Beacon Hill Just Passed a Final Police Reform Bill. Here’s Where You Come In.

Last night, the MA Senate and House passed a consensus version of the police reform bills from the summer. Read our write-up here.

Let’s break down how it went and what’s next.

How Did Your Legislators Vote?

The Senate voted 28 to 12, with 8 conservative Democrats joining the 4 Republicans in voting against it. Note that the Senate had a veto-proof majority.

The House voted 92 to 67, with 35 conservative Democrats joining the 31 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting no. Note that this falls 14 votes shy of a veto-proof majority.

Let your legislators know what you think of their vote!

Thank them if they voted yes — and express your disappointment if they didn’t. Find their contact info here.

So What’s Next?

The Senate, to their credit, had a veto-proof majority, but the House didn’t. So that puts things in Governor Baker’s hands.

Call Charlie Baker at (617) 725-4005 and demand that he sign the bill.

We need to make sure that this passes, but there’s far more work to be done because, as has become clear, new rules, regulations, and reforms — while still helpful — cannot solve the problems in policing and incarceration in this country. We need to rethink what public safety means and move money away from policing and prisons and toward building thriving communities where everyone has the resources and opportunities they need and deserve.

The Senate’s Budget Improves the House’s Language on ROE–But Not Much Else

Last night, the Senate passed its much-belated budget for FY2021. Like the House, the Senate failed to take seriously the need for new revenue, abandons the commitment to fund the commitments made in the Student Opportunity Act, and failed to include emergency paid sick time. COVID-19 is expected to get much worse this winter, and our Legislature just simply isn’t taking it seriously.

The Senate did, however, manage to improve upon the House’s language on a slimmed-down version of the ROE Act.

Like the House’s language, the Senate text would do the following:

  • Expand access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in cases of a lethal fetal diagnosis, allowing pregnant people facing serious medical obstacles to their pregnancy to make the decision that’s best for them in consultation with their doctor and receive care here at home.
  • Allow 16 and 17 year olds to make their own decisions about abortion care without having to go before a judge.
  • Streamline access for those under 16 years old by allowing remote hearings, eliminating the need for young people to travel to a courthouse and stand before a judge.

It also went further than the House version in codifying a prohibition against the Commonwealth interfering with a person’s ability to access abortion care.

Senator Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth) attempted to gut the amendment, leaving only the language about fatal fetal diagnoses. His effort failed, with only four other senators joining him — a vote of 5-35, with the only Democrat voting YES being conservative newcomer John Velis (D-Westfield).

The ROE amendment itself, filed by Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester), passed 33 to 7. Voting against it were the four Republicans — Ryan Fattman (R-Webster), Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth), Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), and Dean Tran (R-Fitchburg)–and three conservative Democrats — Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

Of the amendments voted on (rather than simply withdrawn), two others are worth highlighting.

Senator Diana DiZoglio (D-Methuen) filed an amendment to cap the delivery fees that third parties charge restaurants for delivery. Given the brutal winter that many restaurants face, this is a sensible measure good for restaurant owners, consumers, and workers (who won’t bear the brunt of lost revenue as much). Although there was broad agreement that this was a necessary measure, it failed on a vote of 12 to 27. Why? Since the House already passed it, Senate Leadership wanted to exclude it for the sake of having a bargaining chip. Given how unclear it is that the economic development bill will even come out of conference committee, it’s a questionable move.

The amendment yielded an interesting split. The most reliable progressives — Senators Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Jamaica Plain), Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), and Becca Rausch (D-Needham)–all voted yes. So did some of the more conservative Democrats — Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), James Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) — as well as three out of four Republicans (Fattman, Tarr, Tran).

The second additional amendment of note, filed by Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, contained the text of Governor Charlie Baker’s bill on “dangerousness hearings.” The language in the bill, opposed by civil rights advocates, would significantly expand the list of crimes for which a person can be held pre-trial, permit prosecutors to seek a dangerousness hearing if a defendant has a prior conviction of any of the listed crimes (regardless of the date of that conviction), and relieve a prosecutor who has succeeded in holding a defendant on dangerousness grounds of the obligation to bring the case to trial expeditiously, which will increase the pressure on jailed defendants to enter a plea regardless of their guilt or innocence.

It failed 12 to 27.

“But, wait,” you might say, why, “Why is no vote posted online for this?” In between a roll call vote (where each senator says yea or nay individually) and a voice vote (where no record exists, and the calling of yea’s and nay’s is a mere formality), there exists another option: a standing vote. When legislators have to stand for their position, you can discern how every legislator voted, even if it doesn’t get posted after.

Joining the four Republicans in voting against civil rights were Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), John Keenan (D-Quincy), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Millbury), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), John Velis (D-Westfield), and Jim Welch (D-West Springfield).

The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly of the House Budget

Late last night, the MA House passed a much-delayed budget for FY 2021.

Let’s dive in.

The Good

The House last night voted to pass a slimmed down version of the ROE Act, which — although not as comprehensive as the ROE Act — has been celebrated by reproductive rights advocates as a major step forward.

The amendment, which passed 108 – 49, would do the following:

  • Expand access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in cases of a lethal fetal diagnosis, allowing pregnant people facing serious medical obstacles to their pregnancy to make the decision that’s best for them in consultation with their doctor and receive care here at home.
  • Allow 16 and 17 year olds to make their own decisions about abortion care without having to go before a judge.
  • Streamline access for those under 16 years old by allowing remote hearings, eliminating the need for young people to travel to a courthouse and stand before a judge.

How did your state representative vote? Find out here.

11.12.20 House Vote on ROE

Want to thank them if they were one of the 108 YES votes? You can do so here.

The Bad

If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.

And that requires money.

Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The House budget fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state, especially public transit.

Legislators had a chance on Tuesday to push back against these cuts and vote to raise additional revenue.

Unfortunately, the House voted 127 to 30 against doing so.

In a time when the billionaires in our state keep getting richer, these representatives overwhelmingly voted against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.

Here was the vote.

The Ugly

If you follow the news, you know we’re in store for a dark winter, as COVID-19 case numbers and death tolls are expected to rise.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time. No one who is sick should feel like they have to go to work or else they will lose their job. That’s bad for the economy and bad for public health.

Unfortunately, even though a super-majority of state representatives signed onto a budget amendment to grant two weeks of job-protected emergency paid sick time, the House punted, choosing to leave workers behind again. Emergency paid sick time didn’t even get a vote or a debate.

Want to tell your representative how you feel? Find their information here.

We plan to keep fighting — for better results in the Senate next week and better results in the session next year.

Your State Rep Probably Took a Bad Vote Yesterday. But They Can Take a Good One Tomorrow.

If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.

And that requires money.

Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The budget that it’s currently debating fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state.

Legislators have a choice of whether to invest in an equitable economic recovery or accept a dangerous trajectory that leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Yesterday, 127 state representatives chose the latter, voting against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.

Here was the vote.

You should let your legislator know what you think of their vote. But there’s an opportunity for them to do better.

Your representative may have voted the wrong way yesterday. But they can still take progressive votes if the following amendments are brought to the floor.

Emergency Paid Sick Time 

Urge your state representative to support Amendment #231 — Emergency Paid Sick Time, which would provide ten additional work-days (80 hours) of job-protected emergency paid sick time for immediate use during the COVID-19 outbreak to workers not covered by federal emergency paid sick time protections.

Strengthening Reproductive Rights

Amendment #759 — Improved Access to Health Care would remove medically unnecessary barriers to abortion care. It doesn’t contain everything from the ROE Act, but it contains many vital provisions and would be a significant step forward. Voters have made clear that reproductive health care matters, and with abortion and other health care under threat from an anti-abortion Supreme Court, it’s time for Massachusetts to act.

Massachusetts House Votes Down Proposals to Help Renters, Promote Affordable Housing

When Governor Charlie Baker sent an economic development bill to the MA Legislature, he included his “Housing Choices” legislation, which had been stalled as a standalone bill. The “Housing Choices” bill addresses one aspect of Massachusetts’s affordable housing crisis: the fact that new construction is relatively rare in the suburbs due to the prevalence of single-family zoning. If you can only build one housing unit per lot, it makes it more difficult to respond to a growing population or growing demand. Currently, zoning changes (such as those that would approve multifamily housing construction) require a 2/3 approval from local government. Baker’s bill, which the MA House retained in their economic development package, would lower that to a simple majority.

The need for more supply, though, is just one part of the problem. There is no guarantee that the new supply would be affordable, nor that the new supply would not push up rents for current tenants, thus running the risk of displacement. There isn’t even a guarantee that any new housing will be built at all (it’s a removal of a barrier rather than promise of new construction).

That being said, as an MIT researcher recently noted in CommonWealth Mag, all this means is that we need to think comprehensively when we approach the affordable housing crisis: we do need zoning reform, but we also need stronger protections for existing tenants. Tenant protections will not address the need for supply: only new construction can. Zoning reform will not address displacement: you need tenant protections for that. This was also an essential takeaway of the book Golden Gates by Conor Dougherty on the housing crisis in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, the MA House voted down efforts at striking such a balance.

Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) filed and roll-called three amendments to strike a better balance.

First was his amendment 34, which would have enabled municipalities to impose transfer fees on real estate transactions to fund affordable housing. Cities like Boston, Somerville, and Nantucket have filed home rule petitions in order to be able to do so because state law prohibits them from doing so on their own. To be clear, this amendment would simply allow municipalities to pass their own laws to address the affordable housing crisis–and to craft whatever exemptions to the transfer fee’s application as they see appropriate.

The House voted 130 to 29 against it. 9 state reps endorsed *the very same bill* but voted NO here: Barrett, Driscoll, Garballey, Gonzalez, Keefe, Khan, Livingstone, Miranda, and Santiago.

The only argument put forth against it on the floor was from Rep. Ken Gordon (D-Bedford), who said that there is already enough money for affordable housing (false) and that a transfer fee would hurt low and middle-income homeowners (also false, given the allowance of exemptions).

He also filed and roll-called an amendment that reflected the text of his Tenant Protection Act, which would remove the prohibition on rent control and enable municipalities to pass other tenant protections, such as just cause eviction ordinances or limitations on condo conversions. Again, simply allowing municipalities to pass their own laws in response to the affordable housing crisis.

The House voted 136 to 23 against it. Five legislators who co-sponsored the very same bill voted against the amendment: Devers, Hawkins, LeBoeuf, Miranda, and Santiago.

7.27.20 House Vote on RC

Finally, Connolly filed and roll-called an amendment to lower the threshold for approval of inclusionary zoning ordinances to a simple majority. Inclusionary zoning, i.e., the requirement that a certain percentage of new construction meet an affordability threshold, was not included in the list of zoning changes that would no longer need a supermajority.

Given that many suburbs don’t want to build housing at all, there is likely not a rush to adopt inclusionary zoning, but if a suburb were so forward-thinking, it should be able to.

The House voted 139 to 19 against allowing that. Again, five representatives who co-sponsored *the same bill* voted against it: Gentile, Hawkins, Hendricks, LeBoeuf, and Livingstone.

7.27.20 House Vote on Inclusionary Zoning

MA Senate Votes Down Efforts to Protect In-Person Voting, Streamline Mail Voting

Earlier today, the Massachusetts Senate voted 40 to 0 for a bill to protect our fall elections during the pandemic. 

Like the bill passed by the House, the bill contained a number of important provisions:

  • Sending an application to vote early by mail to every registered voter for both the September 1 primary election and the November 3 general election
  • Ensuring all applications and ballots sent by mail include prepaid return postage
  • Ensuring that ballots postmarked by Election Day will be counted (but for the general election only)
  • Allowing voters to apply to vote by mail through an online portal and enabling any voter who wants to vote absentee to do so this year
  • Expanding early voting for the primary and the general

The Senate embraced some opportunities to strengthen the bill during debate today but, unfortunately, rejected others. Here’s a rundown of what happened. 

THE GOOD PART I: VOICE VOTES 

The Senate adopted several important amendments via voice vote: 

  • Disability Access – Part I: Sen. Cindy Creem’s Amendment #2, which requires that Secretary Bill Galvin submit a report to the Legislature within six months after the bill’s enactment on how he can make voting more accessible for voters with disabilities, especially with regard to online voting.
  • Disability Access – Part II: Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz’s Amendment #7, which requires the necessary accommodations for voters with disabilities so that they can vote by mail without losing their right to a secret ballot 
  • Absentee Ballot Request Portal: Sen. Eric Lesser’s Amendment #3, which strengthens the language around the online absentee ballot request portal that Secretary Galvin has to create. In particular, it eliminates the requirement for a voter’s signature (which is redundant given the need for a signature upon submission of the ballot), adds language that the system shall apply to the primary if feasible, and eliminates “to the feasible” to the requirement that the system be operational by October 1 (i.e., creating an affirmative requirement for its operationality, rather than a mere suggestion).
  • Designating the Mailing Address for a Ballot: Sen. Adam Hinds’s Amendment #10, which requires that early-voting-by-mail applications contain space for voters to designate the mailing address to which a ballot should be sent (Think: people who have chosen to quarantine somewhere other than where they are registered to vote) 
  • PPE at the Polls: Sen. Joan Lovely’s Amendment #18, which requires Galvin to issue regulations around the use of personal protective equipment at the polls (the bill had merely used the vague language of “appropriate clothing” to this end) 
  • Extending the VBM Application Deadline: Sen. Jo Comerford’s Amendment #33, which extends the deadline for vote-by-mail applications (changing it from the seventh day before the election to the fourth day before the election) 

THE GOOD PART II: UNANIMOUS RECORDED VOTES 

The Senate voted unanimously in favor of two amendments: 

Equity & Access when Making Changes to Polling Locations: Sen. Jamie Eldridge’s Amendment #20, which moves up the deadline for changing a polling location from 15 days before the election to 20 days before the election, and requires municipalities to publicly evaluate and report on whether such change would have a disparate impact on access to the polling place on the basis of race, national origin, disability, income, or age.

Public Education about Changes the 2020 Elections: Sen. Becca Rausch’s redrafted Amendment #23, which requires Secretary Galvin to conduct a public awareness campaign to inform voters about the bill, requires municipalities to take recorded votes if they choose to change polling locations, and requires that voter information booklets be sent out no later than October 5 for the general election (and that they explain that voters who have already applied to vote by mail for the general need not do so again).

THE BAD: REJECTIONS OF KEY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BILL 

However, the Senate also voted down several important amendments. They rejected, via voice vote, Sen. Harriette Chandler’s amendment to increase the number of early voting days for the primary to match those offered for the general election. 

Strengthening the Protections for In-Person Voting: The Senate voted down Sen. Jamie Eldridge’s Amendment #24 (Guaranteeing Safe, Accessible, and Fair Elections For All), which strengthened the language around safe in-person voting. The underlying bill creates no deadlines for regulations, no requirement for public input, and no requirements for municipalities themselves to plan for the fall elections, and it also leaves out important elements of safe in-person voting.

The amendment would have required Bill Galvin to issue a draft guidance on Safe, Accessible, and Fair In-Person Voting by June 29, make such a guidance  available for public comment for at least ten days, and have a final guidance posted online by July 17. The amendment provided a thorough list of what the guidance should cover: 

