Testimony in Support of Language Access and Utility Accountability

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Chair Cabral, Chair Collins, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3384 / S.2125 (An Act Relative to Language Access and Inclusion) and H.3400 (An Act prohibiting the use of ratepayer funds for utility lobbying, promotions, or perks).

H.3384/S.2125: Language Access and Inclusion Act

Massachusetts is home to a vibrant immigrant community. One in six Massachusetts residents is an immigrant, while one in seven residents is a native-born US citizen with at least one immigrant parent.

Massachusetts, correspondingly, is home to great linguistic diversity: more than 1 out of 4 residents report speaking a language other than English at home, with the most common languages being Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Russian. However, as the pandemic demonstrated, our state agencies and departments have a patchwork of different policies around language accessibility, and there is no current statute to ensure that non-English speaking residents have a fair and equitable opportunity to obtain an education, apply for benefits, receive housing assistance, or represent themselves in court.

The Language Access and Inclusion Act would help our Commonwealth better meet the needs of all residents by standardizing and enforcing language access protocols and practices at public-facing state agencies. Everyone should be able to interact with and seek help from their own government, no matter what language they speak.

H.3400: Utility Accountability

Our public utilities are supposed to serve and be regulated in service of the public interest; however, gas and electric utilities are regularly using money they collect from customers’ bills to fund their lobbying, advertising, and trade association dues. Customers have no say in such decisions, and such spending can often be directly in contradiction of the public interest. Voters across the Commonwealth want strong environmental laws and robust and equitable climate legislation, and we should not be coerced into funding opposition campaigns simply because of the need to have light, heat, and electricity in our homes.

Similarly, utilities are using customer ratepayer money to subsidize the lavish expenses of their Boards of Directors—at the same time as they are raising prices.

It’s quite simple: If utilities have so much money to spend on lobbying, ads, and perks, they are charging customers too much money and investing too little in the transition to clean, green energy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: MA Needs Debt-Free Higher Ed

Friday, July 18, 2025

Char Comerford, Chair Rogers, and Members of the Joint Committee on Higher Education:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1436/S.929: An Act relative to debt-free public higher education.

Because of the transformative new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment, Massachusetts recently took a major step forward by making community college free. But we need to ensure that students can graduate from any of our public colleges and universities without debt.

Our public colleges and universities are engines of economic opportunity. Studies reliably show that a postsecondary degree provides a proven premium in lifetime wages for graduates, and has become a commonplace requirement for a wide range of job types. But for too many of our high school graduates, the cost of attending college is prohibitive.

That’s because the cost students face is not just that borne by students during their years in school, but the costs years after through accrued debt. By preventing young people from living independently, buying a home, or pursuing their career of choice, student debt is a drag on our economy. Even when students drop out due to cost, they can be saddled with debt for years after, and have a much more difficult time finding jobs.

The United States stands out compared to other countries in how expensive it is to attend college, and the costs have grown exponentially in recent decades, outpacing other economic indicators. It is often shocking to hear people talk about how cheap college used to be several decades ago, while many students today are forced to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Let’s do right by our students and right by the future of the Commonwealth by embracing debt-free public higher education.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Can and Must Do More to Protect and Expand Workers’ Rights

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1311/H.2078: An Act uplifting families and securing the right to strike for certain public employees and S.1327/H.2086: An Act protecting labor and abolishing barriers to organizing rights. These bills would protect and expand rights for workers in the Commonwealth.

Unions and working-class people are under attack from the federal government, as President Donald Trump and his oligarchic pals in Big Tech and Big Finance seek to unravel decades of labor, civil rights, consumer, and environmental protections to enrich themselves further.  

Massachusetts should voice a loud and clear NO to that agenda and do that by strengthening and protecting the rights we have in this state.

First, a word on strengthening. The right to strike is a critical labor right that ensures that workplace negotiations happen in good faith. But this right is not sufficiently protected or respected in Massachusetts because public sector workers lack that right.

To be clear, banning strikes does not mean that strikes do not happen. We have seen many such examples across the Commonwealth in recent years. The ban means unreasonable penalties and fines, not the lack of strikes. A right to strike, by contrast, treats a strike as what it should be: an available tool for workers to use if negotiations occur in bad faith and a mechanism for structuring the timeline of negotiations to encourage both parties to come to an agreement. The current situation tips the scales against workers; restoring this right would create a level playing field.

Moreover, current law is worse than just penalizing strikes. Current law penalizes even talking about strikes, a gross violation of the First Amendment. This legislation would end that.

But, as noted earlier, as we expand labor rights, we also need to ensure that the rights that exist are protected. The Protect LABOR Act would ensure that labor protections continue to exist in Massachusetts even if Trump and his corporate buddies eliminate them at the federal level.

