roll call

2022 MA House Scorecard: The Rest of the Session in Review

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. And telling that story requires careful attention.

As we analyzed recorded votes since our mid-term scorecard update, we focused on votes that advance our Legislative Agenda / Progressive Platform and, importantly, highlight a contrast between legislators.

Because of that, we shy away from including many unanimous votes: before any unanimous vote, there are often many legislators putting up roadblocks along the way, as well as concessions made to achieve broader support. Moreover, in a case of unanimity, a recorded vote is motivated more by legislators’ desires for a good press release than anything else (if there’s a time to voice vote, it would be then). No scorecard can ever fully capture such behind-the-scenes jockeying, but setting a high bar before including a unanimous vote helps.

See our full scorecard here or on https://scorecard.progressivemass.com.

False Solutions for Rising Inflation

In the wake of rising inflation, conservatives in the state and nationally started pushing for suspending or even eliminating the gas tax. Such a move does not get at the root of the commodity speculation pushing the price increase and drains revenue that could be used to address the true cost drivers. More forward-thinking policymakers embraced free public transit as a way to address rising costs (see, for example, Connecticut). Republicans roll-called an amendment to suspend the gas tax during the budget debate in April, and fortunately, it failed 32 to 124 (26h). Only Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Dave Roberson (D-Tewksbury), Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joined Republicans in voting for it.

Reproductive Justice

Although the Legislature often claims that it cannot act quickly, at times it can, and the Legislature responded quickly to the Dobbs ruling by passing a follow-up bill to last session’s ROE Act. The new bill established critical protections for Bay Staters who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, requiring insurance to cover abortion and abortion-related care, and other important measures supporting reproductive justice and bodily autonomy. It passed overwhelmingly 136 to 17, with only 6 Democrats and 11 Republicans voting against it (27h). Notably, this was a much larger margin than the ROE Act last session, which just cleared the two-thirds threshold for an override of Governor Baker’s veto. The Democrats who opposed the bill were Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Russell Holmes (D-Mattapan), John Rogers (D-Norwood), Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), and Bud Williams (D-Springfield).

Tackling the Climate Crisis

Back in March, the House passed a bill to accelerate the development of the offshore wind industry. The bill contained many important provisions, but was narrow in scope given the scale of the climate crisis. We chose to score the final conferenced climate bill that the House and Senate passed in July. Entitled An Act driving clean energy and offshore wind, that bill took steps to accelerate the transition to renewable energy, modernize the grid, make green jobs accessible to the communities most in need, require large buildings to report energy usage, improve electric car infrastructure and affordability, and require electrification of public fleets. It passed 143 to 9, with opposition coming from Democrat Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and 8 Republicans (28h).

Public Safety Done Right

Just as the Legislature acted quickly to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion rights, the Legislature also acted quicky to respond to the Supreme Court’s assault on gun violence prevention by passing a bill to harmonize MA’s gun safety laws with the ruling as well as requiring law enforcement officials to conduct personal interviews with anyone seeking to apply for a firearm license and banning anyone facing a restraining order from getting a license. It passed on a largely party line vote of 120 to 33 (29h). Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rady Mom (D-Lowell), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Paul Schmid (D-Westport), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) joined Republicans in opposition.

After the House and Senate passed a measure to end the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals exorbitant costs to connect with their loved ones (No Cost Calls), Governor Baker threatened to veto it unless the Legislature also passed his “dangerousness bill,” an expansion of pre-trial detention (i.e., when individuals are incarcerated without yet being convicted of a crime) with few if any safeguards. Despite being touted as a victims’ rights bill, the proposal was opposed by Jane Doe, Inc., who argued that the bill would be harmful for the survivors they serve. Thankfully, the House rejected Baker’s measure, voting it down 31 to 122 (31h). If only the Senate had as well (but that’s another story). Four Democrats joined Republicans in siding with Baker: Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Paul Tucker (D-Salem), and Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop).

Labor Solidarity

In April, members of the MA State Senate staff announced that after years of staff organizing, they achieved the number of authorization cards necessary to form a MA Senate staff union. On Thursday, March 31, representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222 (IBEW) notified Senate President Karen Spilka of the successful majority and requested voluntary recognition of the Massachusetts State House Employee Union, which would become the second state legislative staff union in United States history. To show solidarity with the union organizers, we chose to score any statements made by legislators in support of the Staff Union (32h).

2022 MA Senate Scorecard: The Rest of the Session in Review

A scorecard, as we like to say, should tell a story. And telling that story requires careful attention.

False Solutions for Rising Inflation

In the wake of rising inflation, conservatives in the state and nationally started pushing for suspending or even eliminating the gas tax. Such a move does not get at the root of the commodity speculation pushing the price increase and drains revenue that could be used to address the true cost drivers. More forward-thinking policymakers embraced free public transit as a way to address rising costs (see, for example, Connecticut). Votes to suspend the gas tax came up during a supplemental budget in March and in the regular budget in May; we scored the former, which failed 11-29 (21s). Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield joined Republicans in the gimmick.

Tackling the Climate Crisis

In April, the Senate took up a multi-issue climate bill to accelerate the clean energy transition, with a particular focus on electrification of transportation and also, to a lesser extent, on building emissions. You can read our full write-up here. It was a strong bill and passed on party lines, i.e., 37 to 3 (23s). There were several worthwhile amendments that passed with recorded votes, but we chose not to score the unanimous votes to allow local pension funds to divest from fossil fuels and require MassDOT to assist Regional Transit Authorities in transitioning to the use of electric buses (If there was unanimous support, it could have just been in the base bill that came to the floor or received a voice vote to move along the process faster). However, Senator Pacheco’s amendment based on his Building Justice with Jobs bill received a more contentious vote (22s). The amendment requested $1 billion from federal Covid-19 recovery funds be transferred to the Clean Energy Investment Fund for at least 1 million home retrofits, prioritizing people living in Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. The amendment was a key priority for the Mass Renews Alliance, MA Power Forward, 350 Mass, and the Mass Sierra Club, but it failed 11 to 28, with a coalition of yes votes from both some of the most progressive and the most conservative senators.

Sports Betting

Despite the many far more important issues the Legislature could have devoted time to addressing this session, the Legislature was consumed a fair amount by the question of legalizing sports betting. We have been on the record opposing the expansion of casinos given the public health impacts of gambling and the predatory business practices at its core; however, we did not engage in this fight. That said, Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Jamaica Plain) roll-called an amendment to the Senate’s sports betting bill to build an evaluation of sports betting license-seekers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) commitments and past record into the licensing process. If the industry is to exist, it should not reinforce the inequities of the economy at large. Unfortunately, Senate Leadership opposed the amendment, and it failed 14 to 26 (24s) — a nonetheless remarkably close vote by our Legislature’s standards.

Work & Family Mobility Act

Although we are often more critical of the House than of the Senate, the Senate were the laggards on the Work & Family Mobility Act, which the House passed in February but the Senate did not take up until May (intentionally after the filing deadline for candidates…). The bill,

for which immigrants’ rights advocates had been fighting for decades, would remove immigration status as a barrier to obtaining a driver’s license so that all drivers on the road are tested and so that immigrants without status are able to drive safely to work, to school, to the hospital, etc. It passed 32 to 8 (30s), with only 5 Democrats joining the 3 Republicans in opposition. Republicans tried several times to weaken the bill, with amendments to create a second-class status for such new license-holders, increase entanglement with ICE, or foster voter fraud conspiracies. They all failed, obtaining between 4 and 7 Democratic votes depending on amendment (25s – 29s).

Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) were the only Democrats to oppose it. John Keenan (D-Quincy), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) were the only senators to vote for the bill but support at least one effort to weaken it.

Criminal Legal Reform

In late June, the Senate took up two bills to make the criminal justice system slightly more “just.” The first bill was to reform the civil asset forfeiture system, raising the legal bar that law enforcement must meet to seize and keep people’s money and property in suspected drug crimes. MA currently allows DAs the lowest legal burden of proof to keep property that’s seized, even when charges are never filed, and is the only state to do so. The Senate passed it 31 to 9, with 6 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition (32s). A Republican amendment to weaken the bill failed 10 to 29 (33s).

Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Walter Timilty (D-Milton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) were the only Democrats to oppose it. Anne Gobi (D-Spencer) and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) voted for the effort to weaken the bill but ultimately supported it. Nick Collins (D-South Boston) opposed the effort to weaken the bill, but then also voted against the bill itself.

The second was to increase opportunities for judicial diversion for youth, thereby ensuring opportunities for rehabilitation and curbing the school-to-prison pipeline. It passed 32 to 8, with 5 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition (36s). The Senate also defeated three Republican efforts to weaken the bill, with amendments receiving between 3 and 9 Democratic supporters (33s – 35s).

Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Anne Gobi (D-Spencer), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), and John Velis (D-Westfield) were the only Democrats to oppose it.Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and Walter Timilty (D-Milton) all supported at least one of the conservative amendments but still voted for the bill itself.

In a sad final note for the session, however, the Senate embraced a harmful proposal from Governor Baker to reinforce the carceral framework. After the House and Senate passed a measure to end the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals exorbitant costs to connect with their loved ones (No Cost Calls), Governor Baker threatened to veto it unless the Legislature also passed his “dangerousness bill,” an expansion of pre-trial detention (i.e., when individuals are incarcerated without yet being convicted of a crime) with few if any safeguards. Despite being touted as a victims’ rights bill, the proposal was opposed by Jane Doe, Inc., who argued that the bill would be harmful for the survivors they serve.

Nonetheless, in the final hours of the session, the Senate chose to pass a narrowed but still harmful version of Baker’s proposal, thereby closing off a path forward for the No Cost Calls bill and pandering to the worst of “tough on crime” mentality. The amendment passed, shamefully, 30 to 8 (38s). The eight rightful dissenters were 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).

Reproductive Justice

Although the Legislature often claims that it cannot quickly, at times, it can, and the Legislature responded quickly to the Dobbs ruling by passing a follow-up bill to last session’s ROE Act. The new bill established critical protections for Bay Staters who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, requiring insurance to cover abortion and abortion-related care, and other important measures supporting reproductive justice and bodily autonomy. It passed overwhelmingly 39 to 1, with only Republican Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) opposing it (37s).

Labor Solidarity

In April, members of the MA State Senate staff announced that after years of staff organizing, they achieved the number of authorization cards necessary to form a MA Senate staff union. On Thursday, March 31, representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2222 (IBEW) notified Senate President Karen Spilka of the successful majority and requested voluntary recognition of the Massachusetts State House Employee Union, which would become the second state legislative staff union in United States history. Senate Leadership has remained resolutely opposed to recognizing them, and to show solidarity with the union organizers, we chose to score any statements made by senators in support of the Staff Union (39s).

beacon hill roll call scorecard

The House and Senate Agree to a Final Version of the VOTES Act. Here’s What’s In, and What’s Out.

On Wednesday, exactly five months before the November 8 general election, the House and Senate released their final agreement on language for the VOTES Act. Yesterday, the Senate voted 37 to 3 in support of the final version of the bill, and the House is expected to vote soon.

The negotiations around the VOTES Act have been going on for months. The Senate passed a bill back in October, and then the House passed one back in January. There has always been strong support from both chambers this session for making the widely popular vote-by-mail and expanded early voting reforms from 2020 permanent, but House leaders have remained fiercely opposed to Same Day Registration or even a narrower Election Day Registration despite ongoing Senate support. Rep. Mike Moran (D-Brighton), one of the most vociferous opponents of Same Day Registration in the House debate, was one of the House appointees to the Conference Committee negotiating the bill.

The opposition to Same Day Registration / Election Day Registration is revealing. Reforms like vote-by-mail and expanded early voting can give incumbents a clearer picture of who is voting and who has already voted. SDR/EDR means that new people with whom they may not have spoken could show up at the polls. That uncertainty terrifies many representatives, and rather than stepping up their work at engaging all residents of their districts, they would rather shut such prospective voters out of the process entirely.

The final version of the VOTES Act, to be clear, contains a number of wins, some big and some modest. Special credit to the Democracy Behind Bars coalition for elevating the issue of jail-based voting during the debate and the negotiations around the bill.

Here are the key provisions of the Conference bill:

Voter Registration

Reducing the voter registration deadline from 20 days before the election to 10 days. Unfortunately, the Conference bill left out Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration, which, as noted, had been a major point of contention in negotiations. The Senate has now voted to pass Same Day Registration three times, only to see it fail each time due to House intransigence. Same Day Registration is one of the simplest and most effective ways to increase turnout, and it is especially important for working-class voters, BIPOC voters, young voters, and renters, and it continues to be appalling that our Democratic supermajority in the House is too afraid of new people participating in the democratic process to embrace this reform.

Requiring the Secretary of State to make the online registration portal accessible in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and other languages deemed necessary or required by law

Reasserting that the Automatic Voter Registration law passed in 2018 is a back-end rather than front-end opt-out system. Secretary Bill Galvin has been refusing to implement the bill as passed, creating instead what is called a “front-end opt-out system” in which eligible registrants are given the opportunity to opt out during the initial transaction as opposed to afterwards. For more on this issue, read this.

Requiring the Secretary Galvin to enroll Massachusetts in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which helps states keep more accurate voting rolls, no later than July 1, 2022. This too was required in the 2018 AVR bill, and Galvin has refused to adhere to the law.

Vote By Mail

Permanent early voting by mail for all elections (unless municipalities vote to opt out in a public vote of the local legislative body for local elections)
- Application deadline of the fifth business day before the election (the Tuesday before the election for all regularly scheduled Tuesday elections, and the Monday before the election when the primary falls on the week of Labor Day)
- Special accommodations for those with disabilities seeking to vote by mail.
- Creation of an online portal for VBM requests, as well as publication of the application on the Secretary website and the websites of each city and town
- Mailing of VBM applications no later than 45 days before the election to all voters registered no later than 60 days before the election
- VBM applications and ballots postage-paid, pre-addressed, and available in all languages as required by law.
- Mailing of applications with the voter registration acknowledgement letters sent out after registering to vote or updating registration
- Deadline of 5 pm on the third day after the election for receipt of VBM ballots mailed on or before Election Day

Unfortunately, there are no requirements around the number or accessibility of drop boxes for cities and towns to make available for return of VBM ballots.

Early Voting

Two weeks for biennial state elections (Saturday two weeks before GOTV Saturday through the Friday before the election)
One week for primary elections (Saturday before GOTV Saturday through the Friday before the election)
Posting of early voting sites at least two weeks prior
Local option for early voting in municipal elections (Majority of registrars must request, and then local legislative body must approve. The early voting period must exist within 17 days before the election and 2 business days prior. For Tuesday elections, this would mean between the Saturday two weeks before GOTV Saturday and the Friday before the election.)
See below for early voting requirements by city/town population

Staffing the Polls

Enabling cities and towns to appoint poll workers from outside the city/town if there is insufficient staffing
Granting the power to determine the staffing of police officers of the polls to the local legislative bodies, rather than the police departments

Jail-Based Voting Reforms

Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated who are currently eligible to vote are provided with voting information and materials to exercise their right to vote
Requires correctional facilities to display and distribute information about voting rights and procedures, as prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth
Requires facilities to assist individuals who are incarcerated in registering, applying for, and returning mail ballots
Ensures that individuals who are incarcerated are properly notified of their right to vote upon release and given the opportunity to fill out a voter registration form
Creates systems for data collection on jail-based voting, as well as the ability of incarcerated individuals to submit complaints

Unfortunately, the JBV language only applies to state/federal elections (and does not include municipal elections), but it is still a big win.

roll call voting rights

Seeking Baker’s Approval, The Legislature Narrows Police Reform Bill

This weekend saw renewed attention to the lawlessness far too common among law enforcement, with the release of video footage of cops bragging about brutalizing protesters earlier this summer and a Globe story about how police officers are able to commit crimes off duty with impunity.

Unfortunately, while the news was underscoring why we need to be going further in imposing public accountability of policing and shifting our definition of (and resources for) public safety away from policing, the MA Legislature was narrowing the ambition of its police reform bill.

Rather than signing the MA House and Senate’s consensus police reform bill, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed his true colors again by threatening to veto it unless the Legislature watered it down.

The Senate, to its credit, had passed both its own bill in July and the more recent consensus bill with veto-proof majorities (30 to 7 and then 28 to 12). If they were the sole chamber, they could have passed the stronger bill from earlier this month (which, itself, was a compromise).

But despite Democrats’ 80% majority in the House, the House never came close to a super-majority in support of the bill. They passed the consensus bill by only 92 to 67, a remarkably close vote by House standards and well shy of the 106 needed for an override. One wonders how committed House Leadership really was to their own bill, given how easily they can whip support when they want.

The Senate thus chose to weaken the bill to secure the Governor’s support, adopting most (but not all) of his proposed amendments to the bill. The Senate voted 31 to 9 to pass the new bill, gaining the support of three no votes from earlier this month (Diana DiZoglio, Marc Pacheco, and Bruce Tarr).

So About the New Bill?

Although the broad contours of the bill remain the same, and many parts of it are worth praise, the redraft of the bill is weaker in a few notable ways:

Police in Charge of Setting Their Own Training: The new bill keeps the all-law-enforcement municipal police training committee under the administration’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (a well-documented bad actor when it comes to oversight) instead of transferring ts duties to a new majority-civilian POST commission. The idea that police should be counted on to properly police themselves is not borne out by any evidence.
Weaker Use of Force Standards: The POST commission would still maintain some approval authority over use of force standards (unlike Baker’s request), but the bill eliminates definitions for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” related to the use of force.
Weaker Facial Surveillance Regulations: The bill also replaces the full ban on racist, dangerous facial surveillance technology with more modest regulations on it (Baker had wanted no regulations at all) and the creation of a commission to explore future regulations.
Additional Changes: The bill also creates additional loopholes in the definition of “bias-free policing” and the regulation of no-knock warrants. Although presented as fixing technicalities, the new language could open the door to police abuse.

The dilution of the bill did not stop conservatives from both parties in the Senate from trying to weaken it further.

Because there was a roll call, you can see which Senators, including Democrats, voted for an amendment from Senator Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to weaken the bill by eliminating the civilian majority on the POST commission.

12.21.20 Police Reform Vote on Tarr Amendment

12/23 Update: And then on to the House Today

Last night, the House voice-voted to accept the redrafted bill, leaving no record of the vote. But they did have a recorded vote on the enactment of the bill earlier today.

The weaker redraft passed the House 107-51.

The Democrats who voted NO earlier this month who voted YES after Baker made the Legislature weaken the bill were Cahill, Capano, Fiola, Haggerty, Kearney, Markey, Pignatelli, Scmid, and Zlotnik. They were joined by Republicans Jones, Poirier, Hunt, Orrall, Whelan, and Wong and the unaffiliated Whipps.

Charlie Baker police reform roll call

Governor Baker Needs to Stop Trying to Dilute Police Reform

In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.

Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.

Baker’s amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.

Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.

Can you email Baker today to urge him to stop trying to water down the Legislature’s bill?

To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, “The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for.”

The Legislature Stood Up to Baker. They Can Do It Again.

This week, the MA House and Senate did something that they so rarely do: they stood up to Governor Charlie Baker.

Rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access. Thankfully, they rejected his amendments by wide margins. You can see the votes below.

But they need to stand up to him again.

They need to stand up to him again by rejecting his harmful amendments to the police reform bill.

And they need to stand up to him by rejecting his effort to strike vital oversight language in the budget to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Email your legislators in support of key language on police reform and prison oversight.

Charlie Baker police reform reproductive rights roll call

The House Rejected Baker’s Anti-Choice Amendment. But There’s Still Work to Do.

Last month, the House and Senate finally took action to strengthen reproductive rights here in MA by passing a slimmed down version of the ROE Act that, although it didn’t go as far as the ROE Act would have, contained important measures to protect and expand equitable access to abortion.

Rather than signing the measures into law, Republican Governor Charlie Baker sent back an amendment to nearly gut them entirely.

Fortunately, the House refused to go along.

Yesterday, they voted down his amendment 107 to 49.

Republican Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) put forth another amendment that would promote disinformation and stigmatize individuals seeking abortion care. That amendment also went down, by an even wider margin of 120 to 34.

It now goes to the Senate, which plans to vote tomorrow.

But there’s more work to do.

Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.

Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.

Can you email your state legislators about the importance of standing up to Baker and for civil liberties?

Charlie Baker reproductive rights roll call

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

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

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

How Did Your Legislators Vote?

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

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

Let your legislators know what you think of their vote!

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

So What’s Next?

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

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

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

Charlie Baker police reform roll call

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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