Testimony: “The Best Time to Ban Collaboration with ICE is Yesterday. The Second Best Time is Now.”

Thursday, March 4, 2026

Chair Cahill and Members of the House Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Thank you so much for holding today’s public forum. I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has made it his mission to terrorize immigrant communities across the country, including here in the Commonwealth. The violent, reckless, and blatantly racist nature of ICE activities have been making communities less safe. They are not enforcing laws; they are violating them with abandon and impunity, a secret police that is occupying cities, engaging in large-scale racial profiling, and committing murder.

We appreciate the work that the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus has put into the creation of the PROTECT Act (H.5158). Good policy comes from consulting both people on the ground and policy experts, and they have done this to put together a multi-part bill addressing problems that have gotten worse and problems that have newly arisen.

The most important action that Massachusetts can take right now is to establish clearly in our laws that our state and local law enforcement will not be collaborating formally or informally with ICE.

First, Massachusetts must ensure that our state and local law enforcement are never deputized as ICE agents. Despite the massive infusions of money into ICE, Trump knows that he cannot achieve his full detention and deportation agenda on the basis of existing staffing: he needs state and local law enforcement to do the work for him to extend reach. Since Trump took office, we have seen a rapid rise in the number of 287(g) agreements across the country. We must be proactive in ensuring that these agreements do not spread across Massachusetts.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington have all taken action. We should too, and we should follow their lead in passing a ban without any loopholes.

Second, we need to ensure that our local law enforcement are not assisting ICE. When the line between local public safety officials and federal immigration enforcement get blurred, communities become less safe.

The PROTECT Act’s ban on police asking about immigration status is critical in this regard. When people fear that reporting a crime could lead to the deportation of themselves or a loved one, then they will be less likely to do so, and that will tip the scales in abusive power dynamics–whether abusive spouses, exploitative bosses, predatory landlords, or more.

Similarly, we support the bill’s prohibition on police and court staff sharing non-public information with ICE and the prohibition on the use of state and local resources for the primary purpose of facilitating civil immigration enforcement–although removing the word “primary” will close what could become a dangerous and exploitable loophole.

The PROTECT Act’s protections are critical, and they must extend to all levels of law enforcement, including state agencies, municipalities, and county sheriffs. The majority of 287(g) agreements around the country are signed by sheriffs. We used to have such county-level agreements, and we need to make sure none of them come back.

Let’s be clear: the best time to ban collaboration with ICE is yesterday. The second best time is today.

Finally, if we want to have a justice system in this country, then people need to feel safe going to courthouses, whether as a plaintiff, as a defendant, or as a witness. We support the protections of courthouses because they make sure that due process, a bedrock right, still exists.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: MA Needs to Opt Out of Trump’s Regressive Tax Cuts

Thursday, February 12, 2026 

Chair Madaro, Chair Eldridge, and Members of the Joint Committee on Revenue: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.

Since taking office just over a year ago, the Trump administration, along with the Republican Congress, have been hard at work to redistribute wealth in this country upwards and to take an axe to government services. They have been clear that their agenda is to make government work worse for everyday people: less responsive, less knowledgeable, less efficient. 

The regressive corporate tax cuts in the “Big Ugly Bill” were central to that agenda: they exist to increase the economic and political power of the rich and to force cuts to essential services that we all rely on. 

Last summer, our Congressional delegation was united in voting NO on that bill. We should send a clear NO to allowing the tax changes from it to be automatically written into our tax code. 

The Governor’s proposal to protect Massachusetts from the massive budget impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts this fiscal year is important, but it’s not enough: we shouldn’t adopt these Trump’s regressive corporate tax breaks at all.

Permanently preventing state-level adoption of the Trump corporate tax cuts would preserve  $463 million in state revenue in this year’s budget alone and an additional $990 million over the next five years. That is money that can be invested in health care, in education, in food assistance, in transportation, and in so much more, at a time when the federal government is no longer a partner but often an active saboteur. 

We don’t need to bribe corporations by throwing money at them for research investments they made years ago in other states. Our investments in our Commonwealth are what make it a good place to do business. The idea that we would spend vital resources on such corporate handouts when our state remains one of the most unequal is galling. 