Trump and his Cabinet of Project 2025 authors has made clear that they want to eviscerate the National Labor Relations Act, under which private sector labor rights are established. Decades of labor protections could disappear if they succeed.

This bill offers a necessary bulwark against that by ensuring measures like Department of Labor Relations certification of pre-existing federally recognized unions; a presumption of employee status to ensure all workers, regardless of industry, have guaranteed access to wage, hour, and benefits protections; a ban on captive audience meetings; protection right anti-union “right to work” laws; and more.

Massachusetts has had a great track record of strengthening labor rights, especially when they are under attack federally. Let’s continue that legacy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Needs Strong Protections against Facial Surveillance

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

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

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did back in 2020 in passing police accountability legislation. But there is more work to be done, including stronger regulations around the use of facial recognition technology. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology.

After passing limited regulations for facial recognition technology in 2020 (due to opposition to stronger regulations from Governor Baker), the Legislature created a special commission to study and recommend a regulatory framework. That commission, made up of diverse stakeholders, met, held hearings, and researched and discussed the issue. And that commission—including the AGO, the State Police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CPCS (among others)—agreed on a set of recommendations, reflected in this bill.

From past debates, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety). 

The provision of this bill help to address those problems by doing the following:

  • Requiring a warrant in order for police to conduct a facial recognition search—a necessary guardrail to protect privacy rights
  • Centralizing the use of facial recognition at the State Police in order to curb the potential for misuse, abuse, and wrongful arrests
  • Ensuring due process protections around the use of facial recognition technology in court cases
  • Prohibiting mass surveillance and emotion analysis in order to forestall the dystopian futures already happening in places like Russia and China

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053. When the Legislature creates a commission to do the hard work of studying an issue, and that commission puts forth reasoned recommendations, it should be incumbent upon the Legislature to advance them.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony in Support of Road to Opportunity Act

July 8, 2025

Chair Crighton, Chair Arciero, and Honorable Members of the Joint Committee on Transportation:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3662 and S.2368, An Act to increase opportunity by ending debt-based driving restrictions, also referred to as the Road to Opportunity Act. This bill would end debt-based driving restrictions that irrationally punish people who can’t pay outstanding fines and fees.

Being poor in the United States is expensive, and debt-based driving restrictions are but one of many examples. When someone’s license is suspended because they are unable to afford to pay off their fines and fees, they are placed in an impossible situation. If they stop driving, they might lose access to job opportunities that they need to pay the fine. If they continue driving, then they risk further punishment. Driving on a suspended license is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts; it can result in a jail sentence or immigration consequences, an extended period of license suspension, and even more fines. A second offense carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 60 days’ incarceration. On top of all of this is the lasting harm done by having a criminal record, which can become a roadblock to housing and job opportunities for years to come.

The status quo exacerbates racial inequalities. Because communities of color are over-policed and disproportionately targeted for enforcement of minor infractions and crimes, research shows that they also disproportionately experience debt-based license suspensions.

Not being able to pay a fine does not make someone a reckless driver. The bill leaves in place license suspensions for unsafe driving, where a public safety interest exists. But no one is made safer by criminalizing poverty.

License suspensions for unpaid debts do not work as a pressure tactic and don’t succeed at bringing in revenue, and it’s no surprise why: if someone doesn’t have to pay the money for the fine, increased punishments won’t make that money magically appear. The only thing that such punishment manifests is more harm and lost opportunity.

Over half of states across the country—red, blue, and purple—have passed legislation to eliminate or significantly curb debt-based license suspensions. We urge you to add Massachusetts to this growing list of states by voting H.3662 and S.2368 out of committee favorably and supporting its prompt passage.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

New Tools in the Toolbox Required for the Housing Crisis

Wednesday, June 24, 2025

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.971: An Act reforming the housing development incentive program and H.1478: An Act advancing the Massachusetts social housing program. Both of these bills would help spur the development of the mixed-income housing that our Commonwealth desperately needs.

Last session, your chambers voted to increase funding for the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP), which provides subsidies for new development in gateway cities. Although our gateway cities can benefit from housing production, this program too often ends ups subsidizing units with shockingly high rents in hot markets in little need of the “carrot” of tax incentives.

Zoning reforms are necessary to encourage transit-oriented development in all communities and to encourage the construction of more multifamily housing and fewer McMansion single-family homes. However, housing advocates are routinely told that there is not enough money for subsidies for low-income housing, affordable housing, and public housing while the state provides greater subsidies to high-end units.

This weekend, the Boston Globe reported on the freeze on housing vouchers in the Commonwealth due to increasing rents and funding uncertainties. Why are subsidies for high-end housing flowing when vouchers are being frozen?

The HDIP program would benefit from reforms to ensure that it does produce affordable units. S.971 would do just that, turning HDIP into a program to support mixed-income development and recognizing that we need more housing at all income levels.

Social housing has been a proven model for building mixed-income housing, combining the benefits of traditional public housing with the cash flow of market-rate development. This recognizes the public interest in building housing for a wide range of incomes, and buildings can often be designed to be 1/3 low-income, 1/3 middle-income, and 1/3 higher-income.

When thinking of the type of housing H.1478 would create, I think of my neighbors in Tent City, a mixed-income building in the South End that was the result of years of activism by Mel King and housing justice activists. It remains a thriving community, and our Commonwealth would benefit from more like it.

Dedicated funding for social housing would help our Commonwealth reach our overall housing production goals as well meet the increase in affordable housing needed to meet demand. The issue has been gaining momentum in recent years, and your chambers included some money for a pilot program in the Affordable Homes Act. But we must do more. Our housing crisis demands an “every tool in the toolbox” approach, and this is an essential tool.

We also urge you to reject legislation that would weaken new tools embraced by the Commonwealth. To give one example, the Accessory Dwelling Unit language in the Affordable Homes Act was an important win, and S.1002 (An Act relative to accessory dwelling units on smaller lots) would undermine that. We urge you to give it an adverse report.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony on Expanding the Public Records Law

Wednesday, June 24, 2025

Chair Collins, Chair Cabral, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group with chapters across the state committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.2210: An Act extending the public records law to the Governor and the Legislature (Sen. Rausch).

In the 2016 public record reform law, the Legislature created a commission to explore

whether to expand the public records law to the Legislature and the Governor’s office, but that commission ended up yielding no formal report. Massachusetts remains the only state in the US where both the executive and legislative branch of state government claim full exemption from public records law. The same governing bodies that require cities and towns to adhere to strict Open Meeting Law rules exempt themselves from even a basic level of transparency.

As other state governments understand, making executive records like calendars, emails and texts, visitor logs, and call logs accessible is key to accountability: when such documents are fully kept secret, the public is left in the dark about whom the Governor is meeting and why, and what they are prioritizing.

The difficulty in obtaining information from the Massachusetts Legislature not only makes our state an outlier but also stifles the democratic process. The most moneyed interests are those who benefit from closed, hierarchical systems because they will always be able to work their way behind closed doors—whereas the public and researchers are rarely so lucky.

Openness helps foster social trust: open government should be viewed as part and parcel of the work of civics education that your chambers have championed.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: MA Needs Medicare for All

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Chair Friedman, Chair Lawn, and Members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

I am writing today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are 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.1405/S.860: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Far Past Time to Ban Racist Mascots

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Chair Lewis, Chair Gordon, and members of the Joint Education Committee:

I am writing today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are 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.575/S.312 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth).

The use of such mascots has serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes.

Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It’s time we listen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Let’s Strengthen Our Vaccine Policies

Friday, June 6, 2025

Dear Chair Decker, Chair Driscoll, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Health: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1618: An Act promoting community immunity.

We have submitted testimony in support of this bill for multiple sessions now, and with a Health and Human Services secretary in DC hostile to basic science around vaccines and anti-vaxxers in high-ranking public health positions across the federal administration, the bill’s importance has grown. Just see the return of measles and the poor federal handling of it. We need to strengthen our public health infrastructure here in MA.

If we want to be ready for the next pandemic, or even just ready for the next outbreak of a disease we thought we were decades past, we need to be strengthening and standardizing our infrastructure for immunization.

A look at our current immunization infrastructure leaves much to be desired. We currently lack full and accurate reporting on vaccination rates among young people, relying instead on voluntary surveys of schools, summer camps, colleges, and daycares. The limited data available show alarming rates of under- and unimmunized children in communities across the Commonwealth. To put that into perspective, just a few years ago, more than 200 high schools, more than 200 middle schools, more than 200 elementary schools, and more than 1,600 child care centers and preschools failed to report any immunization data to state public health officials. Of the kindergarten programs that submitted data, 152 lacked herd immunity to protect against the spread of measles, and 15 lacked herd immunity to protect against the spread of polio.  

We cannot fix a problem without a full and accurate read of it, and the Community Immunity Act’s data reporting requirements are a key first step. But the bill, as necessary, goes further, with targeted education and outreach about vaccine safety and efficacy and standardization and centralization of vaccination protocols. Standardized state-level policies determined by public health officials are crucial when determining exemptions if we are to make sure that medical and religious exemptions are not abused and that local superintendents are not overburdened.

We ask that you swiftly advance the Community Immunity Act out of the Public Health Committee with a favorable report. Please help to keep all of us safe and healthy, particularly people who are immunocompromised and rely on community immunity.

Thank you for your consideration and your service to the people of the Commonwealth.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts