energy efficiency in residential applications and helping electrical distributors upgrade their customers to energy efficient lighting through rebates and incentives. She is running for office to fight for safe, well-funded quality public education; living wages for all; more affordable health care and higher education; and twenty-first-century infrastructure.

30th Middlesex: Darryn Remillard

Darryn Remillard is a United States Marine Corps veteran and a veterinarian running on a strong progressive platform. He grew up poor and spent a significant period of his early childhood in the Washington, DC, foster care system. After high school, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and served for 8 years. The military provided him with many of the opportunities that he finds himself fighting for now: guaranteed healthcare for all, accessible and highly subsidized childcare, job security with consistent pay raises, and fully subsidized education. After leaving the Marines amidst disillusionment with the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, he went back to veterinary school. Now a father, he worries that a foster child today wouldn’t have the same opportunities he was able to have and intends to fight to change that.

36th Middlesex: Sabrina Heisey

Sabrina Heisey has lived in Dracut for 11 years with her husband (and now six children) and manages grants and budgets for scientific research at Children’s Hospital. She is the founder of the Greater Lowell League of Women Voters, a director of the Dracut Mom’s Group, a Girl Scout leader, and an elected member of the Dracut School Committee. Sabrina is running for State Rep in the 36th Middlesex District in MA and envisions a future for Massachusetts where schools are fairly and adequately funded, where our tax dollars are spent on the public good instead of corporate welfare, where LGBTQA+ people are afforded equal rights, where women and families have control over their reproductive health, and where Massachusetts strengthens its strict gun laws.

7th Plymouth: Kevin Higgins

Growing up in a family faced with the challenges of addiction and financial hardship, Kevin Higgins was motivated early in life to dedicate his career to improving social and economic opportunities for working families. After watching his family lose their home as a result of predatory sub-prime mortgage lending, Kevin put himself through college, becoming a social worker in elder and disability services and later working as a union organizer. Since the start of his professional life, Kevin has been a strong advocate for the community’s most vulnerable residents and has focused on expanding opportunity for individuals with disabilities, senior citizens, and working families.

We Have a Busy Month, But There’s Always Time to Celebrate

Summer is a season of action and a season of joy. So as the summer approaches, we need to double down on the work of passing our bold policy agenda, as well as celebrate the successes we’ve had.

Raise Up Signature Collection: Ramping Up & Wrapping Up

As a key part of the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, we’ve been collecting signatures around the state to get a $15 minimum wage and paid family and medical leave on the ballot this November.

Over the past month, we’ve collected more than 5,000. Give yourself a hand!

The last day for signature collection is Saturday, June 16th. Find an event near you here, and if you haven’t already turned your signatures in, email Joe at jdimauro@progressivemass.com to find out how best to do so!

The Summer Warmth Is Nice. A Warmed Planet Isn’t.

This week, the MA Senate is moving to take up S.2545, An Act to Promote a Clean Energy Future. Although this is a bold piece of climate policy, several critical policies are missing: solar access for all, reforms to push back against pipeline expansion, community empowerment, and a comprehensive plan to combat climate change.

Action: Please call your Senator and Chairwoman Karen Spilka, Karen.Spilka@masenate.gov, 617-722-1640 in support of the following amendments:

  • Amendments 41 (Eldridge), 42 (Eldridge),and 43 (Chang-Diaz), which would ensure all communities can access solar energy
  • Amendment 22 (Cyr), which would empower communities and give new tools to promote renewable energy
  • Amendment 44 (Pacheco), which would set binding climate targets for 2030 and 2040
  • Amendments 6 (Jehlen) and 60 (Hinds), which would push back on pipeline expansion

Safe Communities: The Clock Is Ticking

Right now, the Massachusetts legislature is negotiating the state budget for the next year, and key protections for immigrants hang in the balance. Approved by the Senate, these protections (detailed below) now have to make it through the budget Conference Committee.

