Why Your State Rep Opposed Election Day Registration…and Why They’re Still Wrong

VOTE buttons

Four years ago, the MA House voted to block the inclusion of Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration in the VOTES Act, despite the Senate having voted yet again in support.

Senator Warren, Senator Markey, all 9 of our US Representatives, and the Democratic members of the MA Senate are all in favor of allowing eligible voters to register or update their registration at the polls, and yet the MA House has been a persistent obstacle. As the Legislature considers Election Day Registration again soon in light of the ballot initiative filed by Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, it’s timely to look back at the arguments that Democratic state representatives were making in 2022, why they were wrong then, and why—of course—they are still wrong.

During that floor debate in 2022, several House Democrats—then Assistant Majority Leader (now Majority Leader) Mike Moran (D-Brighton), Rep. (and now First Division Chair) Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough), Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham), Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy), Rep. Kip Diggs (D-Barnstable), Rep. Joan Meschino (D-Hull), Rep. Dan Hunt (D-Dorchester), and Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston)—spoke against implementing Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration (terms often used interchangeably, but divergent in the treatment of the early voting period), delivering remarks filled with specious arguments and factual inaccuracies.

In 2022, I categorized the arguments being made into 12 key arguments. Two of those arguments are irrelevant now: you can no longer say that we can’t have Election Day Registration because of the COVID-19 pandemic, nor can you point to former Republican Governor Charlie Baker’s opposition. But with those out of the way, there are still 10, and all 10 are still wrong.

Bad Argument #1: We are already a leader on voting rights.

“When I think about what we have done — pre-registration, where we allow our young kids ages 16 and 17 to pre-register so they automatically are registered — you can go online right now. We require the secretary of state to have an online portal where you can register to vote online. It takes approximately 12 to 15 minutes to register to vote online on your phone. If you’re moving and you need to change your address or change your voter registration address, you can do it online. You can follow your ballot online, much like FedEx lets you track your package. We’ve also done election day audits and early voting by mail. All of these are part of the package we should be very proud to talk about in this Legislature. The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters.” (MORAN)

“We have enacted the most sweeping voter protection laws in the nation. No one is more frustrated about what is going on in this country and the attacks on voting.” (GREGOIRE)


“Based on some of the debate some might conclude we’re sitting in the Georgia State House. We seem to be losing sight of the gains we are making. Our constituents expect us to determine what’s best for here, not other states. Here in Massachusetts, we lead the country in making the franchise available and accessible to all eligible voters. No other state offers pre-registration, mail-in voting, outdoor ballot boxes, automatic and online registration and online updating.” (DAY)

“The gentleman from Stoneham was saying some say this is voter suppression. I say give me a break. Massachusetts has been a leader. I think our work today proves that.” (HUNT)

Massachusetts Democrats often like to describe our state as a leader in small “d” democracy, but it’s a claim in desperate need of a reality check. Massachusetts only began allowing early voting, pre-registration, and online registration after the election reform package in 2014 (we were a late adopter). Massachusetts was not the first state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration; we were the 14th. Eight states mail every eligible voter a ballot, going further than the reforms from the VOTES Act.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (and the Movement Advancement Project), California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Vermont, and Washington have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, and all-mail elections (with the equivalent of in-person early voting with the drop-off centers). DC, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Minnesota have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, in-person early voting, and no-excuse absentee voting. So our current laws, or even the bill passed by the House, do not make us a leader.

Of the 10 states with the highest turnout in 2024 (we weren’t one of them), 8 of them have Election Day Registration.

But what if we were a leader? What if our election laws were the best in the country? Simply “being better than other states” is not a sufficient benchmark; the question is always whether we are doing all that we can. And we’re not.

Bad Argument #2: It is a solution in search of a problem.

