Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of Jan. 24 to Jan. 28.
The House, 124 to 34, approved a bill making permanent the mail-in and early voting options used in Massachusetts in 2020. Other provisions include reducing the registration blackout period from 20 days prior to an election to 10 days; ensuring that non-felons who are incarcerated who are currently eligible to vote are provided with voting information and materials to exercise their right to vote; mandating that felons who are incarcerated but prohibited from voting are notified of their right to vote upon release and given the opportunity to fill out a voter registration form; and requiring the secretary of state to conduct a public awareness campaign to publicize the new voting and registration options.
The Senate has already approved a different version of the bill that includes same-day registration that allows people to register to vote on the same day that they actually vote. The House version does not include that provision.
Rep. Dan Ryan, D-Boston, House chair of the Elections Laws Committee, led the charge on the House floor for the bill but did not respond to several requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call for comment.
“With nationwide assaults on voting rights and upcoming elections in November, our democracy can’t be taken for granted,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “It must be protected and strengthened, not just in Congress but in every state. Passage of (this bill) in the Massachusetts House represents important progress, and we are grateful that state lawmakers adopted reforms — from widespread mail-in voting to improved access for eligible incarcerated voters — that will address barriers to the ballot and expand the hard-won right to vote.”
“Speaker Ron Mariano and his leadership team passed a very partisan Democratic election bill,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “It’s important for Republicans and common-sense Democrats to speak up and hold accountable the majority party when they try to change the rules in favor of their party’s electoral success.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
The House, 30 to 128, rejected an amendment that would require the Supreme Judicial Court to rule on whether the election bill is unconstitutional and to delay the measure’s implementation until the court renders its opinion.
Amendment supporters said this is a very complicated bill and noted some analysts have said it might be unconstitutional. Amendment opponents said the amendment is simply a tactic to delay passage of the bill and will impede approval of the bill that is aimed at voter integrity and ballot access.
A “Yes” vote is for getting the court’s opinion. A “No” vote is against getting it.
Rep. Natalie Blais — No
Rep. Paul Mark — No
Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
The House, 153 to 5, approved an amendment that would require prison officials to provide information to non-felon prisoners on how to register and then vote in local, state and federal elections while in prison. Under current law, prisoners serving time for a felony are banned from voting until their release from prison. The amendment also requires prison officials to help these felons register to vote just before their release.
Amendment supporters said that lack of voting by prisoners often occurs because they are not given sufficient information. They said this is a subtle form of voter suppression and noted the amendment would force prison officials to provide information.
“Currently, those few eligible incarcerated voters who are able to access a ballot application find their application unduly rejected,” said Kristina Mensik, Democracy Behind Bars Coalition co-chair. “What’s more, we include provisions to help ensure that no eligible voter behind the wall is disenfranchised because they were unhoused before being incarcerated.”
Amendment opponents offered no arguments on the House floor. Beacon Hill Roll Call repeatedly attempted to get a comment from the five legislators who opposed the amendment. One responded.
“I felt it was too costly and placed an undue burden on correctional officials,” said Rep. Peter Durant, R-Spencer.
The other four representatives who voted “No” and refused to comment are Reps. Donald Berthiaume, R-Spencer; Nick Boldyga, R-Southwick; Shawn Dooley, R-Norfolk; and Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica.
A Yes” vote is for the amendment.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
The House, 93 to 64, approved an amendment to a measure that would implement same-day registration (SDR) that allows people to register to vote at the polls on election day and on any of the early voting days prior to the election. The amendment would replace SDR with a requirement that Secretary of State Bill Galvin complete a study that would analyze the cost of the proposed policy to the state and municipalities, and what it would take for local city and town clerks to implement SDR. Under House rules, approval of the study amendment prohibits a roll call vote on the straightforward establishment of SDR.
Supporters of SDR said the study is a tactic by opponents to delay the implementation of SDR and also avoid a direct vote on SDR itself.
Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, the sponsor of SDR, said it is an important tool that Massachusetts can use to increase voter access to the polls.
“In 2021, we had one day of overlap when voters could vote early and register,” Sabadosa said. “There was not a flood of applications, just a few more people across the state who were able to exercise their civic duty. That small data point shows that this can work and (this roll call) vote shows that support for same-day registration, already popular with voters, is growing amongst legislators as well.”