If you are worried about the Trump administration’s draconian immigration policies, 3 phone calls this week are almost certainly the most impactful thing you can do this week to blunt the effects of these policies in our state:

  • For your own your own Representative (find them here)
    • Ask: “Please urge Speaker DeLeo and the budget Conference Committee to include protections for immigrant families in the final FY2019 state budget.”
  • Committee Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez, 15th Suffolk (617-722-2990)
    • Ask: “Please use your leadership to fight for protections of immigrant families in the FY19 state budget.”
  • Governor Baker (617-725-4005)

Proposed protections would:

  • Bar police from asking about people’s immigration status unless required by law
  • End 287(g) contracts that deputize state and local law enforcement as ICE agents
  • Require that immigrants be notified of their due-process rights
  • Ensure that Massachusetts does not contribute to any registry based on religion, ethnicity, citizenship or other protected categories

Wednesday, 6/20: Summer is a Time for Celebration

Join Progressive Mass members and allies in Newton on Wednesday night, June 20th, for drinks and light appetizers, and to toast our three award winners.

  • Representative Mary Keefe of Worcester: Lead House sponsor of the comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform bill, signed into law this year
  • Jonathan Cohn of Boston: Our resident policy and political expert, leading the Issues Committee and the Elections and Endorsements Committee
  • Rev. Jim Mitulski of Needham: A Progressive Needham leader and tireless advocate for human rights and dignity

Thanks to a group of generous donors, all Summer Soiree contributions up to $7,000 to Progressive Mass will be matched. Your generosity helps us provide staff, office space, organizing software and services, and drive progressive initiatives in multiple coalitions.

The Legislature Can Take Action to Prevent Sexual Harassment and Assault. Here’s How

The #MeToo movement underscored the myriad ways that power imbalances and a toxic culture increase the likelihood of sexual harassment and assault, across industries and across states. According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data for Massachusetts, nearly 1 in 2 women and 1 in 4 men in Massachusetts have ever experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape. Nearly 1 in 3 women and 1 in 5 men in MA have experienced rape, and more than 1 in 7 women have experienced rape.

The Massachusetts Legislature has the opportunity to take action this session by promoting healthy relationships and protecting the rights of those who seek to speak out. But time is short.

The Senate passed An Act Relative to Healthy Youth (S2128/H3704), last year, and the House bill is before the Committee on Health Care Financing, with a reporting deadline of May 16th. This bill calls for age-appropriate and medically accurate sexual health education in each school district or public school that currently offers sexual health information.  

Numerous poignant statements from those who have experienced sexual assault and found nowhere to turn have been highlighted in the news recently. Preventive efforts are needed to reduce this kind of suffering.  We believe that young people need comprehensive sex education in order to grow up with a healthy sense of their own sexuality as well as respect for others feelings and boundaries. Most parents are not well equipped to address this complex subject fully. Many parents are too uncomfortable with the subject to even try.  Great numbers of children look for alternative sources such as pornography since they are naturally curious and want to understand their developing sexuality. These kids are getting distorted information that can lead to making poor decisions about consent in sexual relationships.

And both the House and the Senate can take action against the culture of silence around the issue by passing An Act to Improve Contract Provisions Waiving Certain Rights (H4058/S2186). This bill is sitting  before the committee on Labor and Workforce Development and has an extended reporting deadline of May 9th (next Wednesday).

In an assault on workers and on women especially, Donald Trump has rolled back regulations protecting individuals from forced arbitration and non-disclosure contracts.  Massachusetts has the opportunity to do better for our citizens. Too many companies care most about their bottom line and have little incentive to improve working conditions when complaints and settlements are secret.  

As the National Association of Consumer Advocates explains, under forced arbitration and non-disclosure agreements, “employees cannot sue for discrimination, harassment, abuse, retaliation or wrongful termination.”  As women, we are particularly interested in pointing out how forced arbitration clauses have helped perpetuate sexual harassment and sexual assault. Arbitration strongly favors the employer, and relatively few cases ultimately support the woman accusing the company of wrongdoing. Without sanctions, we submit that sexual abusers may believe they have done nothing wrong and will continue to abuse.  And if they understand their abuse is wrong, they know they will usually come away unscathed. Where does this leave women who find the courage to stand up for their rights?

Recent events have led women to begin speaking out about their personal experiences of sexual abuse.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates that from 25 percent to 85 percent of women report having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and that 75 percent of abuse incidents go unreported. Fears of not being believed or of being re-victimized have caused women to be mostly silent until this moment in our history.  This silence is a pervasive problem that must be addressed.

Janis Soma is a member of the Progressive Needham Women’s Issues Working Group.

