BOSTON — Senators rejected almost every attempt to change the records access bill they passed Thursday, adopting only a press shield to protect journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources.

The Senate approved the bill in a 34-6 vote after the debate focused largely on whether its approach to legislative public records access could interfere with a November ballot question that would broadly apply the state’s records law to Beacon Hill. Republicans unsuccessfully sought to strip language critics say could undermine the ballot measure, while Democratic Sen. John Keenan failed to persuade colleagues to adopt a series of amendments expanding public access to legislative records. 

The debate opened with Minority Leader Bruce Tarr pressing Democratic Sen. Cindy Creem over that issue, questioning how the bill would interact with Question 1, which qualified for the November ballot after supporters gathered more than 91,000 signatures. 

“The voters of the commonwealth have already invited themselves into this process,” he said, noting the Legislature was considering the measure “approximately 96 days before they will have the opportunity to opine on the very subject that is reflected in the substance of this bill.

“We should do nothing that will interfere with the ability of the voters to express their opinion and to provide their input,” he added. 

The concern centers on a provision in the Senate bill declaring it the “sole and exclusive remedy” for obtaining legislative records — language critics argue could limit or undermine implementation of Question 1 if voters approve it in November. 

Creem acknowledged uncertainty over both the election and potential litigation. 

“We don’t know how the voters will vote in November. In addition, we don’t know how the courts will respond to the ballot question if the voters do pass it,” she said, noting the Supreme Judicial Court had previously identified unresolved constitutional questions involving legislative rulemaking authority, separation of powers and Article 21 protections. 

“What this bill represents is the Senate’s vision for how we can best provide expanding access to legislative records without violating those important constitutional principles,” Creem said. “Faced with all the uncertainty regarding the ballot proposal, I personally believe this bill before us represents an approach that is sound in terms of both transparency and constitutionality.” 

Republicans later attempted to rewrite the legislation to address concerns around how it would interact with the ballot question. 

Sen. Kelly Dooner of Taunton proposed striking the “sole and exclusive remedy” language, arguing that lawmakers should not predetermine the legal effect of a ballot question before voters have their say.

“The voters will soon have an opportunity to weigh in on the future of the legislative transparency process,” Dooner said. “No matter what your feelings are on the ballot question, attempting to predetermine its legal effect before the people of Massachusetts have a chance to cast their votes is not good lawmaking.” 

Her amendment would have removed the clause of the bill that she said “could be interpreted as limiting future public records laws or limiting the will of the voters.” It was rejected on a voice vote. 

The Senate also rejected, 33-6, a broader Tarr amendment that would have, in some ways, mirrored the ballot initiative by creating a presumption that legislative records are public unless disclosure would violate Article 21, while also removing the “sole and exclusive” language. Democrat Keenan joined the Republicans in favor of the amendment.

Tarr warned the exclusivity clause could trigger litigation if voters approve Question 1.

“We could wind up with two competing provisions of law on the very important subject of public records,” Tarr said, arguing his amendment would “allow us to act without the potential of interference with what might happen at the ballot box.”

The amendment also would have required legislative records officers to proactively publish records online rather than waiting for requests. 

Keenan unsuccessfully pressed a series of amendments aimed at expanding transparency. 

One proposal would have made public the recommendations committee chairs provide members when they advance bills by electronic polls.

“The bill, as written, makes a legislative record of the votes on that poll,” Keenan said, adding that his amendment was needed “so that those who wish to find out what happened in committee can get a full picture of what happened.”

Another amendment would have required the Senate Journal to identify which senators were physically present for roll call votes.

Highlighting sparse attendance during debate, Keenan paused and counted aloud, “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Nine, out of 40,” before arguing the public should know not only how senators voted but whether they participated in person.

“It’s just to make ourselves more open, more transparent and more accountable,” Keenan said.

The Senate also rejected Keenan’s proposals to make internal legislative audits and lawmakers’ financial disclosure statements official public records, and to make all records more readily available on the Legislature’s website. 

The one amendment senators adopted came from Sen. Becca Rausch, whose proposal would establish a statutory press shield protecting journalists from being compelled to disclose confidential sources except under limited circumstances. 

“As we see repeated attacks on the press, we need to fix it now,” she said.

In introducing the amendment, Rausch offered an unusual acknowledgment that the November ballot question was based on legislation she previously filed but that she no longer believes is the best approach.

“The ballot question is a poorly copied version of legislation I have been filing since my first term,” she said. “Every bill is the start of a conversation.

“I made mistakes in that drafting, mistakes I now see, thanks to further conversations with colleagues, advocates and experts,” Rausch continued. “The bill before us is better than what I wrote and filed.”

She argued the Senate bill “recognizes and balances four critical components of this work: transparency and accountability in government, constituent and deliberative process confidentiality needs, the constitutional and democratic necessity of separation of powers, and meaningful implementation.”

Turning to the press shield proposal, Rausch said Massachusetts remains “one of only nine states in the country that does not yet have a press shield law.”

She explained that the amendment would prohibit government bodies from compelling journalists to reveal confidential sources except upon “clear and convincing evidence” that disclosure is necessary and serves an overriding public interest.

“This amendment and the base bill are two sides of the same coin, making sure the free press can access legislative and gubernatorial records, and protecting journalistic sources so the free press can do its job,” Rausch said.

Quoting John Adams, she concluded, “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state,” adding, “Democracy dies in the absence of a free press.”

With Rausch’s amendment attached and all other proposed changes defeated, senators voted 34-6 to approve the bill. It is expected to be sent into closed-door negotiations with the House, as Massachusetts voters prepare to decide on a broader public records expansion at the ballot box this November. Those negotiations will also include the House-approved language to narrow the scope of the legislative audit voters in 2024 authorized Auditor Diana DiZoglio to conduct.