  • (a) consideration of the layout of polling locations, including six-foot markers and proper signage in and outside of the polling site, to facilitate physical distancing throughout the voting process, including while voters are standing in line (inside or outside the polling location), when entering the voting area, while voting, while casting their ballot, and exiting, ideally through a different door than the entrance.
  • (b) expansion and redesign of polling locations to accommodate physical distancing throughout the voting process, or, when necessary, the relocation of polling locations to protect health and safety, keeping in mind that closing familiar polling places and contraction in the number of polling locations should be a last resort and only to be used when other preparedness measures cannot adequately ensure safe voter participation.
  • (c) implementation of curbside voting for voters with physical or health limitations;
  • (d) the protection of poll workers with personal protective equipment, adequate access to cleaning supplies throughout the day, access to hand-washing and bathrooms with adequate soap, water, and disposable paper towels, and appropriate distancing measures;
  • (e) voter access to hand-washing and bathrooms with adequate soap, water, and disposable paper towels;
  • (f) outreach, recruitment, and training of additional and reserve poll workers to ensure that the burden of administering the in-person election does not fall on poll workers at greater risk from COVID-19, and to guard against the possibility that a shortage of poll workers could compromise the administration of the election and the health and safety of voters.
  • (g) expanding public awareness and participation in early voting and absentee voting to reduce lines;
  • (h) expanded outreach on alternatives to in-person voting for those populations identified by the department of public health to be at great risk from COVID-19.

The amendment also requires cities and towns to have their own election preparedness plans no later than 30 days before the election. 

Only 16 senators voted for this common-sense amendment, and 23 voted against it. 

Senate Vote on SAFE Amendment on safe voting

Elections Committee Chairman Barry Finegold argued that the amendment was covered by Sen. Joan Lovely’s Amendment #18 (which merely changed the words “appropriate clothing” to “personal protective equipment”) and that Secretary Galvin has already committed to much of the amendment’s content. He probably even gave a pinky swear! 

Streamlining the Vote-By-Mail Process: The Senate also rejected an amendment from Sen. Diana DiZoglio (#28, Providing for a uniform early voting/absentee ballot) to streamline the vote-by-mail process by creating a standard form for absentee ballot requests and early-vote-by-mail requests. Such a change would reduce possible voter confusion and make the jobs of poll workers simpler. 

As Sen. DiZoglio noted, if the bill treats taking precaution related to COVID-19 as a valid excuse for not being able to vote in person on election day, then the distinction between an absentee ballot application and an early-vote-by-mail application is a meaningless formality, not a substantive difference. 

Only 14 senators voted for this common-sense amendment, and 25 voted against it.

Senate Vote on Streamlining VBM

MA House Votes Down Important Voting Protections

Yesterday, the MA House voted for a bill that took some important steps, but contained some glaring omissions. Here are some of the key parts of the bill.

  • Sending an application to vote by mail to every registered voter for both the September 1 primary election and the November 3 general election
  • Ensuring all applications and ballots sent by mail include prepaid return postage
  • Ensuring that ballots postmarked by Election Day will be counted (but for the general election only)
  • Allowing voters to apply to vote by mail through an online portal and enabling any voter who wants to vote absentee to do so this year
  • Expanding early voting for the primary and the general

However, there were major omissions. And most reps passed on an opportunity to address them.

As noted above, the requirement to count every ballot postmarked by the election only applies to the general, not the primary. (The House ruled an amendment to do so, filed by Rep. Maria Robinson of Framingham, as “out of order.”)

The bill reduced the 20-day voter registration blackout period to a 10-day blackout period. But with our primary happening on move-in day, housing instability high, voter registration drives impossible this summer, and physical voter registration forms hard to come by, that does not address the fundamental reasons why we need Election Day Registration. Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D-Northampton) filed an amendment to authorize Election Day Registration and to create a streamlined online registration process, but the House voted it down. You can see the vote below.

6.4.20 House VOTE on EDR

The House also voted down an amendment from Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Acton) to strengthen the protections for safe in-person voting, such as spelling out clearly what Galvin needs to do and requiring municipalities to have preparedness plans. Her amendment would have also required 25+ days of notice for changes in polling locations. (An amendment that increased the notice in the underlying bill from 10+ days to 15+ days passed, but 15 days is still too short).

6.4.20 House Vote on Safe

Like how your state rep voted? Don’t like how they voted? Let them know.

Why did reps vote against these common-sense measures–especially reps that say they support Election Day Registration in other cases? Many of the Republicans simply don’t care about protecting the franchise (unfortunately, some Democrats too). But for most Democrats, they care more about staying in the good graces of an authoritarian House Leadership than they care about their progressive values. And it’s up to you — their constituents — to change that.