Did Your State Rep Vote to Save Mass Save?

As we wrote yesterday, MA House Democrats were preparing to gut the state’s energy efficiency program Mass Save, scapegoating it for rising utility bills while doing nothing to prevent the gas infrastructure expansion that is really behind the increase.

Energy efficiency investments are the quintessential win-win: they save residents money, they create jobs in weatherization, and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But when state representatives had the opportunity to restore the $1 billion in cuts to Mass Save yesterday, only 17 of them voted yes (see the recorded vote below). That’s right: only 17.

If you’re happy with how your state rep voted, you should thank them​. If you aren’t happy with how your state rep voted, make sure they know about it​.

State representatives are defending their cuts to Mass Save by saying they are just cutting a marketing budget. But let’s be clear: these cuts go far deeper than that, and marketing is how Mass Save ensures that its programs can actually reach equity goals and deliver real savings to working-class, POC, and immigrant communities across the commonwealth.

The House voted 128 to 27 to pass the underlying energy bill (H.5151). Every Republican voted no, and progressive Democrats Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) and Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voted no in protest of the bill’s deep cuts to the Mass Save energy efficiency program.

There are good things in the bill to expand solar, wind, and geothermal and to rein in predatory third-party electricity suppliers. And it’s a win that the House is no longer trying to eliminate the state’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets.

But here’s the problem: if we gut energy efficiency programs, we are setting ourselves up to miss these targets by even more, and we are already far behind. Targets need to be matched with action. Make sure your state senator​ knows you want bolder action than what the House passed. 

More Solar, But Little Sunshine

The process around the bill was illustrative of Beacon Hill’s top-down, closed modus operandi.

The bill was only released to representatives and the public on Tuesday. Members of the Ways and Means Committee didn’t even have a full hour to read a 100+ page bill before casting a vote. Representatives had to then scramble to file amendments, which were due the next day, followed by a vote yesterday (Thursday).

How many people actually read the bill? Your guess is as good as mine.

In the lead-up to the vote, representatives filed a total of 126 amendments, but very few received any actual public discussion.

3 amendments were withdrawn, and 3 were rejected via a voice vote. (For one of those voice votes, the amendment’s filer asked for a roll call vote, but not enough people stood to allow it.)

11 amendments received recorded votes requested by Republicans, and 1 amendment (the Mass Save amendment shown above, filed by Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven) received a recorded vote requested by a Democrat.

The remaining 108 amendments were fed into the sausage-making machine known as the “Consolidated Amendment” process. In this process, House Leadership gathers together amendments, sets them all aside, and then picks from their carcasses what, if anything, they want to include in the bill. By virtue of this process, 108 amendments were grouped into 3, with little of their original text still standing.

The 11 aforementioned Republican amendments were rightfully rejected, on party line or almost party line votes.

  • Amendment #7, which would make the state’s 2030 emissions targets non-binding, as the House’s original energy bill tried to do 
  • Amendment #8, which would require the state to expand gas pipeline infrastructure 
  • Amendment #13, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #21, which would create bureaucratic hurdles for renewable energy generation (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #24, which seems to be an attempt to allow bootlegged propane  (Rep. Dave Robertson of Tewskbury joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #38, which would strike the increased solar and wind procurement targets 
  • Amendment #46, which would decrease the yearly Renewable Portfolio Standard (i.e., % of renewables that utilities must supply) increase from 3% to 1% indefinitely (The House’s original energy bill wanted to do this through 2022; the new bill made no changes) 
  • Amendment #78, which would ban stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards for five years (Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut joined Republicans) 
  • Amendment #101, which would outsource our clean energy and climate policies to corporate lobby groups 
  • Amendment #105, which would eliminate critical funding for energy efficiency, clean energy, distributed solar, and low-income heating assistance 
  • Amendment #109, which would eliminate minimum renewable energy standards for electric suppliers

MA Senate Embraces Paternalism and Pettiness in Rejecting Boston Home Rule Petition

On Thursday, the MA Senate decided to take a victory lap for passing a series of bills that will drain municipalities of much-needed revenue in light of what could be a bleak state budget and amidst federal sabotage.

Although the bills were not fully ill-intentioned, the efforts to provide opportunities for relief from property taxes run into a problem: if there is no ability to raise the revenue from elsewhere, than cities and towns simply lose revenue. Cities and towns should want to create more progressive tax codes, and rather than allowing targeted property tax relief combined with way new progressive revenue opportunities, the State Senate again signaled its hostility to a proposal from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu to shift some of the residential property tax share to the commercial real estate industry.