When we fight to do big things in the Commonwealth, we so often hear that “we don’t have the money.” That same line is rarely invoked when it comes to corporate handouts. But let me be clear: we don’t have the money to do this right now given looming federal cuts. 

Other states across the country have already taken action. Let’s not wait too long to join them. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Mass Ready Act

Progressive Mass joined a coalition testimony in support of including the Zero Carbon Renovation Fund in the environmental bond bill.

January 13, 2026

Senator Paul W. Mark, Acting Chair

Representative Michael J. Finn, Chair

Representative John H. Rogers, Vice Chair

Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Attn: Gabrielle Hanson, 24 Beacon St Room 504

Boston, MA 02133

Re: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Mass Ready Act

Dear Acting Chair Mark, Chair Finn, Vice Chair Rogers, and Members of the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony concerning S.2542, An Act to build resilience for Massachusetts communities (the Mass Ready Act). Our Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition is supportive of this bill and believes it can be strengthened by including additional decarbonization funding for frontline communities. Luckily, H.3577/S.2286, An Act establishing a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund, sponsored by Senator Gomez and Representatives Vargas and Cruz, would do just that.

The Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition has over 200 member organizations representing 80,000 units of affordable housing, and working at the intersection of housing, health, community, and climate. We are united in the idea that equitable building decarbonization is critical for the health, wealth, and safety of our communities long-term.

Decarbonization involves improving a building’s envelope, transitioning it to clean energy sources, adding on-site power generation, and using less energy-intensive building materials. These practices make buildings more resilient in the face of floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather events,while mitigating climate change.

The state has started to invest in decarbonization for affordable housing and other priority sectors through programs at DOER, HLC, and Mass Save. Current and expected decarbonization sources for Massachusetts’ affordable housing sector total approximately $500M. But this is not enough.

The cost to decarbonize affordable housing units is currently tracking between $50K-$150K more per unit than a business-as-usual retrofit. Scaled up to over 200,000 units of multifamily affordable housing in MA translates to at least $10B-$30B of investment that will be needed for the affordable housing sector alone to meet our state’s climate goals by 2050.

The inclusion of H.3577/S.2286 will provide funding to catalyze an equitable transition to a clean

energy future that simultaneously advances climate resiliency and improves physical and financial security for frontline communities. It will prioritize Environmental Justice communities, Gateway Cities, low-and moderate-income housing, municipal buildings, and minority-and women-owned businesses. As existing buildings in Massachusetts contribute nearly one third of all carbon emissions, a focus on making this clean energy transition is essential if we are to create a sustainable and resilient future for our children. While H.3577/S.2286 allocates $300 million in funding for these retrofits, we believe that $50 million would be an adequate investment to start this crucial work.

We encourage you to include this language in the version of the Environmental Bond Bill that this Committee reports, so we can move a step closer to the clean and resilient energy future our communities and neighbors deserve. If you have questions, feel free to reach out to ZCRF Committee Chair Emily Jones at ejones@lisc.org. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Testimony: MA Must Stand Up for Our Immigrant Communities

Tuesday, November 25, 2025 

Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary: 

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1122/H.1588: An Act relative to immigration detention and collaboration agreements and S.1127/H.1954: An Act ensuring access to equitable representation in immigration proceedings. 

This Thanksgiving, families will be gathering across Massachusetts. But at many tables, there will be missing chairs due to the kidnapping of our immigrant friends and neighbors by ICE agents. 

Since Trump took office in January, ICE has escalated its activities in Massachusetts, terrorizing immigrant communities. ICE arrests have gone up by more than 250% since last year, driven by their targeting of individuals without criminal records. ICE has brutalized children, torn families apart, and engaged in rampant racial profiling. With Congress approving $170 billion to expand deportations, this will only get worse. 

Our immigrant communities are helping to keep our communities healthy, they are innovating and educating, and they are helping us build a better future for all of us. We need to do right by them. 