“The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters. We have an opt out system, so when you engage with the Registry of Motor Vehicles or other agencies, you have to tell them you don’t want to be registered. I can tell you when we passed that vote, I won’t divulge names, one of the advocacy groups said to me, “You’re making it very, very challenging for us to make the case for same day voter registration.” I agreed with her then, but I think we have something to do in that direction, and that is what this further amendment is about.” (MORAN)

“I rise in support of the further amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the underlying proposals are solutions looking for problems. We do not have a voter registration problem, we have a perception problem here. This past November, in the election, that was historic, only 28.9 percent of registered voters cast a ballot. In the last municipal election before COVID in Marlborough, the turnout was 25 percent… However, enacting solutions to non-existent problems does nothing to change the national discourse. It creates issues and opens us to unprecedented criticism.”  (GREGOIRE)

People move, and that includes moving close to Election Day. Especially when our state primary is often close to a major move-in day. Indeed, this year, it is on the state’s biggest move-in day, i.e., September 1. The act of moving close to Election Day, or even being evicted close to Election Day, can lead to disenfranchisement if people are far away from their old polling location, and that is an injustice.

Moreover, these arguments are ignorant of the many stresses that working-class people face: planning more than 10 days in advance can be difficult for those balancing family commitments and multiple jobs with erratic work schedules, not to mention an array of bills and other responsibilities. Missing deadlines is common (the legislature does it all the time), and managing a deadline that far in advance can be difficult for those with ADHD (one Election Day is easier to get a handle of than the many steps that need to be juggled prior). None of that should make someone less worthy of participation.

Imagine as well how likely of a scenario it could be that someone thought they had registered but, indeed, hadn’t (they already get to fill out a provisional ballot, so why not let them register? ) Or imagine if someone’s pre-marriage or pre-divorce name, or deadname, were the one on the rolls, differing from what they use now and what their ID shows. Or, since poll workers are human, imagine if there was a clerical error in the books. Why should none of this be able to be fixed?

Automatic Voter Registration is great, but it will never capture everyone, both for the reasons stated above and for the fact that not everyone would be interfacing with a designated agency (not everyone has a license!).

Beyond all of this, we can see the clear existence of a problem in rejected provisional ballot data. In the 2022 general election, 1,600 or 64% of provisional ballots cast were rejected; in 2024 3,309 provisional ballots rejected. In just the two statewide elections nearly 5,000 were failed by the arbitrary deadline.

That legislators would not see a need for Election Day Registration shows that they are not talking with their constituents with the greatest need. And that’s a problem.

Bad Argument #3: It doesn’t even lead to any demonstrable increases in turnout.

“To the contrary of the lady before me, I found the National Conference of State Legislatures, research from them has concluded that there is no demonstrable increase in voter participation in states that have same day or election day registration.” (GREGOIRE)

From the very website referenced: “There is strong evidence that same-day and Election Day registration increases voter turnout, but the extent of the impact is difficult to conclude. Immediately following the implementation of SDR, states usually see a boost in voter numbers. SDR states also tend to outperform other states in terms of turnout percentages. Many states that have implemented SDR have historically produced higher voter numbers, making changes hard to gauge. Multiple studies place the effect between an increase of 3% to 7%, with an average of a 5% increase.”

Bad Argument #4: We haven’t done the research, and we don’t know the cost and the impact. We need to study this.

“Now we come to the further amendment. The further amendment would call on the secretary of state to create a report. One of the things that having some institutional knowledge gives you is you have some sense of where this comes and where this is going. For years, it was something we talked about, it was debated in bills, but it wasn’t something that we really took in a serious way and did any real prudent research on.” (MORAN)

“When you’re talking about paying for same-day voter registration or the mechanisms you need to put in place and what that means to 351 cities and towns that range in size from 89, which is Gosnell, to Boston, it means very different things to very different cities and towns. What this report would hopefully do is identify some of those challenges that we would have.” (MORAN)

“I think it’s important to get it right and reject the argument this is suppression. It’s not a study in procedure only. It’s a true study. We have 351 cities and towns because when they were founded, individuals in one town got fed up with government, went to the next plot of land and started over. I think it’s important to spend some time and get down to the facts and get it right. The argument that this is voter suppression is not unlike Mona Lisa Vito. It does not hold water.” (HUNT)

The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on the VOTES Act in May of 2021 and has held two hearings on Same Day Registration and Election Day Registration in the two sessions since. SDR has been filed each session at least going back to the 2000s, and it was voted on by the MA Senate at least three times.

Moreover, Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, our top elections official, was quite clear that we don’t need a study to make this happen; we can and should just do it.

Galvin has been even more specific: he explained that implementing same-day registration statewide in Massachusetts would cost at least $1 million. He noted this would cover initial administrative costs, but that the total could be higher if cities and towns required additional funding for equipment, staffing, or other local needs. Those costs would be subject to existing reimbursement models. The Legislature approved a $61 billion budget for FY 2026. Adding another $1 million would be a 0.0016% increase.

Bad Argument #5: The clerks oppose it.

“I had a chat with the clerk with the city of Marlborough and his assertion was that if we implement same day or election day voting in addition to codifying emergency measures, the additional burden would be a logistical nightmare he was unsure of how it would work.” (GREGOIRE)

“A lot has been said today about clerks. Yes, we do read every single thing you send us. Reading the letters and the communications from the clerk and speaking with the women, the clerks, in my communities, they actually share our commitment to increasing voter access and engaging voters. These women are trained and knowledgeable in every facet of elections, including the parts you don’t see. They are committed to ensuring integrity, making sure it is a smooth easy process. They do a fantastic job. If they are the ones reaching out and asking us to just take a small pause, I think we owe it to them to listen to the people who do this work. I’m asking you to join me in supporting the further amendment.” (MESCHINO)

“In speaking with the clerks in my district, same day registration would be an overwhelming task to add to what is already a daunting process.” (LANATRA)

To the contrary, the Town Clerks’ Association expressed support for Election Day Registration (see their letter here).

Bad Argument #6: This would be burdensome for staffing.

“In our caucus earlier, the gentlelady from Gloucester brought up some of the staffing issues and staffing levels that would have to happen in the state to do this. Also brought up was training people to know how to do this correctly. There’s more than 2,000 precincts in Massachusetts and approximately 1,220 polling locations, and there are 391 early voting locations. All of those would need to be looked at to see how they could appropriately carry out the process of same-day voter registration. In many of those locations, they’ve never even considered it.” (MORAN)

“Other issues we need to consider: bilingual residence. How many additional staff do we need across the commonwealth to make sure those people coming in have their voices heard?” (MORAN)

“Those who spend quite a bit of time at polling locations know that there is a challenge regarding staffing election days. The expansion of early voting prompted a lot of questions about staffing. Challenges were met and overcome but it took some time. The same issue applies to linguistic access to polling places, people that you can find on election day to work polls, to talk to people who don’t speak English to help them to vote. I want to have a system where no one is disenfranchised or one that makes people feel small when they have the opportunity to cast a vote.” (CHAN)

Our poll workers, on whom our democracy depends, have to prepare for full turnout every election. We never get close to that unfortunately; turnout more than 50% is often deemed impressive. But what that means is that going into Election Day, we need to assume that everyone who has not yet voted by mail or voted early could show up to vote. The additional voters that EDR could turn out will be small in comparison to that (although meaningful in terms of election results).

Moreover, the VOTES Act did away with check-out tables. We have reduced the need for staffing the last few years. Using the staff levels of just a few years ago would easily account for any added work.

Bad Argument #7: We do not have the technology.

“Internet accessibility was brought up by the gentleman from Quincy. There are parts of this commonwealth we have yet to get appropriate access. Are we going to have a closed system, where only clerks are limited to using that system? Or is it going to be held in the cloud? These are lots of challenging things we’ve never really thought about when it comes to same-day voter registration.” (MORAN)

“We do not have a plan before us to equip them with technology and access to the internets [sic] they would need to implement these proposals. We do not have a sense of what it would cost. Our clerks describe a normal election day, charitably, as a nonstop fire drill, sometimes ending days later. Clerks have not been provided with information about these changes. This amendment would do just that. You want same day or election-day voting? Let’s figure it out. That’s what this amendment does. As enshrined in this bill voters may register up to the day before.” (DAY)

Maine has had Election Day Registration since the 1970s, and New Hampshire has since the 1990s. We are no less technologically advanced. It is not a question of technology; it is a question of political will.

Moreover, the small towns in Massachusetts that have bad Internet access (digital inequities are real) are places where voting likely occurs at one location: their city hall—a place that will have decent Internet access.

Even more, poll pads have been rolled out across municipalities for election workers, making the technology seamless for enabling voters to register or update their registration at the polls.

Lastly, since the Legislature shortened the voter registration blackout period to ten days via the VOTES Act, there is already a period of time in the early voting window where voters are able to register to vote or update their registration: de facto same day registration. Galvin has issued guidance for this, and cities and towns have handled it smoothly. We should extend that practice to Election Day.

Bad Argument #8: People should have to register in advance; it’s a vital step of responsibility and a part of political education.

“It is a privilege and it comes with responsibilities and efforts in registration, in a timely way. We agree that they are benchmarks of our democracy. Forward thinking people of all races walked over the trenches in the South to get here to vote. I am a professional boxer but to have to fight on same day voting is a bit much. I will fight for anyone in the state to vote but I feel that they have to register in time. They have from now until 10 days before our voting day. And then we can give 10 days to mail in or walk in to vote. We have plenty of time to vote and that is the best way to do it.” (Diggs)

“I have a different perspective as a person who in his 20s stood on street corners to register voters. This was some 25 or so years ago today. And in Quincy at the time it was predominantly Chinese and people of color. We had to engage them one on one. I didn’t do this sitting at a fair, it was a direct approach for engagement. Voter education is a large part of voter registration and the need to explain why it is important to register. This is very time consuming. Since my days of registering people in person, new ways have come up. The ability to vote online which at the time websites were not used that much back then, but it is very commonplace now. I never thought that we would have automatic voter registration through the RMV. There are many new ways to cross different barriers. I am concerned about the impact on the underlying amendment because the engagement of registering to vote is a one on one experience. To have the linguistic ability present at the polls to explain to people how to manage a ballot, how to register is important.” (CHAN)

To some extent, the response is the same in #2 about the need that Election Day Registration fills, especially among BIPOC communities, working-class communities, immigrant communities, young people, and renters.

But both of these comments ignore the simple fact that figuring out that an election is happening, finding your polling place, and doing some research on candidates—all things that people who show up at the polls have done—is a demonstration of the very responsibility and political education that they are demanding. To Rep. Chan’s remarks, the work of civic engagement is year-round, and that reality is not an excuse for turning anyone away from the polls.

Bad Argument #9 This would allow voter fraud.

“From my conversation with constituents, there is a sense that same day or election day voting could give a fog of potential nefariousness. I have faith in our clerks and the secretary to have fair elections but I do have concerns over that sentiment, which I believe is false. I’ve heard from constituents who are looking for this underlying amendment and numerous who have great concern.” (HUNT)

It should be beneath any Democrat, and any elected official, to dignify voter fraud myths that have been debunked time and time again and are only ever invoked as a justification for racist and exclusionary policies.

Bad Argument #10: If we allowed people to register to vote on Election Day, then people in my district I don’t know—such as college students, recent graduates, renters, working-class people, immigrants, members of BIPOC communities, etc.—might show up to vote and not for me.

No one said this out loud, but it’s the dominant reason why many are opposed. And if they want people not to show up to vote for someone else, they should do the work of engaging with their constituents and welcoming new ones. Indeed, isn’t that what representative democracy is about?

Tomorrow Is Election Day. You Should Be Able to Register to Vote Then.

Tomorrow is Election Day. 55 cities and towns across Massachusetts will be holding elections, and if you’re in one of them, you’ll be well aware that in the last week, especially the last few days, the election has become more visible.

Canvassers, lit, mailers, news coverage–the list goes on. But at this exact point when attention and visibility rise, our voter registration cutoff limits who can participate.

Our democracy is strongest when everyone can participate, but MA still puts up unnecessary barriers to participation with a 10-day voter registration cutoff. Given that the average American moves more than 11 times over the course of their lives, moving near Election Day could easily lead to disenfranchisement.

Even worse, if clerical errors exist on the voter rolls, voters can fill out a provisional ballot are left unsure if their vote will be counted. No one should ever lose basic rights due to clerical errors.

Same Day Registration can fix all of that, and MA should join our neighboring states in passing it. If Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut can all do it, why can’t we?

Can you let your legislators know it’s time to pass Same Day Registration?

We Can Mitigate Voter Confusion with Good Policy.

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

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 the following bills:

  • H.834 / S.505: An Act establishing same day registration of voters
  • H.799 / S.503: An Act decoupling the municipal census from voter registration
  • H.820 / S.504: An Act enforcing accessibility for voters with disabilities
  • H.874 / S.524: An Act relative to voting rights restoration

Critical to improving voting access is reducing opportunities for voter confusion. Voters have so much to think about as they decide whom to vote for. But there are ample opportunities to be confused about such questions as “Am I able to vote?” “Where?” “When?” “If I go there, will my vote be counted?”—to name a few—given the many questions and problems that plague people every day of their lives. We can mitigate all of these sources of confusion with good policy.

Same Day Registration (H.834/S.505)

Tenants moving to a new apartment after getting priced out or evicted by an unscrupulous landlord. Senior citizens looking to downsize and move into a retirement community. Under MA’s current law, if these moves happen too close to an election date, these people—and countless others like them—could lose their right to vote.

That’s because we have an arbitrary and unjust 10-day voter registration cutoff. And shockingly, we’re an outlier in New England for having a cutoff at all. In Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut, eligible voters can register to vote or update their registration at the polls. It’s a simple reform (indeed, NH and ME have done it for decades), and it can boost engagement and improve the efficiency of election administration.

The need for Same Day Registration will be especially acute next year, as the state primary is currently scheduled for September 1, a major move-in day across the state. And, indeed, as you all know from running for office, most voters start paying attention in those final weeks, and they shouldn’t be shut out of the process for doing so.

Decoupling the Municipal Census from Voter Registration (H.799/S.503)

Our municipal censuses serve valuable roles for data collection and jury selection, but MA is an outlier in making them a tool for voter disenfranchisement. Voters can be rendered inactive for failing to complete a form that many can easily miss, creating confusion at the polls and increasing barriers to participation.

Disability Access (H.820/S.504)

Voting must be accessible to all eligible citizens, including voters with disabilities. In reality, too many polling places still have barriers to full inclusion: malfunctioning accessible machines, poor signage, broken automatic doors, and more. These bills provide meaningful oversight by requiring polling place inspections every four years, compliance plans for sites that fall short, and enforcement authority for the Attorney General.

Voting Rights Restoration (H.874 / S.524)

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.

To go back to the point about voter confusion, this connection between incarceration and voting rights can often lead people to think they have lost their right to vote permanently, even when they return home. Again, voter confusion leads to disenfranchisement, and it is preventable with good policy.

In Conclusion, at a time when democracy is under attack, MA should be taking every step we can to strengthen our democracy. Let’s show our commitment to democracy and improve the voting experience for everyone.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

“Our commonwealth did something rare in recent history: it took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised. “

April 1, 2025

Chair Keenan, Chair Hunt, 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.63 and S.7: 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. The Department of Justice, even under Trump’s first administration, 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. 

If Massachusetts were to pass these amendments, we would be in good company. Maine, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and DC already ensure that all citizens of voting age are able to participate in elections, regardless of incarceration status. That is also true of a number of European countries, such as Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland. Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine.

At a time when democracy is under attack, let’s take this opportunity to strengthen and expand it.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Take Action: Our State Budget Is Being Finalized Right Now.

In April and May, the MA House and Senate voted on their respective budgets for the next fiscal year. As they reconcile the differences in a Conference Committee, it’s vital that chambers put aside the inter-chamber jockeying and procrastination that so often characterizes these negotiations and instead commit to embracing the best of both budget proposals.

What would that mean? It would mean doing things like the following:

  • Early Education and Child Care: Advancing the Common Start vision of a more robust early education and child care infrastructure with greater stability for providers, better pay for educators, and more affordability for families, as reflected by various parts of both the House and Senate budget
  • Universal School Meals: Fully funding universal school meals by dedicating $190 million to School Meals For All (Line Item 1596-2422)
  • Access to Counsel: Providing $2.5 million for implementation of a statewide Access to Counsel pilot program to increase access to legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner occupants in eviction proceedings (item 0321-1800 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal)
  • No Cost Calls Funding: Dedicating $35M in the Communications Access Trust Fund for no–cost calls in prisons and jails (item 1595-6153 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal)
  • No Cost Calls Reporting: Making technical fixes to the No Cost Calls reporting requirements, so that policymakers have the information they need to effectively monitor free communication (Section 29 A&B of the Senate FY 2025 budget proposal)
  • Voting Access: Eliminating barriers to voting access by ending MA’s outlier status as the only state where if a voter doesn’t return the annual municipal census, they’re placed on the Inactive Voter list (an amendment included in the Senate budget that also earned the support of a majority of representatives)

Can you write to your legislators to urge them to express their support for these provisions to the budget negotiators?

Tomorrow is an important deadline at the State House

Tomorrow is an important deadline at the State House: Joint Rule 10 Day.

According to this State House rule, every joint committee (i.e., committee of both the House and Senate) must take action on the bills before them by the first Wednesday in February.

That action can be to give the bill a favorable report (It advances!), to give the bill an adverse report (It’s done for the session), to send the bill to study (It’s effectively done for the session), or to give the bill an extension (It has more time).

The State House relies on deadlines to spur action, so expect to see a flurry of action on bills later this week.

That also means it’s a great time to contact the committees in support of critical bills.

Can you commit to sending at least one email by tomorrow? See below for some action tools.


 
Keep Up the Momentum for Criminal Justice Reform

If we want to continue to move past the failed model of mass incarceration – a model that costs outrageous sums, breaks apart communities, and does not increase public safety – then we need more policy action this year.

Urge the Judiciary Committee to advance key bills before a critical February 7 deadline.

  • Raise the Age (H.1710 and S.942: An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults): When young adults (18, 19, 20) are kept in the juvenile system, they are able to have better access to school and rehabilitative programming.
  • Prison Moratorium (H.1795: An Act establishing a jail and prison construction moratorium): Massachusetts does not need to build new prisons and jails. We need to be investing in programming, re-entry services, and community supports.
  • Clean Slate Bills (H.1598/S.979: An Act providing easier and greater access to sealing & H.1493/S.998: An Act to remove collateral consequences and protect the presumption of innocence): Too many people are trapped in poverty and deprived of jobs, housing and other chances for success because of their criminal and juvenile records. We need to allow for automatic record sealing in certain cases, rather than relying only on burdensome case-by-case petitions.

Can you write to the Judiciary Committee today in support of these key bills?

Let’s Set up all Students and Families for Success

Every student deserves the support and resources to thrive. That’s why we’ve been such strong supporters of the Common Start bills and the Thrive Act.

Common Start (H.489 and S.301): While Massachusetts is a nationwide leader on early education and child care and we’ve made important progress in recent years, the current system remains broken and access to quality early education and care remains out of reach for too many families. The Common Start framework would provide the specific structure that is needed to deliver affordable care options for families; significantly better pay and benefits for early educators; a new, stable source of funding for providers; high-quality programs and services for children; and substantial relief for businesses and our economy.

Thrive Act (H.495 / S.246): Massachusetts’ state takeover law and the state’s misuse of the MCAS as a graduation requirement are failing our students and disrupting their education. The Thrive Act would end the failed system of state takeovers of school districts, and replace it with a comprehensive support and improvement system that focuses on giving students and educators the tools and resources they need to succeed. The legislation would also support students by establishing a modified high school graduation requirement in which coursework would replace the MCAS test as the basis for showing student mastery of state standards. And, the legislation would create a commission to give our communities a voice in building a better assessment and accountability system.

Can you email the Joint Committee on Education in support of these bills?


It’s Time to Make Polluters Pay

Massachusetts communities are already experiencing the devastating and costly effects of climate change even without considering the HUGE cost of building the climate resilient infrastructure recommended by Climate Chief Hoffer in her 2023 report.

Unless action is taken, our communities will continue to bear the financial and emotional costs of climate change while the fossil fuel companies responsible for climate-related damages make record profits. These companies must bear the cost.

The Make Polluters Pay Bill (S.481/H.872) is a pathway to making that happen.

It would require top polluters to contribute to a superfund used to pay for climate-related damages in Massachusetts. It would create the Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program, generating $75 billion over the next 25 years for climate adaptation and resilience projects. These funds will then be dispensed through the Climate Change Adaptation Fund, with at least 40% of the funds going to projects directly benefiting environmental justice communities.

Can you write to the Joint Environment and Natural Resources Committee in support of these bills?

MA Needs to Lead on Democracy

In the late 1990s, after incarcerated individuals in MCI-Norfolk started political organizing, Republican Governor Paul Cellucci and the Massachusetts Legislature responded with retaliation and a multi-step process of disenfranchisement. Our commonwealth did something rare in recent history: it took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised.

According to a new fact sheet from The Sentencing Project, over 7,700 otherwise eligible citizens in Massachusetts are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. The report further underscores the racial disparities in the Massachusetts criminal legal system that leads to Black and Latinx residents being disproportionately denied their right to vote.

On April 26, 2023, the Joint Committee on Election Laws gave a favorable report to S.8/H.26, constitutional amendments filed by Sen. Liz Miranda and Adam Gomez and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven that would ensure that incarceration never leads to a loss of voting rights.

Now, the Election Laws Committee must advance S.428/H.724 before the Feb. 7 deadline. This legislation would make relevant changes in state law, and is needed to accompany the constitutional amendments. Passing the constitutional amendments this year would be historic — we need to make sure these bills that change the law for local elections are moving at the same pace.

Can you write to the Joint Election Laws Committee in support of these bills?

Let’s Continue Expanding Voting Access

I voted stickers

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

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 the following bills:

  • H.724/S.428: An Act relative to voting rights restoration
  • S.410: An Act making voting administrative changes to create equitable systemic solutions (Voting ACCESS bill)
  • H.688: An Act establishing same day registration of voters
  • H.707: An Act decoupling the municipal census from voter registration

H.724/S.428: Voting Rights Restoration

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. 

S.410, H.688, and H.707: Strengthening Voting Access 

With regard to the comprehensive Voting ACCESS bill (S.410), we would like to underscore the importance of Election Day Registration. In Massachusetts elections, an unnecessary and arbitrary 20-day registration cutoff disenfranchises more than 100,000 voters from participating in our elections. Given that the average American moves more than 11 times over the course of their lives, moving near Election Day could lead to disenfranchisement under the current system. Likewise, given the stress of work, family, and myriad other commitments, many voters may first start to learn about an election after the registration window has already passed. Indeed, this is the period when media coverage of elections—and thus voter information—is the strongest. But when voters seek to update their registration or register anew, they are shut out of the process.

When there are errors in voters’ registration, they are typically asked to fill out a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are cumbersome for election workers and leave voters feeling as though their votes didn’t count. And our first experiences at the polls–indeed, all of our experiences at the polls–have an impact on our voting habits throughout our lives.

Our neighboring states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut have already realized the problems with such a cutoff and adopted Election Day Registration (EDR). Maine has had EDR since the 1970s, and New Hampshire since the 1990s. EDR creates more positive experiences at the polls and, indeed, higher turnout, with studies showing an increase in turnout of approximately 5 percent.

Moreover, if we want to create positive experiences at the polls, we should also delink the municipal census from the inactive voter list. Removing voters from the active voter list for failing to fill out a form is unnecessarily punitive, and it creates unnecessary work for both voters and poll workers.

We have appreciated the recent steps forward in democracy passed in recent sessions, such as automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail, and expanded early voting, and we hope that you will continue this forward motion.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

If Cities and Towns Want to Deepen Democracy, We Should Let Them.

I voted stickers

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Chairman Keenan, Chairman Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:

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.

At a time when democracy is under attack in many states, municipalities across Massachusetts are instead seeking to strengthen democracy by expanding both who can participate in our elections and how reflective of the electorate the outcomes are. We ask you to allow them to take the lead by giving a favorable report to several enabling bills:

  • H.725: An Act ensuring municipal power over whether elections are reformed
  • S.438: An Act ensuring municipal participation of the widest eligible range
  • H.706/S.415: An Act extending voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizen voters of the Commonwealth
  • H.711/S.433: An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections

Enabling Municipalities to Expand the Local Electorate: S.438, H.706, S.415

Cities and towns across the Commonwealth have also sought to expand representation in local elections, by extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds or legal non-citizens. The case for both is clear.

With the voting age at 18, many experience their first time voting when they are away at college, often voting by absentee back home if at all. 16 and 17-year-olds, by contrast, know their local polling locations well: they are the elementary schools, the middle schools, the high schools, the town halls, the libraries. They feel the impact of a school committee election directly. And they can get a powerful experience of democracy in action, which is the best civic education.

Similarly, voting and civic engagement are ways of integrating new community members and strengthening the whole community. Non-citizen parent involvement in school affairs (through school committee elections) can increase students’ academic performance, and democracy works best when all communities are reflected in governance.

Moreover, both teen voting and all-resident voting embody the basic principle of no taxation with representation.

Ranked Choice Voting Local Option: H.711/S.433

When voters get to the ballot box, they can face complicated choices. Our first-past-the-post system forces ordinary voters to weigh whether they can vote for their preferred candidate or whether doing so would lead to a “spoiler effect” that gives a candidate they like less a clearer path to victory. This same dynamic can lead candidates and their supporters to try to force similar candidates out of a race due to a fear of “vote splitting.”

Within the current system, the ultimate winner may command less than a majority support, a contradiction of a basic tenet of democracy and a far too common occurrence in Massachusetts elections. Ranked Choice Voting would eliminate these problems by enabling voters to rank the order of their preferences on the ballot and ensuring that whoever wins does so with majority support.

Although the ballot initiative to implement Ranked Choice Voting for state and county elections did not pass, the measure did pass in 78 municipalities in varying parts of the Commonwealth. If such municipalities wish to adopt Ranked Choice Voting for local elections, they should not have to face undue hurdles to doing so.

The number of cities and towns passing home rule petitions on these three issues grows every year, and yet such petitions continue to die in the Legislature. We urge you to stop being a roadblock to democracy and pass these enabling bills.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

A #FlashbackFriday about Disenfranchisement in MA and What You Can Do Today

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.

But the tide is turning. On Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Election Laws took the significant step of giving a favorable report to S.8/H.26, constitutional amendments filed by Sen. Liz Miranda and Adam Gomez and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven that would ensure that incarceration never leads to a loss of voting rights.

Urge your legislators to support the bill and advocate for its advancement in an upcoming constitutional convention.

And in upcoming events….

Wednesday, May 3: Higher Ed for All Speakout

Celebrate graduates and ensure that debt-free public higher ed is an option for future generations!

The Massachusetts State House will soon be considering the Cherish Act (S.816 / H.1260) and Debt-Free Bill (S.823 / H.1265). Collectively, these bills call for debt-free public higher education, increased student supports, better wages and working conditions, and green/healthy buildings.

Join the Higher Ed for All coalition on the State House steps and share your testimony alongside graduates, students, faculty, librarians, staff, and community from across the commonwealth!

  • 12:00-12:55 PM: Speak Out
  • 12:55 PM: Group Photo
Higher Ed for All

Thursday, May 4: Medicare for All Lobby Day

The Medicare for All Lobby Day will take place on Thursday, May 4, from 10AM to 3PM at the State House. RSVP here to let Mass-Care know you can join!

PM in the News: “Proposed amendment to state constitution could give prisoners back their right to vote”

Ivy Scott, “Proposed amendment to state constitution could give prisoners back their right to vote,” Boston Globe, April 6, 2023.

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.