And the Winners Are…!

This year, Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity to make sure that strong progressive candidates get elected up and down the ballot. And that requires important decisions.

At Progressive Massachusetts, we are committed to a vision of shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good governance and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection. And we translate that vision into a Legislative Agenda each session. We need allies in elected office who will help us fight for that vision.

Three statewide races will be voted on at the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention on Saturday, June 2nd (one month from today). Earlier this year, we asked candidates to fill out our comprehensive policy questionnaire, and our chapters around the state held forums to get to know the candidates better. Over the past two weeks, we asked our members for their recommendation in each of the three races, and we set a high threshold of 60% to make sure that we have a strong consensus before getting involved in a race.

The results are in……

Governor: Jay Gonzalez

At Saturday’s MA Republican Convention, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed–yet again–how he isn’t that different from his Republican friends in Washington.

In his convention speech, Baker touted his support for a Trumpian mass deportation agenda, racist and misguided policies that have fueled mass incarceration, and a vision for the state that leaves behind the most underserved communities so that millionaires and billionaires have the money to buy their sixth private jet.

Republican Governor Charlie Baker has fought to roll back the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, promoted the development of new dirty fossil fuel pipelines across the state, and attacked the unions and public services that make our state strong.

We can do better. We need to do better.

We need allies in the Corner Office who believe in building upon past health care reforms to build a truly universal single payer health care system, in fighting for workers and supporting a $15 minimum wage and paid family and medical leave, in crafting a fair tax system, in transitioning our economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, in investing in the public education and public transit systems that are the bedrocks of our economy, in taking additional steps to reform our criminal justice system, in making Massachusetts a state where immigrants and families can live their lives without the daily fear of deportation, in making sure all Massachusetts residents are treated with dignity and respect, and in ensuring that our democracy is one in which all voices are heard and not drowned out by big money.

We are proud to endorse Jay Gonzalez for Governor.

Here’s what some of our members said about Jay:

“Jay Gonzalez has the experience, knowledge and understanding about state government to implement and enact our vision for our future.” — Caroline

“I’m so excited to support Jay Gonzalez! Too often, we face mediocre leadership in Massachusetts. I’m all in to unseat Charlie Baker this fall, and Jay is the progressive voice to beat Baker. From early education to gender equity and transportation to safe communities, he brings the leadership and vision the Commonwealth needs.” — Denise

“As the former Secretary of Administration and Finance under Deval Patrick and a successful healthcare CEO, Jay Gonzalez has the necessary experience to both do the job well and effectively critique the poor management performance of our do nothing Governor Charlie Baker. But most importantly Jay is genuine and present with people and will represent ALL the people of Massachusetts with compassion and love.” — Susan

Lieutenant Governor: Quentin Palfrey

A progressive Governor needs a progressive Lieutenant Governor to serve as an ally, someone who can be an effective liaison to the Legislature and to the cities and towns across the Commonwealth.

We are proud to endorse Quentin Palfrey for Lieutenant Governor.

Here’s what some of our members said about Quentin:

“Quentin Palfrey has a great mix of energy and experience, and would make a fantastic Lt. Gov. He is a strong organizer with the right priorities of health care and inequality.” — Andrew

“Quentin Palfrey’s laser focused on the single most important issue facing Massachusetts: tackling income inequality to make a more fair society.” — Bryan

Secretary of the Commonwealth: Josh Zakim

At the Massachusetts Democratic convention one month from today, there will be another race up for a vote: Secretary of the Commonwealth. This race can often fly under the radar, but it is an important one, with power over election administration, campaign finance, public records, and even the census.

In Attorney General Maura Healey, we have a statewide official who takes on a leadership role and sets an example for other states. We need a Secretary who will exhibit such bold, progressive leadership as well.

We are proud to endorse Josh Zakim for Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Here’s what our members are saying about Josh:

“Josh Zakim brings a fresh perspective along with a passion for modernizing our democratic institutions to expand participation and transparency.” — Ziba

“Massachusetts’ election laws & public records laws are out-of-date, lagging behind many less progressive states. While other states laws were updated to improve citizens’ access to their government—MA laws vigorously reinforce the status quo. It’s time for the fresh leadership that Josh Zakim will bring.” — Lisa

Why Does Our Democratic Legislature Largely Adopt Our Governor’s Budget?

Last Thursday, the MA House passed its FY2019 budget 150-4. The dissenting votes came from the most conservative quarters of the Republican caucus.

This degree of unanimity seems like the polar opposite of what we see at the national level. Why is that? How do we have such broad bipartisan consensus around the budget year after year?

Let’s turn to the recent analysis of the House Ways & Means budget from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. It begins, “The House Ways and Means (HWM) Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget proposal largely aligns with the Governor’s proposal.”

In other words, this consensus is achieved by Democrats largely agreeing to the Republican governor’s budget. Oh.

Big Picture: Lack of Investment, Lack of Revenue

Where there are differences, they are certainly for the better.

Mimicking his Republican allies in Washington, Baker is still pushing an anti-health care agenda. His budget moved 140,000 low-income adults off MassHealth coverage, which would subject already struggling individuals to higher premiums and a loss of dental coverage and other vital benefits. Massachusetts would have the dubious honor of becoming the only state to repeal the Obama-era Medicaid expansion. The Legislature rejected this push last year, and the House rightfully chose not to include the Governor’s ask in the budget.

Mass Budget also outlines a few modest improvements the House made:

  • Early Education and Care. The HWM budget provides $20.0 million for Center-Based Child Care Rate Increases to improve early education quality by increasing the rates paid by the state to child care providers. That funding should aid in increasing salary, benefits, and professional development for early educators. The HWM Committee also proposes $8.5 million for a new initiative focused on professional development for early educators facilitated by Massachusetts community colleges.
  • K-12 Education. This budget provides $33.5 million more in Chapter 70 Aid (and related reserves) than the Governor proposed. In addition, it funds grant programs at $20.8 million more than the Governor recommended. This includes an added $9.5 million for charter school reimbursements and $8.9 million more for special education costs.
  • Housing. This budget proposal would increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) to $100.0 million, which is $7.3 million more than FY 2018. MRVP provides housing vouchers to help low-income families, including those living in emergency assistance shelters, secure housing.

Given the crisis in housing affordability in Massachusetts, a $7.3 million bump in funding for housing vouchers doesn’t go very far. Consider this: a minimum wage worker would have to work 80 hours per week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at fair market rent.

The bumps in education spending don’t look that impressive when you dig deeper there either. As you might remember from the Question 2 debate two years ago, in Massachusetts, school funding follows the students, but since so many of the costs of education are fixed (think: the school building itself), the state offers a partial reimbursement to public school districts for lost funding when students leave to go to charter schools. Massachusetts, however, has not been meeting its statutory obligation here. According to the Mass Municipal Association, the shortfall is already $75 million and would grow significantly to between $85 million and $100 million under Baker’s budget. The House budget’s addition is only 10% of what’s needed. Baker’s budget underfunded special education reimbursements by $20 million; the House’s additional $8.9 million is less than half of what’s required.

And how does the House fund these modest improvements? By robbing Peter to pay Paul. Back to Mass Budget:

“Without any significant revenue sources beyond those in the Governor’s budget, the HWM budget funds these differences largely by underfunding various accounts – such as for the removal of snow and ice from state roads – that likely need to be funded eventually. This risks leading to challenges maintaining a balanced budget during the upcoming fiscal year.”

A common refrain from us here at Progressive Massachusetts is that if we want a Commonwealth where everyone can thrive–where we have quality public schools, public schools, health care for all, a clean environment, etc.–then we need more revenue (and more investment in our collective, long-term future). However, our Democratic Legislature, like our Republican Governor, has been hostile to raising revenue. We are an affluent state: third highest in per capita income and sixth highest in median household income. In other words, we aren’t lacking in revenue sources; we’re lacking in political will.

The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in both the Governor’s budget and the House budget suffers from this same problem: if we are not meaningfully increasing revenue, then the EITC expansion will just be funded by cuts to other programs on which working people depend.

The Amendment Process: What Happened?

A week and a half ago, we drew attention to a list of amendments that would counteract this chronic underinvestment and improve the quality of life in the state by building on the recently passed criminal legal system reform, investing in public education, protecting our environment, and building strong communities for all.

More than 1,000 amendments were filed to the FY2019 budget. And, unfortunately, the House doesn’t make it easy to follow what happened to them all (in case you’re wondering, yes, it is on purpose).

Some amendments are withdrawn before debate begins, usually under pressure from House Leadership

The following amendments we highlighted were withdrawn:

  • Amendment 781 (Khan), which would set out punishment for police officers who have sex with individuals in police custody
  • Amendment 889 (Provost), which freezes the income tax at 5.1 percent. Automatic declines in the state income tax mean billions of dollars of lost revenue each year and less money to fund vital programs across the Commonwealth
  • Amendment 925 (Walsh, Chris), which would allow local governments and regions of the state to, with local government and voter approval, levy taxes to fund transportation initiatives

Now, the House rarely votes on individual amendments. For the sake of time and opacity, House Leadership will gather together thematically similar amendments to produce a “consolidated” amendment. BUT that “consolidated” amendment often doesn’t include many of the requests from the included amendments. The “consolidated” amendments effectively dispense with the amendments in the guise of addressing them. And then they pass almost unanimously, with everything “controversial” having been removed.

Most of the amendments we supported saw just such a fate.

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment A” (Education and Local Aid)

  • Amendment 156 (Higgins), which would provide much-needed funding for public colleges and universities
  • Amendment 246 (Garballey), which would revise our outdated education funding formula along the lines of the the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations
  • Amendment 715 (Moran, Mike), which would ensure that immigrant students receive in-state tuition
  • Amendment 924 (Higgins), which would create new consumer protections for student loan borrowers and allow state to crack down on unscrupulous lenders
  • Amendment 950 (Koczera), which would increase funding for adult education and English classes (essential for new immigrants) by $1.9 million, to $34.5 million
  • Amendment 952 (Ultrino) / 977 (Coppinger), which would increase charter school tuition reimbursements for sending public school districts from $90m to $170m so that our public schools have the funding they need
  • Amendment 1343 (Decker), which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment B” (Energy and Environmental Affairs)

  • Amendment 640 (Ferrante), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program by $2m to $20m — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 864 (Walsh, Chris), which increases the funding for the Department of Environmental Protection’s hazardous waste clean-up program by $2m — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 906 (Rogers, David), which requires the state to issue a report on measures necessary–including new staffing, monitoring, permitting and other measures–to address water pollution and comply with the federal Clean Water Act — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 1005 (Muratore), which would provide initial funding and regulatory authority for the state to implement decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment E” (Public Safety and Judiciary)

  • Amendment 54 (Livingstone), which would provide funding for the Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, a restorative justice program in the Department of Corrections with proven benefits for reducing recidivism
  • Amendment 219 (Livingstone), which increases funding for community-based re-entry programs from $3 million to $5 million

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment F” (Housing, Mental Health and Disability Services)

  • Amendment 269 (Connolly), which would increase housing voucher rent caps to current fair market rents, get vouchers out faster, set aside a portion for extremely low-income households, and increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program overall — Consolidated F
  • Amendment 801 (Khan), which increases the funding for Juvenile Court Clinics, which provide mental health evaluation, consultation, and liaison services for children and families in the juvenile court system, from $3.5m to almost $10m

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment G” (Public Health)

  • Amendment 867 (Garlick), which would boost funding for Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Prevention services by $3.5 million, to $37.6 million, to increase access to culturally and linguistically appropriate crisis intervention and safety planning, legal services, and advocacy — Consolidated G

One amendment did pass (👏👏👏), although the House modified it to begin in FY2020 and did not provide the necessary funding. It’s a victory, but as with most victories, the fight continues.

  • Amendment 1361 (Decker), which would lift the “cap on kids.” The “cap on kids”/”family cap”  denies welfare support to children conceived while the family receives assistance. 8,700 Massachusetts children are currently harmed by this policy that many other states have already repealed.

Funding increases for the Massachusetts Legal Services Corporation (Amendment 243-Balser) and Regional Transit Authorities (Amendment 743-Peake) did make it into the budget via other consolidated amendments, but in much reduced form. MLAC got $750,000 extra, rather than $2 million. And RTAs got $2 million in additional funding, rather than the requested $8 million. The extra money is important, but the Legislature’s refusal to offer robust funding speaks to systemic indifference.

They Don’t Pass The Good Ones. But, Thankfully, They Don’t Pass the Bad Ones Either.

Marc Lombardo’s xenophobic Amendment 113, which would have taken away money from cities that choose not to be accomplices to a mass deportation regime, was withdrawn. Geoff Brad Jones’s Amendment 508, which mirrored Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision, was subsumed into “Consolidated E” and eliminated. So were Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would have expanded state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication

Jim Lyons’s Amendment 347, which sought to create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants along the lines of a bill filed by Governor Baker, failed 10 to 145 (RC 334). One Democrat–Jim Dwyer–joined 9 Republicans in voting for it. Geoff Diehl’s amendment, which was akin to Lombardo’s withdrawn amendment in its assault on cities that choose not to have local law enforcement be deputized to ICE, was sent to further study on a 136 to 19 vote (RC335). The study, of course, will never happen (which is the point). Colleen Garry and Jim Dwyer joined 17 Republicans in voting for it.

Rep. Howitt’s Amendment 979, which would have curtailed the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (Think: the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa), was subsumed into and eliminated by “Consolidated H” (Constitutional Officers, State Administration, and Transportation).

If you’re still with us: The Senate will be voting on its budget (and its own series of amendments) mid-May. The two bodies will then go to conference and hash out a final budget.

Stand Against Discrimination of Transgender People in MA!

As the mother of 2 transgender children, I have had many reasons to be glad that we live in Massachusetts. Our community has been very supportive since my daughters transitioned about 3 years ago, and Massachusetts is one of only 18 states in which my children can enjoy full protection under the law. As you may know, this came about in 2018 when the Legislature passed transgender anti-discrimination legislation, protecting the rights of transgender individuals in all public spaces.  What you may not know, however, is that this legislation is in jeopardy. Very soon after Governor Baker signed this law, opponents collected enough signatures to challenge it on the ballot via a so-called citizen’s veto referendum. This November, the rights of my daughters and all other transgender people in Massachusetts will be at stake.

Imagine what it could mean if the law’s opponents have their way. My oldest daughter could be forced to get off the T while going into Boston or my youngest daughter could be kicked out of a movie theatre with friends just for being who they are. My family could be asked to leave a restaurant while having a meal together just because whoever is working at that time doesn’t feel comfortable with transgender people. While these scenarios are bad, my worst nightmare is that one of my daughters could require life-saving medical treatment and could be refused if the doctor on duty doesn’t want to treat them. These situations and more could become reality for all transgender people living in Massachusetts.

Our opponents would have people believe that this is about bathrooms and public safety, but that is simply misdirection. They know that they will only be able to be successful if they employ scare tactics that will cause people to go against their own sense of fairness. At stake is what kind of state we would like to live in: I, like all members of Progressive Mass, want to live in a state where all residents are treated with dignity and respect and are fully and equally protected under the law.

While I know we have a while to go until November, I have been surprised that few people know that this important issue is on the ballot. But it’s important to get involved now: spreading the word about this question, making sure that people know that a YES is a vote against the law’s reactionary opponents and for equal rights in Massachusetts, and educating your friends and neighbors about what this ballot question is and what it is not. You can find volunteer opportunities near you at the Freedom Massachusetts website here: https://secure.freedomma.org/page/s/volunteer.

Progressive Mass was a part of the Freedom Massachusetts coalition behind the 2016 bill, and it’s important that we take action again to protect our past victories, uphold our values, and vote YES this fall.

Criminal Justice Reform Is One Step Closer to a Reality

By Caroline Bays, Progressive Watertown

Hard work and advocacy paid off with the release of the criminal justice conference committee’s new CJR bill. This comprehensive bill addresses almost every issue affecting our criminal justice system. When we began this process in 2016, we could not have imagined the setbacks and the hard work that lay ahead. But through the near destruction of the bill when the Council on State Governments process collapsed, the bill–like a phoenix from the ashes–was revitalized, and the legislation emerged even stronger and more sweeping than advocates expected.

Below is a synopsis of the proposed bill. I included the main ask from advocates for reform and what was in the final bill.

Mandatory Minimums – Advocates for reform proposed repealing of all mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses. The bill eliminates most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limits mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. However, it leaves in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin) and expands the definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil.

Fees and Fines – Advocates for reform proposed repealing all parole and probation fees. The bill reduces fees. No parole fee is imposed for one year after release from prison and no probation fee is imposed for six months after release. The bill also improves some procedural protections and increases the rate at which fines are worked off from $30 to $90 per day.

CORI reform – Advocates for reform proposed making criminal records more private by sealing records after 7 years for felonies and 3 years for misdemeanors and record expungement for minors. Records will be sealed after 7 years for felonies and 3 years for misdemeanors. In addition the bill authorizes the expungement of cases that resulted in prosecuting innocent adults as well as non-serious cases involving young people up to the age of 21.

Felony Threshold – Advocates for reform proposed raising the felony larceny threshold to $1,500. The felony threshold was raised to $1,200.

Juvenile Justice – Advocates for reform proposed raising the age of criminal court jurisdiction to 12 and criminal majority to 21. The younger age limit was raised to 12 but the age at which youth can be prosecuted as adults remains 18. However, the bill authorizes the creation of a special housing unit for young people aged 18 to 24; prohibits housing juveniles with adults and placing juveniles in solitary confinement; and limits shackling juveniles. In addition, parents will no longer be forced to testify against their children.

Bail Reform – Advocates for reform proposed codifying the Brangan case which calls for judges to use bail as a mechanism to ensure the defendant’s return to court instead of as a mechanism for pre-trial imprisonments of defendants. The Brangan decision is codified, and the bill creates a pre-trial mechanism to remind defendants of their upcoming court dates. The judge must make a written finding explaining why it is in the Commonwealth’s best interest to impose unaffordable bail amounts.

Diversion – Advocates for reform proposed diverting low-level offenses and drug users to treatment and restorative justice options, with special consideration for juveniles and for primary caretakers. There are multiple mechanisms for judicial diversion including diversion for juveniles for less serious offenses as well as an expansion of restorative justice programs for juveniles and adults. In addition, primary caretakers of children will be given special consideration when sentencing, and minor offenses, such as disruptive behavior at school assemblies, have been decriminalized.

Compassionate Release – Advocates for reform proposed that permanently incapacitated prisoners who pose no safety risk should be released from prison. The bill establishes mechanisms to release prisoners deemed terminally ill or incapacitated.

Solitary Confinement – Advocates for reform proposed that the practice of solitary confinement be severely curtailed–limited to six months or ended completely. The bill calls for restrictive housing rather than solitary, giving inmates access to many of the same programs and educational opportunities available in general population. Regular reviews of inmates must be performed to determine if the inmate can safely be returned to general population, the first one after six months and then every 90 days, thereafter. The bill also creates a balanced oversight board which will have access to the prison facilities and inmates and can report on conditions. Lastly, the bill prohibits arbitrary use of restrictive housing for LGBTQ inmates.

Miscellaneous items

In addition to the aforementioned provisions, the conference bill…

  • Guarantees transgender prisoners are housed with their gender identity
  • Gives prisoners who have not graduated access to education
  • Preserves rights for regular in-person visitation
  • Creates a task force to study suicide rate of correctional officers
  • Calls for data collection on just about every aspect of the prison system
  • Allows women who are victims of human trafficking to have their convictions vacated

SCA: When Lawmakers Won’t Make Laws

SCA_Circles__Icons_(19).png

APRIL 1 – PRINTER FRIEINDLY – Here’s more on the policies we’ll be pushing via the budget process: 

These 3 provisions have broad public support, and extend critical protections to all immigrants.

ALL are from the Safe Communities Act–and are endorsed by the two MA police chief associations.

ALL comply with federal law. Federal law prohibits limiting communications between local and federal agencies about immigration status. It does not require local law enforcement to collect this information.

PRES. Trump is increasing ICE’s power, and their indiscriminate, racist, dragnet is deporting mothers, fathers, workers, students, friends, neighbors, and family, sowing terror and fear in our communities.

Massachusetts legislators literally have the power to provide some guarantees of community safety for all of us. But they have not.

Rank and file legislators will tell you all kinds of juicy insider tales as to why…. “it is Leadership…”  “it is the Governor…” “it is colleagues from “more conservative districts”…” …

Sorry, no. Our elected legislators are there to serve justice and make laws. Not to please Leadership or pre-concede to racism coming from the corner office or defer to reactionary electoral fears.

And here’s an open secret: “Leadership”’s power is responsive to the members (legislators, rank and file). If members make noise, Leadership will listen.

Legislators have power–but they have to use it. They have to get loud and insistent.

We have power–but we have to use it. We have to get loud and insist: “Legislators–use your power.”

If they do not, it may be time to make what John Lewis calls “good trouble.”  Nothing difficult was ever achieved without it.

More info on the provisions above:

  1. The current climate makes immigrants vulnerable to exploitation and crime –
    domestic violence, wage theft, housing code violations, and other offenses go unreported because of fears that contact with police will lead to deportation and separation from family members, especially children.
  2. Costly 287g agreements, a cornerstone of Trump’s expansive deportation project,
    co-opt public safety resources for immigration enforcement, and undermine  community confidence in law enforcement.
  3. Noncitizens are often unaware that they have these rights, which can have dire consequences.
    “Miranda” warnings are not constitutionally required to be given for civil immigration violations. Our jails are a major entry point into the deportation pipeline. Without these protections, people charged with minor offenses lose the right to challenge their deportation.

PRIOR UPDATES: 

MARCH 22 – We were hopeful–with all of the activism and energy and commitment from the Massachusetts electorate to resist the Trump Agenda and PROTECT our communities most vulnerable to its racist agenda–that Beacon Hill would rouse from its normal phlegmatic state. 

That the call of history and doing the right thing in response would be the massive catalyst such a timid body would need. 

Instead, we have gotten more of the same from Beacon Hill: delays, pretenses of support, and…nothing. 

And so, the Safe Communities Act, as legislation, has run out of steam… Not because of any parliamentary reason or time–but simply because of political cowardice by the Massachusetts legislature, with a super majority of Democratic members who say they want to “resist”. 

But this was never about one single piece of legislation; it is about justice.

And we will keep organizing for results —real, actual, helpful policy changes–thru every means.

And this is why, though the legislation may be “dead” (not really, but you’ll hear legislators say so; it’s easier than saying”we do not have political courage”)–we are not done.

We are gearing up to pass key provisions of the SCA legislation through the budget process.

Look for more from our organizing team soon (is your immigration reform point person plugged in? do so here!) on how you can engage your teams to make this happen (hint: overwhelming politcal pressure needed!).

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe  [opinion] (2/2/2018)

YES

Ted Steinberg

Needham resident, community organizer, former Congressional aide, member of Progressive Massachusetts

It’s déjà vu on Beacon Hill.

The decades-long hostility towards raising additional revenue strikes again. It was just last fall that the Legislature let stand $210 million of the $320 million Governor Charles Baker vetoed from the fiscal 2018 budget. The slashing of that crucial spending was, unfortunately, a predictable byproduct of the Legislature’s refusal to implement new taxes or fees in fiscal 2017.

Even with those cuts, this year’s state budget is again facing a potential deficit. The government was forced to rely on temporary revenues and the underfunding of essential programs – like MassHealth, services for homeless families, and snow and ice removal – all while hoping there will somehow be an end-of-the-year surplus. No wonder US News and World Report ranks Massachusetts 48th for balancing its budget.

Budgets are supposed to reflect priorities, but instead of thinking big and investing in our future, we are stuck playing catch-up from previous shortages. The Commonwealth has a variety of complex problems requiring investment. Our transit system malfunctions regularly (even when it’s warm outside), schools grapple with overcrowding, affordable housing remains woefully insufficient, and the opioid crisis continues to devastate our communities.

But we also want to do more than put a band-aid on wounds that require surgery. We want to expand MBTA service, strengthen our schools, provide shelter for struggling families, and move towards universal health care. The last thing we need to do is shut the door on sources of much-needed revenue.

As we look to improve upon state services and protect the laws that make Massachusetts feel like home, we should look for creative opportunities to increase spending capabilities. Whether it be from pollutant fees or new corporate taxes, marijuana sales or tax-deductible donations to government institutions, there are innovative ways to generate sufficient revenue for a responsible budget that won’t hurt the people’s pockets. It would be irresponsible not to even consider, let alone refuse to explore new potential sources of revenue or raising existing ones.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo should work on a game plan rather than punt the ball on first down. Tax increases should definitely be on the table as we look to fix our broken budget.