Immigrants’ rights advocates from across the Commonwealth our aligned on what steps that you can take as a Legislature to protect communities: 

  1. Prohibit new 287(g) agreements

Massachusetts should follow the steps of seven other states and prohibit any new 287(g) agreements. These agreements, in which state and local police are deputized as federal immigration agents, threaten public safety by diminishing trust, overburdening public financial and managerial capacity, distracting from real threats to public safety, and breaking apart communities. 

  1. Prevent partnerships between local law enforcement and ICE

It’s simple: local law enforcement should be focused on keeping communities safe and preventing and investigating crime. Getting involved with immigration raids and arrests diverts time, money, and resources from this goal and undermines the trust on which public safety depends. 

  1. Prohibit local law enforcement from asking about immigration status 

If people fear that interacting with law enforcement could lead to the deportation of them or their loved ones, they will not feel comfortable doing so. This means that incidents of domestic violence, wage theft, and other abuses will go unreported, and communities will be less safe. 

  1. Create a legal aid fund for immigrants at imminent risk of deportation 

Access to counsel matters: detained immigrants with a lawyer are 10 times more likely to win their case than those without. Shockingly, a majority of immigrants with pending cases in MA are navigating their cases without a lawyer.

This bill would remedy that and build into statute an important step that your chambers took in the FY 2026 budget. Similar programs already exist in California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. 

The Trump administration is creating never-ending, everyday crises for so many of our residents. Communities across the Commonwealth need you to lead. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: Welcoming Communities Are Safe Communities

Tuesday, November 25, 2025 

Chair Cronin, Chair Cahill, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety: 

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.2580 / S.1681, An Act To Protect The Civil Rights And Safety Of All Massachusetts Residents.

This Thanksgiving, families will be gathering across Massachusetts. But at many tables, there will be missing chairs due to the kidnapping of our immigrant friends and neighbors by ICE agents. 

Since Trump took office in January, ICE has escalated its activities in Massachusetts, terrorizing immigrant communities. ICE arrests have gone up by more than 250% since last year, driven by their targeting of individuals without criminal records. ICE has brutalized children, torn families apart, and engaged in rampant racial profiling. With Congress approving $170 billion to expand deportations, this will only get worse. 

Our immigrant communities are helping to keep our communities healthy, they are innovating and educating, and they are helping us build a better future for all of us. We need to do right by them. 

Immigrants’ rights advocates from across the Commonwealth our aligned on what steps that you can take as a Legislature to protect communities: 

  1. Prohibit new 287(g) agreements

Massachusetts should follow the steps of seven other states and prohibit any new 287(g) agreements. These agreements, in which state and local police are deputized as federal immigration agents, threaten public safety by diminishing trust, overburdening public financial and managerial capacity, distracting from real threats to public safety, and breaking apart communities. 

  1. Prevent partnerships between local law enforcement and ICE

It’s simple: local law enforcement should be focused on keeping communities safe and preventing and investigating crime. Getting involved with immigration raids and arrests diverts time, money, and resources from this goal and undermines the trust on which public safety depends. 

  1. Prohibit local law enforcement from asking about immigration status 

If people fear that interacting with law enforcement could lead to the deportation of them or their loved ones, they will not feel comfortable doing so. This means that incidents of domestic violence, wage theft, and other abuses will go unreported, and communities will be less safe. 

The Trump administration is creating never-ending, everyday crises for so many of our residents. Communities across the Commonwealth need you to lead. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: MA Needs Action on Our Housing Crisis

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Chair Cyr, Chair Haggerty, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing. 

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We see it all the time in polls, we hear it on the doors, and we see it in the data: Massachusetts has a housing crisis. More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore, priced out from one community to another and then out entirely, or face severe housing instability. 

We need a comprehensive approach to the housing crisis, and strong protections for tenants must be a part of it. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.2328: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, H.1544 / S.998: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal, and S.968: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #47 in housing affordability. [1] A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 91 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2] 

Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions.

Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.

However, municipalities across Massachusetts are blocked from taking the necessary steps to address the housing crisis. The misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and a stringent home rule system that prevents municipalities from passing their own laws to govern the basic aspects of civil affairs hamstring municipalities.

By enabling our cities and towns to pass rent control ordinances tailored to their local needs, we can stem the displacement that is hitting so many communities.

We cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents.

There is a lot of fear-mongering around rent control, but I want to make a simple point. If you don’t think a landlord should be able to double or triple someone’s rent in a year after doing no work on the property, you believe in rent control, and the question is just a matter of percentages and exemptions.

On too many issues, Massachusetts is haunted by the ghosts of ill-advised ballot initiatives past. It’s 2023, and we need to act like it.

Empowering cities and towns to respond to our housing crisis also requires passing the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). The TOPA bill, which is similarly an enabling bill, recognizes that we need to preserve our affordable housing stock. Too often, when large landlords sell a building, a mass eviction or rent hike follows for the tenants. TOPA shows that there is another way: as has been a proven success in DC for decades, we could enable tenants to come together to purchase the building—and be granted the right of first refusal in doing so. It’s a common-sense policy for community stability and affordable housing at no cost to the state.

Finally, the Legislature has made a commitment to access to counsel in the most recent budget cycle. However, we need to make this permanent in statute. S.968 bill would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner-occupants in eviction proceedings. The eviction moratorium that the Legislature passed earlier in the pandemic was a vital lifeline for so many, but eviction filings have now been climbing past what they were in 2019, pre-pandemic. Tenants enter such eviction proceedings at a major disadvantage: according to FY2024 Trial Court data, while 90% of landlords are represented, less than 5% of tenants are represented. Tenants facing eviction are disproportionately poor, female, and BIPOC, and evictions can have lasting negative impacts on physical and mental health.

Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Washington have already passed Right to Counsel policies, and Massachusetts should join them. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Our Youth Deserve Second Chances

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

Chair Day, Chair Edwards, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary: 

Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1923: An Act to Promote Public Safety and Better Outcomes for Young Adults and H.2051 / S. 1087: An Act to End Lifetime Parole for Juveniles and Emerging Adults. 

A decade ago, Massachusetts raised the age of juvenile court to keep 17-year-olds out of the adult system. Supporters of this reform argued that keeping young people out of the adult criminal system would reduce recidivism. The data is in: they were right. Juvenile crime has declined, and Massachusetts has seen faster declines in violent and property crime rates than the national average. 

It’s time to build on that success by raising the age to 21, as this bill would do. Young people are highly influenced by their environments: it is no surprise then that adult jail and prison environments increase offending behavior. By contrast, in the juvenile system, adolescents have better access to educational and mental health resources that are critical to rehabilitation and successful re-entry, as well as stricter supervision.

Mass incarceration policies have hit communities of color in Massachusetts especially hard. As a criminal sentence too often closes off educational and employment opportunities, our criminal legal system perpetuates racial inequalities. A focus on rehabilitation would give youth a better chance to grow up and contribute in their community and, by doing so, would help reduce intergenerational poverty. When our criminal legal system centers human dignity, rehabilitation, and accountability, rather than punishment and vengeance, we are all safer and healthier in the long run.

As the framing of today’s committee  implies, this bill would mean better access to health care and other supports. However, we want to underscore that merely improving the adult prison system—a task desperately needed and which other bills heard today would do—is not sufficient to address the issues at stake here. Federal and state protections differ, as do long-term legal consequences. 

Similarly advancing these priorities, H.2051 / S. 1087 would address the current situation where youth aged 14 to 21 can face lifetime parole after 15 years in prison. This is costly to the parole system and is ineffective toward achieving stated goals of safety or rehabilitation. We know, through a significant body of research, that most youth will “age out” of offending behavior, and the parole system, which imposes sanctions on parolees for a long list of minor infractions, harms their ability to get back on their feet. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Our Investments Can Advance Our Values

Tuesday, November 18, 2025 

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint Committee on FInancial Services: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.736/H.1114: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank and H.1264/S.767: An Act promoting responsible investment. These bills help ensure that our commonwealth uses our financial resources to align with our values. 

Why a Public Bank (S.736/H.1114)

A Massachusetts public bank would help advance the goal of equitable economic development. Here are a few key ways. 

A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. A public bank would not be competing with the existing banking system. It fills in the gaps and creates new opportunities for existing banks. Such a bank would help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaptation and mitigation–taking on projects that may have more difficult access to early capital due to lack of connections or higher risks. 