Some supporters of the amendment to replace SDR with the study by the secretary of state said the House should not implement SDR without having sufficient facts on its effects. Others expressed concerns about the ability of cities and towns to implement SDR rules without disruption.
The roll call was on replacing SDR with a study. Therefore, a “Yes” vote is in favor of the study of SDR. A “No” vote is against the study and in favor of SDR itself.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — No
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
The House, 31 to 127, rejected an amendment that would prohibit any city or town from requiring that a voter show proof of COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of entering a polling place to vote or to register to vote.
“If any voting location required a vaccination, then a sizable portion of the population would be prevented from entering the facility to exercise their constitutional right,” said sponsor Rep. Peter Durant, R-Spencer. “Since statistically the majority of people not vaccinated are minorities, a major constituency this bill sought to protect, any vaccine requirement would not only be unconstitutional, but also seen as an effort to suppress the vote.”
Amendment opponents said this is a solution in search of a problem. They noted that voters are not being asked to show proof of vaccination.
A “No” vote is against banning cities and towns from requiring voters to provide proof of vaccination.
Rep. Natalie Blais — No
Rep. Paul Mark — No
Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
The House, 32 to 126, rejected an amendment that would require voters to show a federal or Massachusetts picture identification at their polling places to be allowed to vote. The state would also be required to establish a waiver of the fee for obtaining the ID for low-income residents.
Supporters said it is illogical that all voters are not required to show identification prior to voting and noted 24 other states have laws requiring IDs. They argued that people cannot cash a check, rent a car, fly on a plane or even enter some government buildings without showing an ID.
“I filed this amendment to protect the integrity of every U.S. citizen’s vote in Massachusetts while providing the opportunity to get a free picture ID for those who don’t have one,” said sponsor Rep. Paul Frost, R-Auburn. “A free ID avoids the issues and barriers of a so-called poll tax, while making sure each voter is who they say they are when voting.”
Opponents of the amendment said it would disenfranchise thousands of voters including people who do not have a current address because they are in a homeless shelter or domestic violence facility. Other opponents said there have been no widespread reports of voter fraud in Massachusetts.
A “No” vote is against requiring a voter ID to vote.
Rep. Natalie Blais — No
Rep. Paul Mark — No
Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
The Senate, 40 to 0, approved a $76 million COVID-19 response bill. Key provisions provide $30 million to increase the number of COVID-19 testing sites and buy COVID-19 tests, and $5 million earmarked to expanding vaccination rates among children ages 5 to 11 whose vaccination rates remain low in comparison to older residents
Another $25 million would be used for the acquisition and distribution of high-quality personal protective masks, including N95s and KN95s, to be distributed to health care workers and children and faculty in elementary and secondary public school districts. The measure also mandates that the Baker administration pursue the highest allowable rate of federal reimbursement for the $76 million package.
“With the passage of today’s bill, the Senate confronts the challenges brought upon us by the omicron surge and prioritizes urgently needed additional resources to expand access to rapid testing, masks, vaccines and boost our COVID-19 response efforts,” said Sen. Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport, chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
“Today the Senate is acting decisively and strategically to protect the most vulnerable among us,” said Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, Senate chair of the Committee on COVID-19 and Emergency Preparedness and Management.
The House has already approved its own version of the bill. A House-Senate conference committee will hammer out a compromise version.
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
The Senate, 9 to 31, rejected an amendment that would require the state to provide COVID-19 funding, until the end of the federal public health emergency, to nursing homes to support infection control standards, including staff training and wages; temporary labor costs; hiring new staff; procuring personal protective equipment (PPE); and costs associated with establishing single-occupancy isolation rooms. The funds would be equal to at least 15% of the average monthly MassHealth Fee-For-Service payments made to nursing facilities for the purpose of supporting infection control standards, including staffing, PPE and isolation of residents, through the duration of the federal public health emergency.
“Massachusetts nursing facilities are in the midst of a historic financial and workforce crisis, which has only been exacerbated by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic,” said sponsor Sen. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen. “This crisis impacts all nursing facilities — not-for-profit, for-profit, family-owned — and is directly attributable to a MassHealth payment system that has not kept pace with the cost of nursing facility care over the last decade.”
Sen. Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport, chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, said he agrees nursing homes need help but that “this was a very narrow bill focused on access to testing, masks and vaccines for communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19.”
“We absolutely know that nursing homes are hurting,” he said. “We intend to confront many more of the pandemic’s challenges and we will consider supports for nursing homes in future legislation.”
A “No” vote is against the amendment.
Sen. Joanne Comerford — No
Sen. Anne Gobi — No
Sen. Adam Hinds — No
The House gave initial approval to a Senate-approved bill that would repeal a current law prohibiting adoption of children by family members, including older siblings, aunts and uncles. The proposal would allow these family members, with the permission of probate court, to legally adopt their relatives. Current law only allows these family members to apply to become a guardian. The measure still needs additional rounds of approval in each branch.
“The commonwealth has made great strides in broadening the legal definition of a family to reflect the realities of those who love and care for one another in Massachusetts, especially in light of the pandemic and loss of parents and loved ones from COVID-19,” said sponsor Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem. “This legislation would repeal an outdated provision of the law.”
The Judiciary Committee held a virtual hearing on legislation that would add height discrimination to the definition of a hate crime, which currently includes any criminal act coupled with overt actions motivated by bigotry and bias, including racial, religious, ethnic, handicap, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation prejudice; or “which otherwise deprives another person of his (or her) constitutional rights by threats, intimidation or coercion, or which seek to interfere with or disrupt a person’s exercise of constitutional rights through harassment or intimidation.”
Another provision makes it a crime to videotape or photograph a person with a disability without the person’s consent and to convey the photograph electronically or in print for the sole purpose of harassing or annoying the person or the person’s family. Violators would be sentenced to a three-month prison sentence and/or up to a $500 fine.
“I introduced this bill … alongside the Massachusetts Chapter of the Little People of America … after being approached by constituents and hearing the heartbreaking stories of widescale harassment targeting little people and their families,” said sponsor Rep. Michael Kushmerek, D-Fitchburg. “I knew that something had to be done to ensure their safety and preserve respect and dignity, both in public and at home.”
Another bill heard by the Judiciary Committee would ban the manufacturing in Massachusetts of assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices. The measure exempts weapons and devices made for the Massachusetts military and law enforcement, for the federal military or any foreign government approved by the U.S. Department of State.
“When gunmen committed mass murder in Aurora, Parkland and San Bernardino, those tragedies didn’t just reflect the failings of federal and local gun laws,” said sponsor Sen. Cindy Cream, D-Newton. “They also reflected the failings of Massachusetts law because even though the commonwealth has banned the sale of assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices within its own borders, it allows the military-style firearms that were used in each of those shootings to be produced right here in Massachusetts. The commonwealth’s obligation to prevent gun violence does not stop at our borders. An act to stop mass shootings aligns our laws with our values by ensuring that Massachusetts no longer exports bloodshed to other parts of the country.”
“This bill is an obvious attempt to target and demonize a specific manufacturer in the commonwealth that has been a part of the fabric of Western Massachusetts since the 1850s,” said Mike Harris, director of public policy with the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL). “This bill shows businesses in this state that if the Legislature doesn’t find you acceptable, they’re coming after you.”
The Transportation Committee held a virtual hearing on a proposal that would allow a vehicle owner to designate, in writing on the vehicle’s certificate of title, the name of the beneficiary who will assume ownership of the vehicle when the current owner dies.
“This (process) is currently allowed in several other states and eliminates the lengthy process of probate court,” said sponsor Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown. “Often, the transfer of the motor vehicle is the only reason an estate has to go before the probate court.”
Another bill heard by the Transportation Committee would create a 400-foot vertical zone above schools where drones would be banned from flying unless the school superintendent grants written permission. The fine would be $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $750 fine plus confiscation of the aircraft for a third offense.
“I filed this bill to be proactive in protecting the rights, safety and privacy of students and educators across Massachusetts,” said sponsor Rep. Bruce Ayers, D-Quincy. “Technology is always advancing and it’s only a matter of time until it directly contributes to the increasing threats made on our schools. Unfortunately, the (Federal Aviation Administration) does not currently have any restrictions on flying drones over schools. This means it’s up to the states to be proactive.”