Her proposal would have blunted property tax increases for residential homeowners and decreased tax cuts for skyscrapers. However, the State Senate has decided that it knows what is better for Boston than the Mayor, the City Council, and the House of Representatives, voting 33 to 5 against the proposal. It answers “Whose side are you on?” quite clearly.

The home rule process in Massachusetts is broken, and cities and towns deserve more flexibility, not being prevented from raising necessary revenue by archaic strictures or the misguided and outdated “Prop 2 1/2” law.

Senate Votes 35-3 to Combat Politically Motivated Book Banning

The Senate voted 35-3 to address the rise of politically motivated book bans. The bill — An Act regarding free expression — creates clear guidelines for how schools and libraries decide which books to make available, and how local leaders determine whether a book is appropriate or should be removed from the shelf. 

The bill recognizes that teachers and librarians are trusted experts and should be treated as such and that personal, political, and doctrinal views should not be governing which books are allowed to be on the shelf.

Local school districts and municipal public libraries would have the flexibility to craft their own policies that align with state protocols and the standards of the American Library Association. For school libraries, an appropriate process for considering whether to remove a book would include assurance that a challenged book remains available to library patrons while the process plays out, guarding against frivolous or unfounded complaints. 

The bill also protects librarians and school employees from retaliation over their selection of library books and requires tracking of book challenges statewide to monitor the issue.

Voting NO were Republicans Kelly Dooner (R-Taunton), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

During floor debate, the Senate voted unanimously (37-0) for Sen. Cindy Creem’s amendment to grant authors the right to challenge the removal of their works from schools and libraries

Several Republican amendments rightfully failed:

  • 6-32 on Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s typo-ridden amendment to increase bureaucracy for schools and libraries. Note also that this amendment’s requirement of notification of “at least two parents or guardians” for every student is a disappointing demonization of single parents. Democrat Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) joined the five Republicans in voting for it.
  • 7-30 on Sen. Peter Durant (R-Spencer)’s amendment to increase the administrative burden on school committees facing book challenges. Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Michael Moore (D-Millbury) joined Republicans.
  • 5-32 on Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment to make it more difficult to challenge book bans and again 5-32 on his amendment to increase the administrative burden on school committees

MA Senate Passes Strong Data Privacy Protections

Earlier today, the MA Senate voted 40 to 0 to pass the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which would — among other steps — ban the sale of sensitive data (including location data) and impose meaningful data minimization on companies harvesting our personal information. You can read the MA Senate’s fact sheet here.

During debate, the Senate passed two amendments that we, along with groups in the Location Shield Act, had advocated for:

  • Amendment 4, which extends the ban on sales of geolocation data to cover anyone who visits Massachusetts for any reason, including travel to the state to pursue personal health care.
  • Amendment 52, which ensures that businesses cannot sell sensitive data, regardless of whether they are otherwise exempt under the act.

The bill now moves to the House. 99 state representatives have co-sponsored the bill, but pressure will be needed to get past the Legislature’s characteristic inertia.

House Passes Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care Shield Law 136 to 23

Yesterday, the MA House joined the MA Senate in voting to strengthen the state’s shield law that protects the right to abortion care and gender-affirming care.

The bill would shield law by prohibiting the Department of Public Health from collecting or disseminating personally identifiable data related to reproductive and gender-affirming care in MA, prohibiting tech service providers, CHIA, and the Health Connector from providing documentation to other states regarding such services, establishing state-level EMTALA protections for emergency abortion care, allowing providers critical anonymity by using their practice name on prescription labels for reproductive and gender-affirming health care medicines, ensuring clinicians and lawyers are protected from professional discipline related to hostile litigation, and more.

The bill passed 136 to 23.

20 of the 23 NO votes came from Republicans. They were joined by Democrats Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop).

Joining Democrats in voting yes were Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading), First Assistant Minority Leader Kimberly Ferguson (R-Holden), Third Assistant Minority Leader David Vieira (R-Falmouth), Hannah Kane (R-Shrewsbury), Donald Wong (R-Saugus), and unaffiliated Susannah Whipps (U-Athol).

The House rejected an amendment from Rep. Michael Soter (R-Bellingham) 129 to 30. The amendment would have extended the same shield protections to parents seeking to block access to reproductive and gender-affirming care for their minor children.

Joining Republicans again were Garry, Silvia, and Turco; also voting with Republicans were Francisco Paulino (D-Lawrence) and Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury). Whipps joined Democrats in voting against it.

The House voted 130 to 26 for an amendment from Rep. Meg Kilcoyne (D-Clinton) with technical changes to the bill to ensure that the electronic medical records segmentation provision can be fully realized and operational without impacting clinical care within the Commonwealth and while preserving the intent of protecting patient privacy from harmful out-of-state actors.

Garry, Paulino, Silvia, and Turco again joined Republicans, and Whipps joined Democrats.

MA Senate Passes Shield Law 37-3

Yesterday, the MA Senate voted 37 to 3 to strengthen the state’s shield law that protects the right to abortion care and gender-affirming care.

This bill would expand the state’s telehealth shield law by prohibiting all state actors from cooperating with any out-of-state hostile litigation, establishing state-level EMTALA protections for emergency abortion care, allowing providers critical anonymity by using their practice name on prescription labels for reproductive and gender-affirming health care medicines, and ensuring all clinicians and lawyers are protected from professional discipline related to hostile litigation, and more.

The 3 NO votes were from Republicans Kelly Dooner (R-Taunton), Peter Durant (R-Durant), and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

House Rightly Rejects Harmful Republican Budget Amendments, Has Little Other Debate

Yesterday, the MA House voted to pass its FY 2026 budget proposal 151 to 6, with the only dissent from the most conservative Republicans.

In the preceding debate, state representatives filed 1,650 amendments to the budget. However, few of them received meaningful discussion or debate, let alone adoption.

The House uses a process known as “consolidation,” by which amendments in a subject area are gathered together, tossed aside, and replaced with a series of earmarks or other preferred text from Leadership. Only rarely are any of such amendments actually included in that package. 1,572 amendments were consolidated into a set of seven such amendments.

Of the remaining amendments, 54 amendments were withdrawn, 22 were rejected, and 2 were laid aside on a point of order.

Republicans demanded several recorded votes, and their harmful amendments were defeated in mostly party line votes. Of note among the recorded votes:

❌VOTED DOWN: 128 to 26 against a Republican effort to defund and undermine No Cost Calls (Roll Call 34, Amdt 616). Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) joined Republicans in voting for it.

❌ VOTED DOWN: 129 to 26 against a Republican amendment to seek a ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court on the constitutionality of 40B (Roll Call 35, Amdt 1643). Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) joined Republicans in voting for it.

❌ VOTED DOWN: 130 to 25 against a Republican effort to undermine public safety by enabling state and local law enforcement to conduct ICE detainers (Roll Call 36, Amdt 554).

❌ VOTED DOWN: 129 to 27 against a Republican effort to impose xenophobic restrictions on emergency shelter access (Roll Call 37, Amdt 417). Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) joined Republicans.

❌ VOTED DOWN: 128 to 27 against a Republican effort to undermine enforcement of the MBTA Communities Act (Roll Call 38, Amdt 606). Rep. Jenny Armini (D-Marblehead), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) joined Republicans.

❌ VOTED DOWN: 126 to 30 against a Republican effort to delay the implementation of the MBTA Communities Act (Roll Call 39, Amdt 411). Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Dennis Gallagher (D-Bridgewater), Rep. Steve Ouellette (D-Westport), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Richard Wells (D-Milton) joined Republicans.

❌ VOTED DOWN: 136 to 21 against a Republican amendment to make the state’s greenhouse gas emissions targets non-binding (Roll Call 45, Amdt 404). Rep. Kim Ferguson (R-Holden), Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading), Rep. Hannah Kane (R-Shrewsbury), and Rep. Donald Wong (R-Saugus) joined Democrats.

Senate Passes Proposal for Joint Rules. Next Up: The House.

On Wednesday and Thursday,, the State Senate debated and then passed their proposed Joint Rules for the session as well as their own chamber rules. Read about their rules changes here.

29 amendments were filed to the Joint Rules proposal in the debate:

  • 15 were rejected without a vote.
  • 4 were adopted without a vote.
  • 3 were withdrawn.

Seven amendments received a recorded vote.

  • 5 to 33 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to reduce the maximum number of bills per hearing from 50 to 30. The 5 were the Republican caucus.
  • 5 to 33 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to require at least 48 hours between the filing of a conference committee report (i.e., a compromise bill negotiated between House and Senate to resolve differences) and voting on it. The 5 were the Republican caucus.
  • 6 to 32 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to allow for minority conference committee reports to be filed (i.e., those who disagree with the consensus bill can present an alternative). Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) joined the 5 Republicans.
  • 6 to 32 for an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to prevent conference committee reports from being considered if filed within the last 72 hours of the session. Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) joined the 5 Republicans.
  • 6 to 32 for an amendment from Senator John Keenan (D-Quincy) to limit the ability of committees to grant extensions to bills past the reporting deadline. Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) and the 5 Republicans voted in support
  • 9 to 29 for an amendment from Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) to require every conference report to receive a recorded vote. Senators Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), John Keenan (D-Quincy), Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham) joined the 5 Republicans.
  • 38 to 0 for an amendment from Sen. John Keenan (D-Quincy) to extend the ban on members’ selling stocks related to legislation to cover purchases and activity by family members and staff

The House will be taking up their own joint rules package after school vacation week.

MA Senate Votes to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA Senate this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

Following the House’s vote last week, the Senate voted 33 to 6 to pass the bill. As in the House, the only Democrat to vote NO was a conservative Democrat (here, John Velis of Westfield) joining Republicans in opposition to spending, no in opposition to access.

68 amendments were filed:

  • 1 was laid aside
  • 7 received recorded votes (2 adopted, 5 rejected)
  • 11 were withdrawn without vote or debate
  • 11 were adopted without a vote (mostly on data collection and reporting)
  • 38 were rejected without a vote or debate (including numerous amendments to restore access)

The two adopted with recorded votes, both by Sen. Michael Moore (D-Auburn), were both unanimously approved:

  • 38 to 0 to require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) to study the feasibility of conducting a National Crime Information Center background check for each adult applicant or beneficiary placed in the emergency housing assistance program, including logistics and cost.
  • 38 to 0 to require EOHLC to develop a statewide safety plan for the emergency shelter system

Four out of the five rejected amendments were from Republicans:

  • 8 to 30 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals whose cause of homelessness occurred in Massachusetts, thereby excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 12 to 26 to increase the cost of the system and administrative burden for those seeking emergency shelter, further restricting access, through requiring universal background checks when the bill already contains language to look into what that would entail. The purpose of the amendment was not safety, but demonizing immigrants and the unhoused to advance a right-wing agenda. 7 Democrats joined the 5 Republicans: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

  • 6 to 32 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year, excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 6 to 32 to require an investigation into security lapses in the emergency shelter system, something that would just become an opportunity for fear-mongering and not actual solutions. Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

The Senate also voted down (10 to 28) an amendment from Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham) to require the inspector to conduct a review and analysis of all contracts, expenditures, and other materials or accountings pertaining to goods or services that have been or should have been provided pursuant to or in connection with the emergency.

The vote was a cross-partisan coalition of the five Republicans, 2 progressive Democrats–Rausch as well as Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), and 3 moderate Democrats–John Keenan (D-Quincy), Edward Kennedy (D-Lowell), and Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford).

MA House Votes Overwhelmingly to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA House this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

The budget supplemental — which contained a $425 million increase in funding to the system combined with cruel restrictions to access — passed 126 to 26, with all but one Democrat voting yes. All of the chamber’s Republicans and Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), the most conservative Democrat, voted no — in opposition to the added funds (not in opposition to the restrictions). It’s a sad statement on the values of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

38 amendments were filed. 20 of them were withdrawn without discussion or debate. 9 of the remaining 18 were rejected or laid aside without recorded votes, and another 9 received recorded votes.

The House adopted four amendments:

  • A unanimous vote for an amendment to require a competitive bidding process (Amendment #9, 152 to 0)
  • A unanimous vote for an amendment to improve data collection (Amendment #15, 152 to 0)
  • A unanimous vote to extend hardship waivers to families where a family member has a documented disability (#24, 152 to 0)
  • A mostly party-line vote to extend hardship waivers to families with children under age six (#27, 127 to 25, Garry voting with Rs)

The House rejected several Republican amendments to make the bill even more cruel:

  • Requiring expensive criminal background checks for any applicant, a way of further taxing the shelter system and demonizing the unhoused (Amendment #6, 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Reducing the funding to $200 million (Amendment #8, 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Requiring a 12-month residency requirement (and thereby excluding new arrivals), 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Limiting shelter access to families who became homeless because of an event in MA (again, excluding new arrivals or even people who have moved around between MA and neighboring states like RI and NH with high degrees of regional integration) (#18, 25 to 127, Rep. Garry with Rs)

The House also laid aside two Republican amendments to require ICE to be allowed in state shelters, a decision that was upheld by a party line vote to sustain the ruling of the chair each time.