A public bank would be good for our cities and towns. Cities and towns, constrained in how they can raise money, often lack the resources for necessary long-term investments. A public bank would offer cities and towns an affordable and flexible alternative to the bond market for important local infrastructure projects.

A public bank would be good for our small businesses. Although it can seem like a long time ago already, the COVID-19 pandemic was brutal for our small businesses. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult times as well as to grow and expand to better serve the community. The bill would specifically target rural communities and underserved neighborhoods, where entrepreneurs often face significant obstacles to securing seed funding for new businesses, and it can help encourage the flourishing of cooperative businesses and worker-owned coops, business models that exemplify shared prosperity.

A public bank would address long-standing economic inequities. We know that women and communities of color have faced longstanding barriers in securing access to capital. A public bank can help to level the playing field.

A public bank would be good for the environment. A public bank could support initiatives to mitigate the dangers of climate change, and it could help local farms adopt and promote sustainable agricultural practices. As the federal government retrenches its support, increased state resources will become critical. 

Responsible Investment (H.1264/S.767)

Our Commonwealth’s investments should align with our values and our priorities. Funding weapons of mass destruction that are causing countless deaths right now and will continue to cause harm into the future. 

Funding these weapons is also antithetical to our state’s environmental and climate commitments: few things are as environmentally destructive as war. 

By divesting our public dollars from these pernicious investments, we can make a strong statement, redirect our resources to creating the better world we want to see, and — also important from a financial perspective — eliminate any liability or entanglement with war crimes committed through our public dollars. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Our Minimum Wage is Not a Living Wage

Monday, November 17, 2025

Chair McMurtry, Chair Oliveira, and Members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development:  

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1349/H.2107: An Act relative to raising the minimum wage closer to a living wage in the commonwealth. 

In 2018, Massachusetts set an example for other states and the country by passing a $15 minimum wage. As of January 2023, the full increase had taken effect, but $15 has lost significant purchasing power due to the rising cost of food, utilities, rent, and other basic necessities. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, today’s minimum wage would need to be almost $20 to have the same purchasing power as $15 in July 2018. 

The $15 minimum wage, while an improvement, is also not a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for a single adult with no children would be $28.88 per hour. When children enter the picture, that threshold for meeting basic needs gets higher and higher. Moreover, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968, it would have met this standard for a living wage. 

It’s time to raise the minimum wage again. These bills would raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour and index it to inflation, so that the value does not erode over time. Moreover, these bills correct a glaring omission from the last minimum wage increase: the exclusion of municipal workers. Paraprofessionals and cafeteria workers in some municipalities are still not receiving a minimum wage (let alone a living wage), and we should not be allowing such carveouts. All workers deserve a living wage, and this increase would move us in the right direction.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Testimony: Cities and Towns Want the Right to Rank.

Thursday, November 13, 2025 

Chair Keenan, Chair Hunt, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.531: An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections. 

Democracy in this country needs strengthening. We see the need for that every single day, and for us to have a robust, participatory, inclusive democracy, we must start at the local level. 

Cities and towns across Massachusetts are doing just that. By passing home rule petitions for ranked choice voting, they are embracing a time-tested reform that makes our elections both more competitive and more collegial. 

Ranked choice voting can inspire more candidates to run by eliminating “spoiler” effects, discourages negative campaigning, and ensures that voters don’t need to become dime-store game theorists thinking about how other people will vote before casting their own ballot. 

When cities and towns want to strengthen democracy, the Commonwealth should embrace the opportunity to say yes. Cities like Easthampton and Cambridge already employ ranked choice systems, and this enabling legislation would make it easier for other communities seeking to do so as well. 

I could speak to the merits of ranked choice voting for a while, but what’s at stake in this bill is really something else. Do we believe in local democracy? 

Your lives as legislators are better off, and cities and towns are better off, if you aren’t bogged down with having to approve home rule petitions about policies that some cities and towns already have. Enabling legislation, or local option legislation, like this sets clear parameters for what cities and towns can do, and then puts the power in people on the ground and their local elected officials to make the decision that’s best for them. It, in other words, gives clear choice, that central hallmark of democracy at any level. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts