Jonathan Cohn, policy director of the grassroots political group Progressive Mass, cited multiple studies that indicate a significant percentage of incarcerated people leave prison believing their right to vote is gone forever. Eleven states prevent formerly incarcerated people from voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Preventing prisoners from voting “disenfranchises more than just those directly affected,” Cohn said.
Chair Keenan, Chair Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:
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.
We urge you to give a favorable report to H.26 and S.8: Proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights.
I would like to begin with a bit of history. Felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts is a recent phenomenon. Indeed, although we often think of the history of voting rights in the US as one of ever-forward motion, Massachusetts stands as an outlier. In the late 1990s, after incarcerated individuals in MCI-Norfolk started organizing for better conditions, Republican Governor Bill Cellucci and the MA Legislature responded with retaliation: a multi-step process of disenfranchisement. In 2000, Massachusetts voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit people incarcerated for felonies in state prison from voting in state elections; the subsequent year, Cellucci signed a law to extend this prohibition to federal and municipal elections. Our commonwealth did something rare in recent history: it took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised.
In 2022, the Massachusetts Legislature took an important step forward when passing the VOTES Act by including language creating protections for jail-based voting for those who still maintain the right to vote, but we must build on that momentum by ending remaining disenfranchisement, as these bills would.
Felony disenfranchisement compounds the systemic racism of the criminal legal system. Approximately 8,000 residents of the Commonwealth are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, more than 50% of them are Black or Latinx.
Felony disenfranchisement laws disenfranchise more voters than those directly affected. Whenever someone loses the right to vote even temporarily, they are likely to mistakenly think that they have lost it permanently. We must eliminate archaic laws that create voter suppression and voter confusion.
Felony disenfranchisement exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in our prisons and jails. Even Trump’s DOJ pointed out that Massachusetts correctional facilities are engaging in torture, and a lack of political voice puts individuals at risk for abuse.
Moreover, studies have often shown that fostering ties to the outside world is central to reducing recidivism. Civic engagement provides just that, and we should welcome it.
This spring, the Massachusetts House and Senate will be voting on their budgets for the next fiscal year, and it’s critical that they make sure to complete and protect last year’s victories when doing so.
What does that mean?
First, that means protecting last year’s win on the ballot for the Fair Share Amendment. Voters were clear about wanting the rich to pay their fair share and for us to invest in our public education and infrastructure. However, Governor Healey’s proposed budget would give away almost as much in tax cuts as is estimated to be raised by Fair Share, undermining the hard work that went into that campaign. In particular, almost $400 million of her tax package consists of regressive tax cuts that will go to speculators and major estates. We need to make sure to protect the revenue we raised so that we can realize the vision of better schools, better roads, and better transit for all.
Second, last summer the MA House and MA Senate both included language from the No Cost Calls bill in their budgets, but a veto from Governor Baker doomed its fate. The Legislature needs to complete the No Cost Calls win by including language to permanently guarantee that neither state nor county prisons or jails will continue the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones for phone calls.
Help Communicate About Common Start in Your Local Community
The Common Start Coalition is looking for volunteers to help communicate about the Common Start agenda (affordable, high-quality early education and child care for all Massachusetts families) in local newspapers, cable access TV programs, and radio stations across the state.
Are you interested in writing a letter to the editor about Common Start in your local newspaper and/or going on a local cable access TV or radio program in your community to talk about Common Start? Please fill out this formto express your interest in communicating about Common Start!
Higher Ed for All Advocacy Day: Tuesday, 2/28
Affordable high-quality public higher education is essential to expand opportunity in all of our communities and create a more equitable and prosperous Commonwealth. Higher Ed For All is advocating for fully funded community colleges, state universities, and UMass campuses to knock down the barriers that too many potential college graduates’ encounter.
The Higher Ed for All coalition will be having an Advocacy Day at the State House on Tuesday, February 28. Never been to a lobby day before? There will be trainings in advance.
Follow-up to Last Week’s Prison Moratorium Lobby Day
Have a few minutes for a quick action? Call Governor Healey and leave a message about why it’s time to put a pause on new prisons and jails: bit.ly/massmoratoriumguide.
“I am hoping we can get some reform-minded people in there, so we can make the changes that need to happen. The entire system, the entire culture, everything needs to be completely overhauled,” said Caroline Bays, board chair of Progressive Massachusetts. “This is a new job for her, this is a fresh start.”
Thursday, 2/9: Prison Moratorium State House for a Day of Action
The Healey administration is advancing the new women’s prison project, and now is the time to come together to stop it once and for all. This Thursday at 3 pm, join Families for Justice as Healing at the Massachusetts State House to let Governor Healey and Legislature that we do not need to build new prisons. Meet at the front steps of the State House on Beacon St for a rally with speakers, signs, and music and then we will go inside the building. You will get materials to drop off at legislator’s offices about the urgency to pass the Prison Moratorium NOW and other legislation to reduce the number of people incarcerated in MA. RSVP HERE.
Have a few minutes today for a quick action? Call Governor Healey and leave a message about why it’s time to put a pause on new prisons and jails: bit.ly/massmoratoriumguide.
Higher Ed for All Advocacy Day: Tuesday, 2/28
Affordable high-quality public higher education is essential to expand opportunity in all of our communities and create a more equitable and prosperous Commonwealth. Higher Ed For All is advocating for fully funded community colleges, state universities, and UMass campuses to knock down the barriers that too many potential college graduates’ encounter.
The Higher Ed for All coalition will be having an Advocacy Day at the State House on Tuesday, February 28. Never been to a lobby day before? There will be trainings in advance.
RSVP for the Advocacy Day at the State House on Tuesday, February 28.
RSVP for an Advocacy Day Training on February 16 or February 21.
On Monday, Jan 30, 2023, Families for Justice as Healing (FJAH) and The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls hosted a virtual relaunch for the Prison Moratorium campaign, with a packed crowd of over 200 attendees.
Last year, with a coalition of organizers, they were able to pass the Prison Moratorium bill, which would enact a five-year pause on prison and jail construction, through the Legislature; however, it was vetoed by former Governor Charlie Baker. But the fight isn’t over. The need to pass a prison moratorium is particularly urgent because of ongoing plans to build a new women’s prison in the Commonwealth—plans which are proceeding under the new administration of Governor Maura Healey.
The event, moderated by FJAH Executive Director Mallory Hanora, began with remarks from Andrea James, the Founder and Executive director of the National Council of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls and the Founder of Families for Justice as Healing. James powerfully argued that prisons do not allow one to take individual accountability for their actions, and instead merely continue a cycle of harm. She highlighted the concept of “community accountability”—stating that, as a society, we have a responsibility to prevent such continuous harm by investing in communities rather than pursuing criminalization. Highlighting that alternative models already exist, she asked the attendees: “It’s not just about stopping a prison– it’s about…Where is the funding? If you got 50 million plus another 25 to invest in prisons in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and we have worked for more than 12 years to develop models—that we have used our resources at FJAH and the National Council to create models of what different looks like—where is that funding?”
After James came two speakers from Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. Hema Sarang Sieminski and Nithya Badrinath, Policy Director and Policy Manager, respectively, highlighted how over 90% of incarcerated women experienced sexual abuse or domestic violence before their incarceration, arguing that “the conditions and culture of power and control in prisons, jails, and detention centers are a mirror of the violence that so many survivors experience in the interpersonal context.” Whereas many legislators will point to survivors as a reason to expand criminalization, Jane Doe Inc. believes that carceral systems will not provide the safety and healing that survivors need and do not provide any form of accountability for harm done to them; therefore, they oppose any policy that will increase criminal penalties in the name of increasing accountability or promoting survivor safety.
The next speaker was Ms. Angelia Jefferson, a community member of Families for Justice as Healing and the National Council. Known as “Ms. Angie,” she is a mother, a grandmother, and a formerly incarcerated woman who served over 31 years at MCI-Framingham. She stated that “instead of using that money to build a prison, [she] can’t say it enough–mental health and medical needs to be at the forefront of this.” She spoke of the need to invest in community resources, and especially provide more accessible mental health services and trauma support, instead of defaulting to criminalization. Next spoke the lead sponsors of the bill, Representative Chynah Tyler of Roxbury and Senator Jo Comerford of Northampton. They both discussed their commitment to passing the prison moratorium bill and to pushing a broader narrative that prioritizes investment in community well-being rather than punitive measures.
Some might ask, what does different look like? Sashi James, the Director of Reimagining Communities for Families for Justice as Healing and the National Council, has an answer. While organizers are working to stop the building of a new women’s prison, James is building the future of a non-carceral world, implemented through the vision of “Reimagining Communities”. Most of this work is done in Roxbury by creating programs to support community members. James discussed some of them, including a guaranteed income program for currently and formerly incarcerated women, a basic housing program, a hydroponic farm, and more.
Lastly, the event ended with Rabbi Leora Abelson, the Rabbi of the Nehar Shalom Synagogue in Jamaica Plain and a member of T’ruah, a national organization of Jewish Clergy organizing for human rights. Leora discussed faith and spirituality in connection to social justice, stating that she perceives organizing as sacred work. Participants had the opportunity to think of a moment when they felt free, and Rabbi Abelson powerfully stated that “we live in a world whose structures and systems do not reflect what we know within us about freedom, and dignity, and worth. But we are building that world. And what we know inside of us is guiding us. Guiding us to know that we do not need any more prisons. That we don’t need any prisons. And to know what we do need.” She ended the reflection with a call for action, where participants had the opportunity to support the prison moratorium bill by signing up for an upcoming rally, call the governor’s office, and call their legislators.
If you weren’t able to join the event, you can watch the recording of the event here: https://youtu.be/GobJ-4UmmM8
Want to support the prison moratorium bill? You can with these quick steps!
Sign up to join FJAH and the National Council at the State House for a Day of Action on February 9 from 3-6pm.
Call Governor Healey and tell her NO NEW WOMEN’S PRISON Now is the time to let Governor Healey know that people across MA want a 5 year pause on jail and prison construction and expansion. Call and fill up the voicemail box: bit.ly/massmoratoriumguide
Call your State Rep and Senator and ask them to co-sponsor the Prison Moratorium bit.ly/massmoratoriumguide
Sign up for a phone bank or canvass! Volunteer to phone bank or canvass with members of FJAH and the National Council, and support their efforts to stop the new women’s prison and pass the prison moratorium! Sign up for a shift here: bit.ly/nonewprisonvolunteer
Last Sunday, the last day of the formal Legislative Session, the MA Legislature sent a lightly amended climate bill back to Governor Charlie Baker, accepting a few of his amendments but rejecting others. (See the changes here.)
The next step is simple: Charlie Baker needs to sign it.
If he signs it or even if he takes no action, it becomes law. If he vetoes it, it is dead until next year unless the Legislature comes back into session.
Call Baker’s office at 617-725-4005 and urge him to sign the climate bill.
Here’s a sample script you can use:
“I urge you to quickly sign H5050: An Act driving clean energy and offshore wind into law. This bill will support much needed progress to reduce our state emissions 50% by 2030 as required by law. It will expand clean energy, transportation electrification, and building decarbonization measures while creating jobs and helping reach statewide emissions reduction targets.”
Tell the Legislature: Finish Your Job! A few weeks ago, the Legislature was on track to end the Legislative Session with important victories of passing a five-year prison moratorium and No Cost Calls legislation. The five-year prison moratorium, passed in a bond bill, would have put a pause on new prison construction in order to allow time for communities to focus on building alternatives. Prisons and jails cannot guarantee public safety; only investing in community well-being and stability can. Even more, no one builds new prison capacity without a desire to use it: every new prison built is a commitment to lock up individuals for decades into the future. Moreover, right now, families are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones (sometimes $5 or $6 for a 15-minute call). This is a regressive tax on the most vulnerable populations of the Commonwealth that also harms public safety by limiting communication and weakening community bonds. The No Cost Calls legislation, passed via the budget, would have ended this predatory practice and provided such calls for free. But both victories are now at risk due to Charlie Baker’s malice and the Legislature’s delays.
Yesterday, Charlie Baker shamefully vetoed the prison moratorium language. With the Legislature not in session, they are unable to override him.
Last week, Baker also tried to hold the No Cost Calls language hostage to his effort to expand pre-trial detention and take away due process rights. While the House rightly rejected Baker’s push, the Senate insisted on passing a still harmful, narrower version of Baker’s bill, dooming No Cost Calls for the session. (Read our write-up of what went down — and how your legislators voted — here.)
We are joining our allies at Families for Justice as Healing and the #KeepFamiliesConnected coalition to demand a special session in September to 1) override Baker’s veto of the Prison Moratorium and 2) pass No Cost Calls with no amendments.
Script: “Hello my name is _________________ and I’m your constituent. The legislature left too much business unfinished this session. I am asking you to call for a special session in September and stay in session until you 1) override Governor Baker’s veto of the Jail and Prison Construction Moratorium and 2) pass no cost calls with no amendments that will expand criminalization or pretrial incarceration. We already know incarceration has failed to create safety and well-being. There is an active contract to study and design the new women’s prison- so we can’t wait for next session. Please do everything in your power to ensure the Prison Moratorium and No Cost Calls are passed into law.”
*Express disappointment and frustration that they would ignore the demands of organizations led by survivors and formerly incarcerated women who opposed the amendment and vote for expanding criminalization and pre-trial detention which will disproportionately impact people of color. The Senators who voted “yea” knew their vote would derail No Cost Calls.
*Thank your Senator for supporting No Cost Calls and opposing the regressive, reactionary amendment that will only increase racial disparities.
Thank you to @CourtWatchMA and @JusticeHealing for your contributions to this write-up.
**
Right now, families are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones (sometimes $5 or $6 for a 15-minute call). This is a regressive tax on the most vulnerable populations of the Commonwealth that also harms public safety by limiting communication and weakening community bonds.
While only 21 percent of the state’s population is Black or Latinx, more than 54 percent of the people imprisoned by the Department of Correction are, with similar overrepresentation in county jails and houses of correction run by the Commonwealth’s sheriffs. Black and Latinx children are, respectively, nine and three times more likely than White children to have a parent in prison. As communities already struggle with the high cost of housing, health care, and transportation, no one should be forced to choose between paying rent or buying groceries and maintaining contact with loved ones.
Moreover, punitive policies targeted at the families of incarcerated individuals leave us all worse off: numerous studies have shown that contact with loved ones promotes successful reentry after incarceration.
In their respective budgets in April and May, the MA House and Senate acknowledged this reality, heeded the advocacy of groups like Families for Justice as Healing and the rest of the Keeping Families Connected coalition, and respectively voted to provide calls at no cost to all people incarcerated by the state prisons, houses of correction, and county jails in Massachusetts (a policy referred to as “No Cost Calls”).
The Budget Conference Committee reconciled the two versions, largely adopting the House language with some important elements of the Senate language, including limits to commissary fees–what families pay to purchase necessary hygiene and food items not provided by prisons and jails directly. While the final language the Legislature sent to the Governor was not as robust as the Coalition had urged–for example, it did not include guaranteed or unlimited minutes per person per day–it was still a watershed moment for a policy deeply and urgently needed by some of the Commonwealth’s most economically burdened families, disparately families of color. The wide support in the Legislature was proven by the adoption of this conference language in the budget.
But the formal period of the 192nd Legislative Session just ended Monday morning in an extension of “July 31” by more than ten hours by the Legislature, and No Cost Calls has not become law. What happened?
Self-Defeating Procrastination
The Massachusetts State House has become notorious for passing late budgets. Despite both chambers being Democratic, they did not pass a post-Conference budget until July 18, two-and-a-half weeks into the new fiscal year.
For context, the Senate (which votes in May) passed its budget on May 26. That means it took the House and Senate almost two months to come to an agreement. By waiting until so late, they gave Governor Charlie Baker the upper hand to send back amendments or attempt to veto parts of the budget given the inevitable chaos of the end of the session.
So, on that front, both chambers deserve at least some blame, but, as we’ll see, the burden lies much more on the Senate.
Yes, Massachusetts, Charlie Baker is a Republican, or The Dangerousness of “Dangerousness”
Rather than simply signing the budget with the No Cost Calls language, Baker sent back an amendment using the No Cost Calls provisions of the budget as a vehicle to pass his bill to expand the use of “dangerousness” hearings, one of his top priorities for the session. In other words, he decided to hold No Cost Calls hostage to an expansion of incarceration, and worse, pretrial detention–jailing people who are presumed innocent.
What is a “dangerousness hearing”? It is when the prosecution requests that a judge hold a defendant without bail for up to 120 days in district/municipal court or up to 180 days in superior court because the prosecution alleges the person is “too dangerous” for release, i.e. no conditions of release could protect the safety of a specific individual or the community as a whole. Constitutionally, dangerousness hearings must be limited to the most serious crimes, those which inherently carry “the menace of dangerousness,” according to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. To be clear, detention on dangerousness grounds is a form of pretrial detention: individuals have not been convicted yet, so a dangerousness hearing undermines the fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Although there is incomplete data collection on the use and abuse of pretrial detention, it is clear that pretrial detention both reflects and exacerbates the systemic racism of the criminal legal system. Recent available data on dangerousness requests, in particular, are stark. The Massachusetts Trial Court publishes a dashboard on prosecutorial requests for dangerousness hearings, which was updated in January 2022 to include racial demographic information for the first time (click on the “Adult Demographics (table)” tab at the top, and select ‘Race/Ethnicity” in both drop-down menus under “Select a Demographic…”).
Statewide, in a state that is 71.4% non-Hispanic white, according to the last full year of available data (FY21), roughly 3 in 5 dangerousness hearings were brought against people of color. Black people made up 28.4% and Hispanic people made up 29.6% of prosecutorial requests for a dangerousness hearing in district and municipal courts. Black people made up 32.3% and Hispanic people made up 30.1% of prosecutorial requests for a dangerousness hearing in superior courts.
According to the 2020 landmark study on racial disparities in sentencing in Massachusetts out of Harvard Law School, people of color are more likely to be over-charged for the same conduct, and more likely to be indicted to superior court for the same offenses, as compared to white people. In fact, Harvard’s researchers determined that a whopping 70% of the reason for sentencing disparities was attributable to prosecutorial decisions. These same prosecutorial patterns and implicit biases are reflected in the current use of the “dangerousness” statute to send people to jail pretrial without the possibility of release, a practice that deeply harms communities and coerces people to take pleas just to get out of jail.
With a county by county breakdown, the numbers on racial disparities are even more alarming, as Commonwealth Magazine reported on Friday:
In Bristol County, Tyler said, people of color faced 58A hearings at three times the rate of white defendants; in Berkshire County, the rate of dangerousness hearings was four times as high for nonwhite defendants as white defendants, she said.
About 15 percent of Middlesex County’s residents are people of color, but they represent 52 percent of cases involving dangerousness hearings, according to Tyler. And in Suffolk County, home to Boston and the State House, 90 percent of dangerousness cases are for defendants of color, who are only 48 percent of the population.
Further, since 2018’s “bail reform”—when the Legislature expanded upon an “ability to pay” standard for judges setting bail, required by the SJC in Commonwealth v. Brangan—prosecutors have begun to use the dangerousness statute more to try to convince judges to hold people without bail. Groups like CourtWatchMA have documented dramatic upticks in the use of dangerousness even in counties led by prosecutors who ran as progressives. And that change in usage over the last four years can also be seen on the Trial Court’s dashboard (click on the “Trends” tab). Even as the overall number of criminal cases has decreased (use the drop-down menu to compare the number of “lead charges” per year), more than 1,000 additional cases went through dangerousness hearings in FY21 as compared to FY18.
Finally, even though the current 58A “dangerousness” statute includes a maximum limit of 120 days in jail for cases out of district/municipal court and 180 days for cases out of superior court, already those limits are not always honored. First, keep in mind that a case that originates in district/municipal court can later be indicted to superior court, so those 120/180 limits may become consecutive–a maximum of 300 days, or nearly 10 months in jail, pretrial while presumed innocent. That’s already our current law. But further, because of how the Commonwealth’s speedy trial rules get interpreted, people may sit in jail far longer than that with no recourse. Members of the Families for Justice as Healing participatory defense hub have been fighting for loved ones who have spent 316 days, 387 days, 491 days, and 914 days fighting for their freedom. Accused people who litigate harder–for example, requesting continuances to file motions to suppress the evidence against them or to better prepare for trial–may “toll” the clock, meaning they may sit for days or months in jail that don’t get counted against the statutory limit.
So what is it Governor Baker wants to do with this 58A statute? He wants to make it even more draconian and stacked against people accused of crimes. Baker’s amendment would have, among other things, (1) created a new felony offense for tampering with a GPS device or an interlock breath-test device, (2) significantly expanded the list of crimes for which a dangerousness hearing can be sought–including a number that do not involve any allegation of physical harm, (3) allowed dangerousness hearings to be sought at any time during a judicial proceeding, as opposed to only at the beginning, and (4) allowed individuals to be held in pretrial detention indefinitely, removing the current statutory caps altogether.
The ACLU and Jane Doe Inc. were among the most prominent and vocal opponents of Baker’s bill. As Jane Doe Inc. said of the bill, it “include[s] certain policies that would have harmed our communities and actually undermined the safety and wellbeing of survivors themselves.” In their legislative testimony against it, they highlighted concerns about racial disproportionality, the potential for an increase in dangerousness hearings to take court time and energy away from more serious cases, and the impact on survivors arrested because of an accusation made by their abuser.
Baker had been pushing the bill with all the old “tough on crime” tropes, but as people are increasingly understanding, prisons and policing are not the foundation of public safety: investing in housing, health care, education, and community stability and flourishing is.
So The Bill Goes to the House
On Friday, as advocatespanned Gov. Baker’s petulant amendment, members of the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus held a powerful press conference pushing back against Baker’s amendment. Rep. Brandy Fluker-Oakley (D-Mattapan) highlighted how Baker is ignoring real community voices and community needs :“The truth of the matter is, our governor is not recognizing the victimization that our communities experience day in and day out by being overpoliced. Furthermore, it is abhorrent and an abomination that he would even try to tie this to no-cost calls when it is the lifeline that our families are able to connect with those on the outside and data and statistics and study after study shows that when there is family contact, it reduces recidivism.” Rep. Chynah Tyler (D-Roxbury) spoke of the immense racial disparities in pre-trial detention: “The impacts on communities of color are staggering, and it simply sounds like a racist system to me.”
The next day, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject Baker’s amendment. Only four Democrats: Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Paul Tucker (D-Salem), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joined Republicans in voting for Baker’s amendment.
If your state rep is among the 122 NAYs, you should thank them.
But then Comes the Senate
That the Senate did not similarly vote to reject Baker’s amendment on Saturday was a concerning sign itself. This delay over the weekend led Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) to lead the Senate’s Black and Latino Caucus (her, Sen. Lydia Edwards of East Boston, and Sen. Adam Gomez of Springfield) in an email to their colleagues lifting up the House Black and Latino Caucus’s press conference and calling for a rejection of Baker’s amendment:
“No-cost cost calls reform is a priority of the MBLLC this year. It is a provision designed to stop the regressive taxation of the families of incarcerated people—primarily women and children, who have committed no crime—to pay for programming in our jails and prisons. In addition, maintaining family bonds through phone and video calls helps reduce the well-documented trauma experienced by children of incarcerated individuals, AND reduces recidivism rates when incarcerated individuals return to society. For all these reasons, this reform was consensus policy between the House and Senate in both chambers’ budget proposals.
We reject, in the strongest terms, the Governor’s use of this consensus provision as leverage to force through separate legislation that he favors.
Additionally, it’s important to note that his bill on pre-trial 58A detentions has not received a favorable report from committee. 58A detentions already result in the heavily disproportionate incarceration of Black and Latino defendants—without being convicted of any crime. Increasing their use and scope would exacerbate the problem of disparate incarceration that we have worked so hard to move away from in recent years, with the passage of MA’s 2018 Criminal Justice Reform law.
We hope you will stand with the Black & Latino Caucus and numerous racial justice and civil rights organization in advancing these long-awaited no-cost call reforms, and rejecting the Governor’s attempt to attach an unrelated piece of legislation. The House has already voted to do so. “
Advocates also continued to press the Senate to reject the Governor’s Amendment and reject any version of a dangerousness proposal, especially because if it was attached to No Cost Calls it would almost certainly defeat that policy whole cloth. Families for Justice as Healing and Building Up People Not Prisons held a rally outside the Statehouse in the afternoon and a demonstration inside the halls, capturing the attention of reporters and legislators alike.
Throughout the evening, advocates from Jane Doe and Families for Justice as Healing, among others, continued to press senators to reject any expansion of pretrial detention attached to No Cost Calls.
The Senate ended up not even taking up consideration of it until very late on Sunday night, extending into the wee hours of Monday morning (with the Legislature voting to extend the session further and further into the morning each hour).
Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) and Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) both spoke passionately against the amendment.
Eldridge highlighted how the dangerousness law undermines the “bedrock principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty” and that Baker’s proposal pulls us backwards from recent positive movement on juvenile justice reform, as it would allow more children as young as 12 to be held in detention. He spoke about how expansive even Baker’s “narrowed” list of crimes to add to the dangerousness statute was (including some marijuana offenses, a doubling down on a drug war the state has been trying to move past) and the striking racial disparities in dangerousness hearings in Middlesex County (“Although 15 percent of Middlesex County’s residents are people of color, they represent about 50 percent of those involved in dangerousness hearings.”).
Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) criticized Baker’s selective focus on some victims rather than others (“It’s important we hear from victims, but it’s also important that we remember there are many different kinds of victims and that we not see the pain and suffering of some victims to the exclusion of other victims.”) and highlighted the racial disparities in pre-trial detention in Suffolk County (“Ninety percent — 90 percent — of people subject to 58A detentions in Suffolk County are people of color, compared to 48 percent of the population in Suffolk County.”). She also underscored the harm that indefinite pre-trial detention can cause: “Imagine being held for 200 days, 500 days, 900 days, without being convicted of a damn thing and the impact that has on your family and your children. You lose your job, you lose your housing, you lose your children.”
In his speech in favor of the amendment, Bruce Tarr jarringly refused to enumerate the new offenses to be added to the dangerousness statute, as though that were merely secondary: “I’m not going to go through the entire list. Some of you would like me to do that. Perhaps tomorrow we can gather in some part of the State House and I will go through the list for you. Suffice it to say the governor has proposed a significant expansion of the list.” He wanted the Senate to pass an expansion of the carceral system at midnight without even reading it.
The Baker amendment was rejected on a standing vote: 8 in favor, 14 against. Unfortunately, there is no record of who the 8 and who the 14 were.
A Dangerous Show Vote
Rather than move forward, as the House had, and challenge Baker to veto No Cost Calls (and then return to session to override him), the Senate decided to take up a narrowed, but still harmful, version of Baker’s amendment, with no House buy-in. Senator Tarr had introduced seven amendments, each capturing a piece of what Baker had proposed, but he first moved forward the redrafted Amendment 6 which he framed as a consensus compromise that could be passed in isolation.
The new amendment would create a new misdemeanor offense for tampering with a GPS device (2.5 years in prison, and a felony of up to 5 years for a second and subsequent offense), require that anyone convicted of that offense be subject to presumptive pretrial detention without the possibility of release on any subsequent allegation, expand the list of crimes that would allow the prosecution to move for a dangerousness hearing (including crimes like “criminal harassment” and “attempted extortion” which may involve no threat or use of force), and create a system by which victims are given a six-hour notification in advance of an individual’s being released from detention, including at a police station.
No senators opposed the latter provision. But creating new non-violent crimes (especially for conduct that already has sanctions under current law—if a person removes their GPS, they will be subject to a hearing on a violation of their conditions of release and will likely face time in jail or prison whether released pretrial, on probation, or on parole) and expanding the reach of the carceral system is never wise. It’s especially problematic to do so at 1 am when most senators have not considered the ramifications of what they are voting on.
Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) was unsurprisingly dismissive of claims of systemic racism in the judicial system: “I would suggest that if we want to argue now that the judiciary is somehow flawed in its decision-making, that is a much larger issue and we find ways to address it. But until we do that, those sworn to the judiciary are charged with the solemn responsibility of making the best decisions they can. Until we indict that process, we need to be able to follow it. “
Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) explained how the language would expand dangerousness hearings to cover many non-violent crimes, citing cases such as a dispute between neighbors, a child throwing a wastebasket across the room, or consensual sex between teenagers close in age. He rightfully emphasized the importance of understanding how the charges are used in practice, rather than discussing them only in the abstract: “I ask you not to think of the worst-case scenario, but the best-case scenario, the mistakes that could be made, the biases in our system, the implicit institutional racism in our judicial system.”
Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington) gave a passionate speech about the need to learn the lessons from past policymaking that fueled mass incarceration: “I can tell you that every time we added new criminal laws to the books and every time we extended sentences and every time we created second strike and third strike, you’re out rules, we always did it because in the moment, the arguments seemed compelling. We always made the same mistake. We focused on one or two truly awful scenarios and we then permitted ourselves to make decisions about multiple situations based on those one or two situations. In this particular case, as I’ve listened throughout the evening, I’ve heard folks cite, quite persuasively, one or two experiences of their own, part of their lived experience perhaps as a professional, which lead them to believe there are elements here that are absolutely required. There are laws among those enumerated here that absolutely should be added to the list of what’s allowable for a dangerousness hearing. So we allow the particular to lead us to overlegislate. Every time we’ve overlegislated in a way that’s led to over incarceration, it’s because we’ve been led by a compelling argument or two to overextend the amount of law we’ve created. In this particular instance tonight, we’re about to vote based on extremely persuasive arguments in favor to add 25 new statutes to the list that can trigger dangerousness hearings. This is in a state where we’ve already built out the list pretty extensively. We’re about to overlegislate just as we did during the Bill Clinton years, just as we did during the 1990s. We know there’s one or two compelling reasons to act, and we’re allowing ourselves to overreach. We are going too far. We will regret this. This is why too many people wind up in jail. This is why our incarceration rates in this country are the greatest of any democracy on the face of the earth.”
Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) praised Barrett’s speech and similarly criticized the scope of the proposal: “We have to recognize debating this amendment, yes, it will help some people. There are many components of this amendment I would like to support, particularly victim notification. This amendment will also harm people. We have to be honest about that….We have had many months to arrive at a better compromise. It is an option before us tonight. We could redraft this amendment to reduce its scope, to reduce its overreach. We’re choosing not to do that.” She also read Jane Doe Inc.’s statement in opposition to the amendment, noting that they had emailed legislators that evening to oppose even the redrafted amendment.
Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton) explained to her colleagues that voting for this amendment would effectively kill the No Cost Calls legislation: “So this is sort of a double whammy to those people in prison because we’re going to put more people in prison. By voting this amendment, we’re likely to make sure prisoners don’t have the phone calls we voted they’d be able to have. As we do this today and the hour is late, the House rejected this. Perhaps my colleagues are right. We missed an opportunity. I understand. Perhaps there should have been an negotiation. But there are many prisoners sitting in jail who are unable to speak with their children, their parents, their friends, and this body voted they should have those calls. This late hour, if we vote for this, we can be sure they won’t have that opportunity.” She also criticized the terrible, rushed process: “I’m not even sure I understand how many crimes we’re voting on, and I would say most of us don’t. Most of us don’t understand the nuances, some of which involve crimes we’d call Romeo and Juliet between young children who are having sex these days. Maybe we should do that, maybe we shouldn’t. We are punishing those people incarcerated because we didn’t do what we’re supposed to do.”
Sen. Lydia Edwards (D-East Boston) (despite the earlier email she’d signed onto encouraging her colleagues to reject the Governor’s amendment), Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham), Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and Sen. Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough) all invoked anecdotes to support the amendment and refused to engage with the arguments put forth by critics. Sen. Brownsberger (D-Belmont) misleadingly tried to frame the expansion of pretrial detention as a way to support bail reform. Sen. John Velis (D-Westfield) simply scoffed at the idea of due process concerns.
What these senators tried to avoid directly addressing is the simple fact that by voting for the amendment, they were defeating No Cost Calls for the session. The only path forward for No Cost Calls was for the Senate to reject Baker’s amendment, as the House had done and the Senate had done moments before, and for the House and Senate to commit to returning to a special session to override a veto from Baker if need be. The Senate’s decision to introduce new language at a late hour without House buy-in was a bad-faith move, setting up the vote to be nothing more than a show vote. The dangerousness law would not be changed, and No Cost Calls would die.
Knowing all of that, they still voted 30 to 8 in support of the amendment.
Thank you to the 8 senators who stood by No Cost Calls and against a return to failed “tough on crime” policies that expanded mass incarceration and would leave communities less safe: Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain), Jo Comerford (D-Northampton), Cindy Creem (D-Newton), Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Adam Hinds (D-Pittsfield), Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), and Jason Lewis (D-Winchester).
This past week, Charlie Baker did something shameful.
The Legislature, much to their credit, had passed language in the budget to guarantee free phone calls for incarcerated individuals, ending the predatory practice of prisons and jails charging incarcerated individuals and their families exorbitant costs to stay connected.
All Charlie Baker had to do was sign it. Instead, he is trying to hold the No Cost Calls language hostage as a way to pass one of his own legislative priorities: a bill to weaken due process protections and expand pre-trial detention. Black and Latino electeds in the MA House rightly condemned this move as abhorrent.
Yesterday, the House voted overwhelmingly to reject Baker’s ploy. (If your state rep is among the 122 NAY votes here, you should thank them. NAY = against Baker’s amendment)
But the Legislative session is about to end, and the State Senate has not yet voted to reject Baker’s amendment and to protect No Cost Calls and due process.
If you have time TONIGHT, email your State Senator to tell them to reject Charlie Baker’s amendment and to extend the Legislative session if they have to in order to preserve their own legislative victories.
2 am update: Unfortunately, the MA Senate chose not to listen to advocates like Jane Doe Inc. and Families for Justice as Healing and still passed a version of Baker’s dangerousness bill, which will expand incarceration and put No Cost Calls at risk. Thank you to the 8 senators who voted no.
.png)
