Letter to AG Campbell to Protect Immigrant Taxpayers

Progressive Mass was proud to sign on to the letter below, organized by Greater Boston Legal Services.

June 5, 2025

Honorable Andrea Joy Campbell

Massachusetts Attorney General

One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA  02118

Re: A petition to challenge the impending use of confidential IRS data for immigration enforcement

Dear Attorney General Campbell,

On behalf of the many immigrant families living in Massachusetts, the undersigned urge you and other Attorneys General to consider bringing a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The goal of the suit is to prevent the agency from implementing a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which would allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the first time to use confidential taxpayer information as immigrant locator tools.

Unlike individual plaintiffs who would put themselves at risk of deportation, Attorneys General have standing to bring their own challenges based on the lost revenue resulting from vulnerable immigrants dropping out of the tax system.

Background

DHS wants access to immigrant tax data in order to expedite the mass deportation mandate under Executive Order 14161 from the President. The broad scope of the data sought is apparent from the first paragraph of the MOU which references the EO:

WHEREAS by Executive Order (EO) No. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 Fed. Reg. 8451 (Jan. 20, 2025), the President directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to take immediate steps to identify, exclude, or remove aliens illegally present in the United States;

The administration believes that DHS access to the personal data of immigrant taxpayers is permissible under an exception to the tax-privacy statute that allows for the investigation and trial-preparation of federal criminal statutes. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2). There is no exception for civil immigration enforcement. There do not appear to be safeguards to ensure that the information shared would only be used for actual criminal investigations. While most information-sharing requires judicial oversight, the (i)(2) exception allows access to a subset of IRS data without going to a court. It is feared that the information extracted from IRS records will inevitably be utilized for civil immigration enforcement, a clear violation of taxpayer privacy rules. These strict privacy protections were enacted in response to Nixonian abuses and the present contemplated mass transfer of taxpayer information is utterly unprecedented. High level IRS officials including an acting Commissioner have resigned over concerns that the MOU violates taxpayer privacy rules.

A lawsuit by the Attorney(s) General would challenge the administration’s efforts to break down one of the strongest firewalls for government data: the privacy afforded to tax information. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (tax-privacy statute). Starting with people who have final orders of removal and subject to criminal investigations, the administration seeks to build information pipelines from tax-related agencies—such as IRS and SSA—to ICE. A pending lawsuit[1] in the D.C. Circuit has an uncertain future and we are looking to your office to take up the baton before it is too late.

The administration has stated its intent to seek information for as many as seven million people using this pipeline, alongside its articulated desire to create a “mega API” for IRS data. While DHS argues that it primarily targets those with final deportation orders (which have rarely resulted in criminal prosecutions) it is unlikely that ICE will truly undertake the time and expense to pursue criminal proceedings for so many people. Furthermore, those of us who have represented immigrant taxpayers before the IRS do not believe the agency has the competency to verify another agency’s criminal investigations particularly given the high volume of investigations that DHS would have to undertake.

The reported agreement has caused panic and confusion in the immigrant community among the many taxpayers who have relied on the IRS to keep their tax data private. The IRS encourages all taxpayers to comply with their tax filing obligations regardless of their immigration status, issues Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to those ineligible for social security numbers to facilitate compliance and has assured taxpayers –up to now- that their information is protected. ITINs were never intended to be tools for immigration enforcement. Indeed, immigrant ITIN filers pay more than their share of income taxes in Massachusetts and undocumented workers contribute payroll taxes even though they may never be able to access the Social Security or Medicare benefits they pay for with each paycheck.

Immigrant families have been traumatized. They are afraid to attend immigration hearings, go to work, send their kids to school, or even attend community gatherings such as church services. Now will they be putting themselves and/or family members at risk by filing their tax returns? A recent study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that undocumented immigrants in Massachusetts contribute $650 million in state and local taxes. Immigrant workers are critical to our state economy and this breach in taxpayer privacy threatens to disrupt our taxpaying workforce. If the agreement is executed, immigrants will go further underground and we will see “downstream consequences” to our state revenues. Our tax system is built on voluntary compliance. ITEP has raised the alarm that tax revenues will decrease if the IRS is weaponized against immigrants and their tax information is used against them. We all lose when taxpayer privacy is weakened and inevitably results in the erosion of trust in the tax system.

We know you are already doing a great deal to alert and educate the residents of Massachusetts including immigrants, but a legal suit on behalf of vulnerable immigrant taxpayers seems necessary to prevent this imminent abuse of the law.

We look forward to discussing any questions you may have. Thank you for reading this and for all that the AG’s Office is doing during these very uncertain times. 

Sincerely,

Agencia ALPHA

Asian American Civic Association

Asian Taskforce Against Domestic Violence (ATASK)

The Boston Foundation

Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network (BIJAN)

Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston (BMA TenPoint)

Boston Tax Help Coalition, Office of Workforce Development, City of Boston

Brazilian Workers Center

Brazilian Women’s Group

Brockton Workers Alliance

Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC)

Center for New Americans

Centro Presente

Children’s Health Watch  

Chinese Progressive Association

Coalition for Social Justice Action

Community Action Agency of Somerville (CAAS)

Community Economic Development Center- New Bedford (CEDC)

Community Labor United

Dominican Development Center

English for New Bostonians

Greater Boston Labor Council 

Greater Boston Legal Services

Haitian Community Partners Foundation

Health Law Advocates

Healthy Families Tax Credit Coalition

Horizons for Homeless Children

Immigrant Family Services Institute (IFSI) 

Immigrant Service Providers Group/Health, Somerville

International Institute of New England

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA)

Jewish Vocational Services (JVS)

Justice at Work

Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts

Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)

La Colaborativa

Lawrence Community Works

Legal Key Partnership for Health and Justice

Lynn Rapid Response Network

Lynn Worker’s Center

Massachusetts Advocates for Children

Massachusetts AFL-CIO

Massachusetts Association for Community Action (MASSCAP)

Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations

Massachusetts Coalition of Domestic Workers

Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MassBudget)

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA)

Massachusetts Immigrant Collaborative (MIC)

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI)  

Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health (MassCOSH)

MetroWest Worker Center/Centro del Trabajador  

Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts

Northeast Justice Center 

Northshore Community Development Coalition

Office of State Representative Russell Holmes

Office of State Senator Liz Miranda

Open Door Immigration Services

Pathway for Immigrant Workers

Progressive Massachusetts

Project Citizenship

RESULTS-Massachusetts

Rosie’s Place

Safety Net Project, Wilmer Hale Legal Services Center, Harvard Law School

SEIU Local 509

Strategies for Children

The House of the Seven Gables Settlement Association

The Neighbourhood Developers (TND)

Unitarian Universalist Massachusetts Action Network (UUMassAction)

United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 2322

The Welcome Project 

Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice and the Environment

Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts

Women’s Institute for Leadership Development (WILD)

[1] Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, et al. v. Bessent, et al., 1:25-cv-00677 (D.D.C.)This case was filed by Public Citizen before the Treasury-DHS Memorandum of Understanding, based on reporting of imminent disclosure of the information of tax filers using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). As part of the litigation, the MOU, partially redacted, was made public confirming that a much wider target group of taxpayers is at risk. On May 12 the Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction.

MA Senate FY 2026 Budget: What Votes Occurred on Record?

On Thursday, the MA Senate wrapped up debate on its FY 2026 budget proposal. You can read an overview of the investments in the budget here.

1,058 amendments were filed to the initial Ways & Means proposal. Of those, 493 were adopted, 371 were rejected, and 194 were withdrawn without discussion or debate.

Only 21 of the 1,058 amendments received a roll call (recorded yes/no) vote. Two-thirds (14 of the 21) were unanimous, offering no accountability but just an easy press release for a lead sponsor.

Several of the amendments were rejected on a 34-5 party line vote:

  • 34-5 against an amendment from Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to worsen our housing crisis by making it easier for cities and towns to evade MBTA Communities Act compliance (Amendment #13, Roll Call #43)
  • 34-5 against an amendment from Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to create a commission stacked with anti-tax and business groups to study unemployment insurance cost increases attributable to the disallowed use of federal COVID-19 relief funds for unemployment claims, and the resulting settlement agreement between the commonwealth and the federal government (Amendment #96, Roll Call #44)
  • 34-5 against an amendment from Sen. Bruce Tar (R-Gloucester) to redirect excess capital gains tax revenue to the rainy day fund away from the state’s pension liability fund (Amendment #263, Roll Call #45)
  • 34-5 against an amendment from Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to raise the estate tax threshold to $3 million and drain vital revenue from the Commonwealth to redistribute wealth upwards (Amendment #756, Roll Call #47)

The Senate also voted 30 to 9 against an amendment from Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to block the transition to zero-emissions vehicles and scapegoat climate and energy efficiency regulations for higher energy prices (Amendment #373, Roll Call #46). Joining the 5 Republicans were Senators Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn).

The Senate voted 34 to 5 in support of an amendment from Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington) to enable the Health Policy Commission to cap certain prescription drug prices. (Amendment #541, Roll Call #33). It was party line except for Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) voting no and Sen. Patrick O’Connor (D-Weymouth) voting yes.

Progressive Groups Call Out Beacon Hill Inaction in Trump’s First 100 Days

The Honorable Speaker Ron Mariano

24 Beacon St.

Room 356

Boston, MA, 02133

The HonorableSenate President Karen Spilka

24 Beacon St.

Room 332

Boston, MA, 02133

Wednesday, May 14, 2025 

Hon. Speaker Ron Mariano and Hon. President Karen Spilka,

Two weeks ago marked the 100th day of Donald Trump’s second presidential term. These hundred days have been marked by an incessant barrage of chaos, cruelty, and corruption. We have seen consistent threats to Massachusetts—to essential social programs; to efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion; to our ability to keep our residents safe; to our efforts to tackle the climate crisis; to the scientific research that powers our regional economy; to people’s constitutional rights of free speech, including abductions of MA residents. We have seen an undermining of the basic rule of law that has pushed us into a constitutional crisis as well as a global trade war that will cause economic harm to our Commonwealth. We have seen the exacerbation of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and antisemitism–the list goes on–in rhetoric and policy. We need not recount every such harmful action taken and its impact on Massachusetts because you know them too well. 

But what is less known is how you will choose to respond. Indeed, 100 days into Trump’s presidency and 17 weeks into the 194th session of the General Court, only two bills had been signed into law: (1) a supplemental budget that included harmful restrictions on the access to emergency shelter for families with children and (2) another temporary extension of the ability of state and local bodies to hold hybrid and virtual meetings. That has not grown in the subsequent weeks. 

Although grappling with the full scale of present and future crisis from the federal administration is daunting, it is incumbent upon you to respond and to meet the moment as best you can. 

While you focus on planning for what’s to come, there are steps that we can take now, steps that have already been vetted in hearings in past legislative sessions:  

  • Guarantee that Massachusetts resources are used for state priorities, not federal immigration enforcement, by ending the state Department of Corrections’ 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), banning future 287(g) agreements, and ending intergovernmental service agreements
  • Protect access to courts by prohibiting police and court officials from initiating contact with ICE about a person’s pending release from police or court custody
  • Embrace the best practices already in place in cities and towns by ensuring that state and local police will not inquire about immigration status will not inquire about immigration status or engage in civil immigration enforcement related activities
  • Ensure the safety and well-being of the residents of the Commonwealth and those traveling from other states for reproductive care by shoring up privacy rights and banning the purchase and sale of personal cell phone location data
  • Strengthen our state’s shield law for reproductive and gender–affirming care

All of these are bills you can, and must, pass now. We must be proactive in our policymaking, not wait until the crisis reaches its apex before responding. 

Moreover, as we have already faced lost federal funding and face even more later this year, with expected harm to our public schools, our health care, our safety net programs, our infrastructure, and so much more, we urge you to present a plan for the public for how you will protect our essential services. Now is not the time for cuts. We can and must raise revenue to fund our needs, and there are many such options available, most notably by closing tax loopholes that allow billionaire global corporations to dodge taxes by hiding their profits in tax havens abroad. We must also not be afraid to tap into the state’s rainy day fund when the torrential downpour comes. 

To ensure the efficient and responsive legislative process that this work requires, we urge you to prioritize coming to an agreement on the Joint Rules for the legislative session. Both chambers proposed valuable reforms to make the legislature more open, accountable, and timely. Clarity on rules is essential for the work ahead: inertia thrives under uncertainty. 

We appreciate the words you have spoken in the past months to criticize the harm being done by the federal administration. What the Commonwealth needs now is your actions. 

Sincerely, 

350 Mass 

Act on Mass 

Asian American Resource Workshop 

Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network – Massachusetts

Chinese Progressive Association 

Clean Water Action 

Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc.

Families for Justice as Healing  

Homes for All Massachusetts 

Indivisible Mass Coalition 

Lynn United for Change 

Massachusetts Peace Action 

New England Community Project

Our Revolution Massachusetts 

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts

Progressive Massachusetts

Springfield No One Leaves 

Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

Video Recording & Follow-up Links: “DC Attacks, MA Fights Back: Protecting Health Care from the Broligarchy”

Hi everyone,

Thank you for joining us on Wednesday for the forum “DC Attacks, MA Fights Back: Protecting Health Care from the Broligarchy“! You can watch the recording here: https://youtu.be/s4HjwdaktFI. Thank you again to our amazing speakers!

Slide Decks

Jamie Willmuth’s Slide Deck on the Impact of Medicaid Cuts on Providers and the Workforce

Alex Sheff’s Slide Deck on the Impact of Medicaid Cuts on Health Care Access

Crisayda Belén’s Slide Deck on Corporate Fair Share

Actions You Can Take

Become a Phonebanking Volunteer to Protect Medicaid

Contact Your State Legislators in support of Corporate Fair Share

Join the Mass-Care 30th anniversary conference next month.

Join Progressive Mass’s State House Lobby Day on 5/28.

Thanks!

Jonathan

Our Response to “Response 2025”

Our statement on the MA State Senate’s “Response 2025”:

For months, Massachusetts voters have wanted to see our elected officials to be bolder and more proactive in protecting our Commonwealth from the chaos, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration. Back in December, we joined dozens of organizations in calling on the Legislature to start this work early. We are now at the start of the fourth month of the year and are 10 weeks into Trump’s second administration. Why is it only now that Senate Democrats feel the need to announce that they are thinking about how to respond to the disasters in Washington?

Somehow, the Senate’s announced response is more comical and more underwhelming than creating a new committee: they held a press conference to let the public know that an existing committee is going to do the work that it should have already been doing.

Until a few days ago, when the Legislature temporarily extended hybrid meeting access for public meetings again, the only bill that the Legislature had passed this session was to kick unhoused families out of shelter. Let’s just hope that their announced intention to take threats seriously is not another April fool’s joke.

Massachusetts voters want to hear real answers from Beacon Hill: how we will protect our essential services amidst looming budget cuts, how we will protect marginalized communities, how we will protect civil liberties and our democracy, how we will show a real governing alternative.”

Happy Sunshine Week! ☀️ Let’s Talk about Transparency

Happy Sunshine Week!

Sunshine Week is a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government, and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government.

Sunshine Week celebrates a radical concept: that you deserve to know what your elected officials are doing.

In other words, what could be a better week to talk about the push for State House Transparency and our Scorecard Website?

Tomorrow, the three state representatives and three state senators who will negotiate a final set of Joint Rules for the legislative session will meet for the first time. There’s a lot at stake (they haven’t come to a deal in several sessions), including whether committee votes and testimony will finally be posted, whether we will see more timely advancement of legislation, and much more. Read on for what you can do to take action.

And *drumroll please* our Scorecard Website is now up to date with full data from last session as well as co-sponsorship data from this session. Want to know if your legislators are co-sponsoring the bills on our Legislative Agenda. We’ve got you covered.

The Fight for State House Transparency Continues

In February, both the House and Senate adopted a series of transparency reforms to make a more open, inclusive, and timely legislative process. They did not go as far as they could have, but the fact that they went as far as they did was only possible because of people like you who emailed, called, and met with your legislators.

But the fight isn’t over yet. The House and Senate have to negotiate the differences between their respective proposals for Joint Rules.

A six-person conference committee was just appointed to oversee these negotiations:

  • Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton)
  • Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem)
  • Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton)
  • Rep. Mike Moran (D-Brighton)
  • Rep. Bill Galvin (D-Canton)
  • Rep. David Muradian (R-Grafton)

In recent sessions, these conference committees have stalemated. But this session can and must be different. Legislators have felt the pressure from the public that voters across the commonwealth want to see these changes. Let’s keep up the momentum, get this done, and then get to the important work across so many urgent issues facing the Commonwealth.

We recently sent a letter with Act on Mass and Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts in support of critical transparency reforms. Now it’s your turn:

Email Your State Legislators

Email the Conference Committee

Last Session’s Votes…And This Session’s Co-Sponsorships

Our scorecard website is now up to date with our full data from the 2023-2024 legislative session.

The most striking thing about last session’s recorded votes in the State House? How few of them there were.

Last session saw only 203 votes in the MA House and 252 in the MA Senate, each approximately 50% below average and part of an ongoing decline. That’s bad for accountability. When all of the discussion and debate happens behind closed doors, voters are less aware of where their legislators really stand.

And not each of these recorded votes will be worth scoring: many are low-stakes votes where everyone agrees.

To account for the scarcity of votes last session—especially ones that were beyond unanimous or party-line—we included a few additional data points:

  • Whether your state legislators are visiting prisons and jails to serve as a force for accountability in the conditions there
  • Whether your legislators are holding office hours and town halls to engage constituents
  • Whether your legislators are co-sponsoring the bills that we are tracking on our Scorecard website

For the first two, we did our best to reach out to legislative offices to get information. If we’re missing something, just let us know.

But headed into the new session, our Scorecard website also has other important information: Co-Sponsorship. We’ll be tracking which legislators are co-sponsoring the bills on our Legislative Agenda. That’s a critical tool for you to be able to apply effective pressure — as well as to give credit to the legislators who are fighting the good fight.

Take a look, explore, and take action!

Statement on Passage of House and Senate Rules

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have embraced reforms in the Joint Rules that will promote transparency, accountability, and (we hope) timeliness. Although more steps should be taken in the future to guarantee that the public’s work is done in public view, both chambers supported measures to expand access to information and to mitigate the end-of-session bottleneck, changes that resulted from a clear public message that voters demand better from the Legislature. We urge both chambers to come to a swift and comprehensive compromise for Joint Rules for the Session. It has been too long since both chambers agreed on a set of rules, and the legislative process has suffered because of that.

As we approach the month of March with still no committees formed and no bills being heard, we stand out in the country in our legislative delays. There is so much work that needs to get done to be proactive against the threats coming from the Donald Trump – Elon Musk administration, and further delay puts our Commonwealth at risk.

While we eagerly await the finalization of Joint Rules, we recognize that rules are only one element of the legislative process. For our Legislature to truly deliver for everyday people, we need cultural changes throughout the chamber. May new rules be a first step toward that.”

The House and Senate Have Both Adopted New Rules for Themselves. What’s New?

The MA House and Senate have both passed their respective proposals for the Joint Rules, which we discuss here. But both also passed reforms to their own chamber’s rules as well. Let’s explore.

(Want to see the exact text changes? Read here.)

The Senate’s New Rules

  • Making Testimony Public: Regardless of what is agreed to in the Joint Rules, the Senate plans to make testimony submitted to its committees as well as joint committees public, with appropriate redactions for sensitive information. The Senate’s rules previously only addressed testimony for Senate-only committees, and such testimony would only be available upon request.
  • Committee Votes: Senators already make their votes public in Senate-only committees (Ways & Means being the committee with the most of such votes); however, the Senate now plans to publish its members votes in Joint Committees as well. However, the Senate removed the language stipulating the timeliness in which said votes should be published.
  • Summaries of Bills Voted On in Committee: The Senate also plans to make public the summaries of all bills voted on by Senate committees. These summaries often already exist, but for members only.

The House’s New Rules

  • Attendance Records and Requirements: The House will record and publish attendance of committee members at House committee hearings and require in-person attendance from all members, not just the chair.
  • Committee Votes: The House previously only required the reporting of the tallies from committee votes along with the names of those voting no. The new House rules would require all committee members’ votes be recorded and would eliminate the stipulation that committee votes only happen by request of someone at in-person committee meeting (such meetings almost never happen).
  • Reporting Deadline: The House rules include the language around an earlier reporting deadline and rolling deadlines following hearings that the House voted on for the Joint Rules.

New Rules: How Far Did Each Chamber Go in Promoting Transparency?

The 194th session of the Massachusetts General Court began with both Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano promising to take up rules reforms in the service of a more accountable, transparent, and efficient legislative process.

It was clear that this was a direct result of years of advocacy from activists who understood that good process and good outcomes go hand in hand (including a broad coalition push at the start of this session to shape the outcome), the wide margin that Question 1 achieved statewide and in every city/town, and the increased media coverage of State House dysfunction.

What are the rules, and why should you care? Legislative rules govern things like who has access to what information, when things need to happen, what happens in the open vs. behind closed doors, and much more. We know from years of following the Legislature that the mega-rich and large corporations can always get behind closed doors, but we, the people, can’t. And such top-down, non-transparent legislating tips the scales away from working people, from marginalized communities, and from the public interest in general.

The Senate passed its proposed changes to the Joint Rules (joint = House and Senate acting together) and its own chamber rules earlier this month. The House did today.

For each chamber, the rules they adopt for themselves (House rules, Senate rules) are now done. But the rules governing them acting together still need further negotiations. When House and Senate differ, they must go to a conference committee to negotiate a compromise. And they haven’t succeeded at this for the Joint Rules for several sessions. With both chambers proposing important reforms, we need to make sure that this session is different.

So what reforms are at stake? Let’s go through them below. (Want to see the text for each? Check out our deeper dive here.)

House vs. Senate: Drafter of Bill Summaries 

The House and Senate both propose requiring bill summaries for every bill in advance of a hearing, but the House wants committee staff to draft the summaries whereas the Senate wants the lead sponsors to. 

House vs. Senate: Hybrid Hearings & In-Person Privileges 

The House and Senate both continue the practice of hybrid hearings, but the House wants to require in-person attendance for committee members and privilege in-person public testimony over that delivered virtually. 

House vs. Senate: Hearing Notice 

The Senate’s proposal would increase the required hearing notice to 5 days as opposed to the current 72 hours, which the House would like to keep. 

House vs. Senate: Making Testimony Public 

Both House and Senate proposals take steps toward making testimony public. The Senate’s proposal intends for testimony to be published on the Legislature’s website, whereas the House proposal is unclear about whether relevant testimony would be published or available upon request. In both cases, there is an acknowledgement that testimony with sensitive information would be redacted. Notably, in the Senate’s own chamber rules, the Senate has expressed an intent to publish testimony regardless of what is decided in the Joint Rules.

House vs. Senate: Committee Votes 

Both the House and Senate proposals endorse the concept of publishing committee votes, provided that the House language does not maintain a distinction between “roll call votes” and “electronic polls.” The House proposal would require that members be provided with redlined versions of the bill prior to a vote, with that markup made publicly available (whether posted or available upon request, though, is unclear). Notably, in the Senate’s own chamber rules, the Senate has expressed an intent to publish its own members’ votes regardless of what is decided in the Joint Rules.

House vs. Senate: Reporting Deadlines 

Both chambers would like to see the reporting deadline for bills moved up from the first Wednesday in February to a date in December: the first Wednesday for the Senate and the third Wednesday for the House. 

The House proposal includes a rolling reporting deadline, with committees required to take action within 60 days of a hearing, with the possibility of a 30-day subsequent extension (and longer with unanimous consent), but not past the third Wednesday in March. 

The Senate proposal would mark bills receiving no action as being given an adverse report; the House proposal would mark them as being sent to study. 

House vs. Senate: Conclusion of Session

Both chambers’ proposals would extend the Legislature’s ability to take votes after the July 31 end date for the formal legislative session. 

Nearly Identical Changes Made in Both 

New in Both: Chamber Privilege over Chamber Bills 

New text in both chambers’ proposals would give greater Senate control over Senate bills and greater House control over House bills. 

No Corresponding Language In Other Chamber’s Proposal 

House (only): Attendance Reports 

The House’s proposed joint rules require a record of attendance at committee hearings, to be published online. 

House (only): Detailed Conference Reports

The House’s proposed joint rules require conference reports to lay out the areas of disagreement and what each chamber fought for. 

Senate (only): Open Conference Committee Meetings 

The Senate proposal guarantees that the first meeting of a conference committee will be fully public. 

Senate (only): Indigenous Leaders

The Senate proposal would require that leaders of Indigenous communities be afforded the same privileges in speaking order as other public officials. 

Senate (only): Time Before Voting on Conference Reports 

The current rules, as reflected in the House language for Joint Rules, state that a conference committee can file a report at 8 pm and vote on it as early as 1 pm the next day. The Senate would require at least one full day in between.

The MA Senate’s Got New (Draft) Rules. Let’s Count ‘Em.

When the new legislative session kicked off on January 1, Sen. President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) expressed interest in taking up a suite of transparency reforms to “build upon the Senate’s commitment to an open and transparent process of legislating.”

The talk about transparency and legislative process reform from both Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano seemed to be a result of the overwhelming public support for Question 1 last year (i.e., the Auditor’s ballot question about auditing the Legislature) and of the negative press the Legislature got for not finishing on time. In response, a group of 30 organizations called on the House and Senate to adopt a robust package of pro-transparency, pro-democracy, pro-participation reforms.

Yesterday (Thursday, February 6), the Senate released its rules proposals for the 2025-2026 session. These rules both include and build upon past proposals from the Senate.

The Senate, for example, has supported making committee votes and testimony public since 2019. Following the 2016 update to the public records law, the House and Senate established a commission studying whether the Legislature and Governor should remain fully exempt from public records law. The commission dissolved with no agreement, but the Senate members of the commission released their own proposals, including these measures.

However, the new rules attempt to bypass the intransigence from the House by requiring that the votes Senators take in joint committees, such as whether or not to advance a bill out of committee, be posted online. The Senate already does this for Senate-only committees. The Senate’s proposed rules would also require that written or in-person testimony received by Senate members of a joint committee be provided publicly online, with an email or online portal established to facilitate this.

The Senate’s proposed rules would also direct the Senate Ways and Means Committee to make bill summaries available online for legislation reported favorably out of the committee. This makes a useful resource already available to all senators available to everyone. Legislative language is often inscrutable given the jargon involved with changing the Massachusetts General Laws, and bill summaries help regular people get a better sense of what is happening in the legislative process.

The Senate also proposed several changes to the joint rules (i.e., the rules that govern House-Senate committees):

  • Joint Hearings But Not Joint Votes: There has been buzz in recent weeks about whether or not joint committees would end up splitting into separate House and Senate committees with separate hearings, etc. The Senate’s proposal keeps joint hearings (saving advocates and the public the labor of having to attend twice as many hearings) but allows for Senate members to vote on Senate bills and House members to vote on House bills. As the House outnumbers the Senate in joint committees, House opposition can lead to committee stalemates or otherwise slow bills that Senators wish to advance.
  • Increased Hearing Notice: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would guarantee five days (one business week) of notice before a hearing as opposed to the current 72 hours. We have advocated for a two-week notice (given how many people need that much lead time to take time off work), but this is still an improvement and is something the Senate has advocated for in the past.
  • An Earlier Reporting Deadline: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require joint committees to report bills out by the first Wednesday in December of the first year of a session as opposed to the current February. This would allow for year one to focus on hearing bills and year two to focus on passing them, pushing back on backlogs and bottlenecks.
  • Open Conference Committee Meetings: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require the full first meeting of a conference committee to be open to the public and the media. This would bring more transparency to the process and create a better sense of what each chamber is fighting for, although all of the meetings should be public — not just the first.
  • Conference Committee Report Time: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require a full calendar day between when a conference committee report is filed and when the report is acted upon to allow legislators and members of the public more time to review legislation before votes are taken. Currently, they can vote just a few hours after text is released, all but guaranteeing that few people will have read it.
  • Bill Summaries in Joint Committees: The Senate’s proposed joint rules would require bill sponsors to submit comprehensive bill summaries to the joint committees holding hearings on the legislation, to be made publicly available with the bill. This helps members of the public, the press, and the rank-and-file better understand what proposed bills would do.

These changes would all make a more transparent, inclusive, and informed legislative process. However, one other change would normalize recent bad habits. The Senate’s proposed joint rules would allow for conference reports (the compromise text negotiated by the House and Senate when they differ on a bill) to be filed and debated after the July 31st deadline for formal session. This allows for more work to be pushed after election season and after legislators are regularly meeting, meaning less input and less accountability.