Taking Stock of the 190th Legislative Session

In January of 2017, Progressive Massachusetts unveiled our legislative agenda for the 190th legislative session — 17 items for 2017 (and 2018). As we near the end of the year — and the start of the next legislative session, it’s the perfect time to take stock of how the various bills fared.

Clear Victories

Reproductive Rights

The ACCESS bill, which updates MA’s contraceptive coverage equity law to require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay, passed overwhelmingly in the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.

Democracy

Massachusetts became the 13th state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration. In this reform pioneered by Oregon in 2015, eligible voters who interface with select government agencies (here, the RMV or MassHealth) are automatically registered to vote unless they decline. With more than 700,000 eligible citizens in MA unregistered, AVR will increase the accuracy, security, and comprehensiveness of voter rolls.

The bill also enrolls Massachusetts in Electronic Registration Information Center, a coalition of states founded by the Pew Research Center that enable states to synchronize their voter rolls. ERIC has increased the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the voter rolls in participating states.

[Note: The original bill included smaller social services government agencies as well. The final bill allows for their later inclusion but focuses on the two largest sources of possible new registrants.]

Steps Forward

Criminal Justice Reform

The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed by the Legislature in April incorporated some elements from our priority bills (Read our write-up here):

  • Eliminating most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limiting mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. [Note: PM and advocates had sought the elimination of all mandatory minimums. The bill, however, left in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin), expanded this definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, and created a new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, an overused charge wielded as a threat against protesters.]
  • Raising the felony-larceny threshold from $250 to $1,200 [Note: PM and other advocates had sought $1,500.]
  • Reducing fines and fees [Note: PM and other advocates wanted probation and parole fees fully eliminated.]
  • Establishing a process for expunging records, especially for juveniles convicted of minor offenses

There is still work to be done–from raising the age of criminal majority to severely curtailing (or outright abolishing) solitary confinement. That said, the bill, despite its shortcomings, was a step in the right direction.

Fight for $15

At the start of the session, we supported legislation to raise the minimum wage from $11 to to $15 by 2021, raise the tipped minimum wage from $3.75 to $15.75 by 2025, and require the minimum wage to increase with inflation starting in 2022.

The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition’s ballot initiative was slightly more modest in its ambition, extending the full phase-in date one year (due to a later start) and raising the minimum wage for tipped employees to only $9 (60% of the minimum wage) by 2022.

What passed in the ultimate “Grand Bargain,” an effort of the Legislature and the Governor to avoid three ballot initiatives ($15 minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, sales tax reduction) was more modest still. It raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2023, raised the tipped minimum wage to only $6.75, and dropped indexing. Unfortunately, the Legislature included a further concession to the business lobby, agreeing to phase-out time-and-a-half on Sundays and holidays. Although the bill is a net win for workers in Massachusetts, it’s possible that, due to the phase-out of time-and-a-half, some workers will be left worse off.

Fight for 15 Original Bill vs Ballot Initiative vs Final Grand Bargain Text

Paid Family and Medical Leave

The version of paid family and medical leave passed in the aforementioned “Grand Bargain” was less robust than the original legislation and the ballot initiative text, but still more robust than the programs that exist in other states.

PFML Senate Bill vs Ballot Initiative vs Final Grand Bargain Text

Senate Victory, House Opposition

Several of our priority bills succeeded, or made partial progress, in the Senate, only to flounder in the House amidst fierce opposition from the conservative House leadership.

Fully Funding Our Schools

Massachusetts’s 25-year-old education funding formula is short-changing our schools $1-2 billion per year due to outdated assumptions about the costs of health care, special education, ELL (English Language Learners) education, and closing racial and economic achievement gaps.

The 2015 Foundation Budget Review Commission recommended a path forward for fixing it. The Senate unanimously adopted a bill to implement them. The House, however, insisted on leaving English Language Learners, Black and Brown students, and poor students (not mutually exclusive categories) behind.

Protecting Our Immigrant Friends and Neighbors

Despite Massachusetts’s liberal reputation, our Legislature has been historically hostile to strengthening protections for our immigrant community.

The Senate included four provisions from the Safe Communities Act, a bill that our members fought strongly for, in its FY 2019 budget: (1) a prohibition on police inquiries about immigration status, a prohibition on certain collaboration agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, (3) a guarantee of basic due process protections, and (4) a prohibition on participation in a Muslim registry. The amendment was a win-win for both rights and safety, but House Leadership opposed its inclusion in the final budget.

Bold Action on Climate Change

Many elements from our priority environmental legislation were incorporated in the Senate’s impressive omnibus bill:

  • Building on the Global Warming Solutions Act by setting intermediate emissions targets for 2030 and 2040
  • Establishing a 3% annual increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to accelerate our commitment to renewable energy
  • Prohibiting a “pipeline tax” on energy consumers
  • Instructing the governor’s office to develop carbon pricing for the transportation sector by the end of 2020, for commercial buildings and industrial processes by 2021, and for residential buildings by the end of 2022 (not as strong as a revenue-positive carbon pricing scheme, but still in the right direction)

However, the House proved a roadblock yet again. The ultimate compromise energy legislation included only a 2% increase from 2020 to 2030, after which it would fall back to the current 1%. This would take us to only 56% renewable energy by 2050 instead of 100%.

Loss…But a Battle Not Over

Revenue & Reinvestment

Progressive Mass members played a major role in the signature collection for the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaires tax”), which would have created a 4% surtax on income above $1 million (inflation-adjusted) to fund education and transportation investment.

As a citizen-originated ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment, the Fair Share amendment had to receive the support of at least 25% of the Legislature in two constitutional conventions. It secured well more than double this amount, but the Supreme Judicial Court struck it from the ballot this June.

Inaction

Medicare for All

Although the Senate took modest steps in the direction of single payer, passing legislation to create a public option (a MassHealth buy-in) and require a study of whether a single payer system would save money relative to the current system, the House took no such action.

Housing Production

Although the Senate passed a comprehensive zoning reform bill to increase housing production in the suburbs last session, no such action was taken in either house this session.

Debt/tuition-free Higher Education

The cost of higher education has grown a lot in Massachusetts, and the Legislature continues to punt.

In Conclusion: We won some, we lost some, and we’ll keep on fighting.

Four Weeks Until Election Day

Election Day is just four weeks away. That’s right: 28 days.

Ballot Question Endorsements: YES-YES-YES

Massachusetts voters will see three questions on the ballot when they go to vote in four weeks. Progressive Massachusetts is recommending that you vote YES-YES-YES.

Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes  on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.

Here’s why:

Why Yes on 1: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. Everyone deserves high-quality working conditions, and everyone deserves the best health care our state can offer.

Why Yes on 2: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.

Why Yes on 3: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.

Some More Endorsements: Senator Elizabeth Warren & AG Maura Healey

Our members overwhelmingly voted to endorse Elizabeth Warren and Maura Healey for re-election.

Why Elizabeth Warren? Let’s turn it over to our members?

“Elizabeth Warren has been a champion in Washington for all in a very dark and scary time in U.S politics. Her voice, her actions and her persistence are needed now more than ever.”

“MA voters should know that Senator Warren has our back.”

“Senator Warren is a leader for government of the people, by the people and for the people. She stands up to wealthy corporations (who are not people) and the oligarchs who are continuing to strangle democracy in the United States.”

And why Maura Healey?

“Absolutely the people’s attorney… She is a great watchdog for the people and a great bull dog against President Trump and his policies.”

“Maura Healey has been in the forefront of the resistance to the Trump administrating since the first day.”

“Among the leaders in holding pharmaceutical manufacturers accountable for the opioid crisis.”

We agree!

One more DA Endorsement: John Bradley, Plymouth County

As countless stories from right here in Massachusetts and around the country have shown, a District Attorney has a lot of power. Too often, DAs have used that power in favor of mass incarceration and the attendant racial and economic disparities. From overcharging to lobbying against criminal justice reform, DAs have proven themselves to be an obstacle.

We’ve been working with the Justice for Massachusetts coalition to elect progressive DAs–and then hold them accountable. JFM endorsed John Bradley for Plymouth County DA, and our members voted to do so as well.

John is committed to:

  • Abolishing cash bail
  • Taking illegally possessed firearms off the streets
  • Shifting strategy for dealing with drug addiction to medical-based solutions rather than criminalization
  • Meeting regularly with community leaders and instituting accountability checks
  • Increasing data transparency from the DA’s office to the community

John’s experience as a career prosecutor for over 30 years in Plymouth and Worcester Counties, as well as in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, equips him to implement progressive change to restore ethics, compassion, and common sense to the important public safety work of the DA’s Office.

2018 Ballot Questions: Why We’re a YES – YES – YES

Ballot Questions

On November 6, Massachusetts voters will see three questions on their ballot. Progressive Massachusetts recommends YES-YES-YES.

Question 1: Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative

Recommendation: Vote YES.

Yes on 1 2018

What a Yes Would Do: Question 1 would limit the number of patients that can be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and certain other health care facilities. The maximum number of patients would vary by type of unit and level of care (see the breakdown here). The enforcement of the measure would be suspended during a public health emergency as declared by the state or nationally.

Have Other States Done This?: California is currently the only state to have implemented fixed nurse-to-patient ratios. Doomsday scenarios have not come to pass, job satisfaction among nurses has gone up, and readmissions have gone down. You can read more here:

Why You Should Vote Yes: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. More time with your nurse means better care for you.

Who is Supporting Q1: A wide coalition of labor groups, community groups, and progressive elected officials — See the full list here. The No on Question 1 campaign is being funded by mega-rich hospital executives (read more here). Which side are you on?

Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative

Recommendation: Vote YES.

Yes on 2 2018

What a Yes Would Do: Question 2 would create a 15-member citizens commission tasked with proposing amendments to the US Constitution, specifically regarding overturning Citizens United and defining inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings. The commission would create reports onpolitical and election spending in Massachusetts; the legal ability of the state government to regulate corporations; and proposals for federal constitutional amendments and actions recommended for advancing the proposed amendments. Read the full text here.

Who Would Sit on the Commission?: Any citizen residing in Massachusetts would be eligible to serve, and the commissioners would be unpaid. The commissioners would be appointed by the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and Senate President (each of whom would appoint 3 members).

When Would It Take Effect?: The measure would take effect on January 1, 2019, and the commission’s first report would be due on December 31, 2019.

Why You Should Vote Yes: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.

Who is Suporting Q2: See a list of endorsing individuals and organizations here.

Question 3: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum

Recommendation: Yes

Yes on 3 2018

What a Yes Would Do: A “yes” vote on Question 3 supports upholding the landmark 2016 bill that that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual’s self-identified gender identity. In short, the law is about the right of trans people to exist in public space.

Why Is This Even on the Ballot?: Reactionaries in this state collected enough signatures to do so because they want to take our state backwards. This is the first time in decades that Massachusetts has had a citizens veto referendum on the ballot. What that means is that when you enter the ballot box, you–the voter–should act as though you are the governor being presented with this bill. A yes is a vote to sign it. A no is a vote to veto it.

Why You Should Vote Yes: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.

Who is Supporting Q3: Check out the coalition partners here.

How You Can Help: Find volunteer opportunities on the Freedom for All Massachusetts website here.

About Our Process

Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes  on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.

We Have a Busy Month, But There’s Always Time to Celebrate

Summer is a season of action and a season of joy. So as the summer approaches, we need to double down on the work of passing our bold policy agenda, as well as celebrate the successes we’ve had.

Raise Up Signature Collection: Ramping Up & Wrapping Up

As a key part of the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, we’ve been collecting signatures around the state to get a $15 minimum wage and paid family and medical leave on the ballot this November.

Over the past month, we’ve collected more than 5,000. Give yourself a hand!

The last day for signature collection is Saturday, June 16th. Find an event near you here, and if you haven’t already turned your signatures in, email Joe at jdimauro@progressivemass.com to find out how best to do so!


The Summer Warmth Is Nice. A Warmed Planet Isn’t.

This week, the MA Senate is moving to take up S.2545, An Act to Promote a Clean Energy Future. Although this is a bold piece of climate policy, several critical policies are missing: solar access for all, reforms to push back against pipeline expansion, community empowerment, and a comprehensive plan to combat climate change.

Action: Please call your Senator and Chairwoman Karen Spilka, Karen.Spilka@masenate.gov, 617-722-1640 in support of the following amendments:

  • Amendments 41 (Eldridge), 42 (Eldridge),and 43 (Chang-Diaz), which would ensure all communities can access solar energy
  • Amendment 22 (Cyr), which would empower communities and give new tools to promote renewable energy
  • Amendment 44 (Pacheco), which would set binding climate targets for 2030 and 2040
  • Amendments 6 (Jehlen) and 60 (Hinds), which would push back on pipeline expansion

Safe Communities: The Clock Is Ticking

Right now, the Massachusetts legislature is negotiating the state budget for the next year, and key protections for immigrants hang in the balance. Approved by the Senate, these protections (detailed below) now have to make it through the budget Conference Committee.

If you are worried about the Trump administration’s draconian immigration policies, 3 phone calls this week are almost certainly the most impactful thing you can do this week to blunt the effects of these policies in our state:

  • For your own your own Representative (find them here)
    • Ask: “Please urge Speaker DeLeo and the budget Conference Committee to include protections for immigrant families in the final FY2019 state budget.”
  • Committee Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez, 15th Suffolk (617-722-2990)
    • Ask: “Please use your leadership to fight for protections of immigrant families in the FY19 state budget.”
  • Governor Baker (617-725-4005)

Proposed protections would:

  • Bar police from asking about people’s immigration status unless required by law
  • End 287(g) contracts that deputize state and local law enforcement as ICE agents
  • Require that immigrants be notified of their due-process rights
  • Ensure that Massachusetts does not contribute to any registry based on religion, ethnicity, citizenship or other protected categories

Wednesday, 6/20: Summer is a Time for Celebration

Join Progressive Mass members and allies in Newton on Wednesday night, June 20th, for drinks and light appetizers, and to toast our three award winners.

  • Representative Mary Keefe of Worcester: Lead House sponsor of the comprehensive Criminal Justice Reform bill, signed into law this year
  • Jonathan Cohn of Boston: Our resident policy and political expert, leading the Issues Committee and the Elections and Endorsements Committee
  • Rev. Jim Mitulski of Needham: A Progressive Needham leader and tireless advocate for human rights and dignity

Thanks to a group of generous donors, all Summer Soiree contributions up to $7,000 to Progressive Mass will be matched. Your generosity helps us provide staff, office space, organizing software and services, and drive progressive initiatives in multiple coalitions.

Teen Workers Need the Full Minimum Wage

By Margaret Heitz, Progressive Lexington

I grabbed a great seat for Tuesday’s State House hearing on the minimum wage. I wanted a seat with a good view of the folks testifying. Rachael Collins and her colleagues from the Restaurant Opportunities Center United slid into seats next to me. By noon, Gardner Auditorium was filled to capacity . 

The SEIU 1199 organizer sitting to my left shared good information with me. His personal story itself was a testimony to the value of a strong bedrock minimum wage. His parents were teens when he was born, which judging by his salt and pepper hair might have been in the late seventies. In his childhood, they supported themselves through minimum wage work.

He also told me about a conversation he had with a hardware store owner. The owner said that at a $15/hr minimum wage, he would hire only adults, no teens. Presumably, in his view, teens are not mature enough take the responsibility of work. If that’s the sentiment of most employers, it could be bad news for teens. On the other hand, employers should take to heart their responsibility to hold a teen employee accountable as they would an older one.

I remember a good friend telling me that her teenage son, who wouldn’t pick up a wet towel in the bathroom let alone keep his room neat or remember to take out the trash, was a completely different person at his job at a CVS store. He was consistently on time and on task at the store. She gave the store manager and the paycheck credit for the new man she saw in her son.

Teens, especially in lower income levels, have financial obligations to themselves and their families that they might not have had years ago. They need and deserve the full minimum wage to start off their work career.

Regrettably, I had to leave the hearing early. The panels of speakers in support of the badly needed wage increase were extraordinary. It’s clear to me and to just about all the people in the auditorium that the time to raise the wage to $15/hr for workers has come—regardless of their age.

Do MA Dems Stand for Women’s Rights in the Workplace Or Not?

The 190th legislative session has been off to a slow start on Beacon Hill. Beyond the pay raise, and the budget process, the Legislature has not been doing much in the way of, well, legislating.

One small bit of progress was the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed the House unanimously last month. The bill requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” for pregnant women and nursing mothers (such as more frequent breaks, less strenuous duties, and the ability to sit down on the job) provided that they don’t cause “significant difficulty or expense.”This new bill is not as strong as the one introduced last session—which Speaker DeLeo and others in the Democratic leadership, doing the bidding of powerful business interests, blocked. Like much progressive legislation, the bill died in committee. The 2017 bill resulted from negotiations between women’s advocacy group MotherWoman and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). And although it was watered down to get AIM on board, the bill was nonetheless a positive development for women across the Commonwealth.

But because of the House’s standard lack of transparency, it was almost watered down even further.

As the Globe reported on Thursday, the powerful Ways & Means Committee quietly changed one word in the bill in committee before it went to a vote:

But it emerged from the House Committee on Ways and Means for a full vote on the floor with the word “knowingly” added at the beginning of that sentence. The language passed in the House without anyone noticing the change, and now the bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

It’s an addition that advocates for these pregnant worker protections say creates a serious new layer of what a worker would have to prove if she felt there was discrimination in her denial of a job. To prove an employer acted “knowingly” requires direct evidence that the employer knew the applicant was pregnant and denied them a job because of it — a much higher standard of proof.

Neither sponsors of the bill nor key advocates, who helped negotiate the legislation, were notified. AIM claimed to have not been behind the change–though it was clearly done in their interest.

Beacon Hill, How About a Raise for Massachusetts Workers, Too?

A new legislative session in the Legislature typically kicks off with a string of votes setting the rules for the following two years.

But this year, before taking up the rules (or even finalizing offices and committee assignments), the House and Senate voted to raise the salaries and stipends for ranking legislative officers (such as Senate President Stan Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, among others), state constitutional officers (Governor Charlie Baker, AG Maura Healey, etc.), and judges.

And then the Thursday before last, both chambers easily overrode Governor Baker’s veto, with dissent coming from Republicans, a handful of conservative Democrats, and a trio of progressive Democrats (Jon Hecht of Watertown, Denise Provost of Somerville, and Mike Connolly of Cambridge).

Let’s be clear: paying public servants well is important to good governance.

If such offices are not well-compensated, then only those who are already well-off will be interested in running or serving.

And sufficient compensation can also reduce the need for legislators to have jobs on the side, a Pandora’s box of ethics conflicts.

Nonetheless, given the details and the context of the pay raise, it should be no surprise that it has rubbed many progressive voters the wrong way.

Process

First of all, the bill was rushed through at the start of the session without the deliberation and public input that a democratic process necessitates. The numbers in the bill did not come out of thin air—they stem from a 2014 Advisory Commission. But the report has sat largely dormant since then. A report is no substitute for public hearings and debate.

Priorities

But, more importantly, the whole episode reflects poorly on the Legislature’s priorities.

Although some Democratic legislators have spoken out against Governor Baker’s recent $98 million 9C cuts, they have acquiesced to a framework of austerity year after year for the state budget, averse to raising new revenue and content to underinvest in our public infrastructure, from transit and schools.

Funding the pay raise will require either new revenue or new cuts, and Beacon Hill always seems to prefer the latter.

Moreover, despite Democrats’ overwhelmingly large veto-proof majorities in both houses, Leadership (as well as many in the rank-and-file) has adopted a chummy and non-confrontational relationship with Governor Baker. They rarely send bills to his desk that they expect him to veto. This one is a notable profile in courage…for legislator raises. 

It is true that during budget season, Democrats will override line item vetoes (particularly on earmarks), but, overall, the Legislature is advancing a bold and comprehensive progressive agenda—in rhetoric or action–regardless of the affable Governor’s disposition.

A Challenge

The pay raise now is a done deal. We do not subscribe to a conservative frame of starving the beast and drowning governments in bathtubs. But there’s a reason why their actions feel out of touch.

So here’s a challenge to those on Beacon Hill:

If you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to give yourselves a raise, then do the same to give workers across the Commonwealth a raise by passing a $15 minimum wage.

If you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to give yourselves greater stipends, then do so as well to guarantee workers across the state a necessary benefit like paid family and medical leave.

And if you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to invest more in yourselves, then do so to invest in the Commonwealth.