THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call reports local senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of November 2-6. There were no roll calls in the House last week.
$2.62 BILLION FISCAL YEAR 2026 SUPPLEMEMTAL BUDGET (S 3290): Senate 34-4, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored $2.62 billion fiscal 2026 budget to close out the books on fiscal year 2026. The House has already approved its own version of a supplemental budget and a House-Senate conference committee will be appointed to work out a compromise version.
Provisions of the Senate version include $1.8 billion for MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program that provides health care for low-income and disabled persons; $159 million for snow and ice removal costs; $54.5 million for Department of Transitional Assistance caseworkers; $18.5 million for subsidized early education for both family childcare providers and center-based providers; $13.8 million for the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance for essential services for crime victims, witnesses, survivors and families in need; $2 million for fair housing enforcement to help Massachusetts residents who face housing discrimination; $14 million for substance addiction; and a section making it easier for people to cancel their online subscriptions.
“This supplemental budget upholds some of our most important services to our residents,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “The people of our districts expect their state government to be dependable—to be there supporting families with early education services, supporting victims of crimes and supporting people who are faced with housing discrimination. All of this and more is made possible by timely action through budget bills like this one.”
Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) said his vote against the supplemental budget was driven by his support for the policy changes included in the Republican version which the Senate rejected. “Relief at the pump was not given to residents, [in the Democratic version],” said Fattman. “There was also a failure [in the Democratic version] to fund local aid that so many towns and schools desperately need right now, particularly the towns that I represent in central Massachusetts. I believe the governor did the right thing by filing the $100 million dollars of additional excess funds to close out the budget for our schools—but the Legislature didn’t deliver despite hearing these concerns from voters loud and clear this past Tuesday. Overall, the supplemental budget shifts its priorities to things that are simply unsustainable and reduces reforms that help promote fiscal stability.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the Democratic budget. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Joanne Comerford, Yes; Sen. Paul Mark, Yes; Sen. Jacob Oliveira, Yes; Sen. John Velis Yes
REPUBLICAN VERSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET (S 3290): Senate 5-33, rejected a version of the supplemental budget proposed by the Republicans to replace the one offered by the Democrats. The Republican version includes a 60-day gas tax suspension, $100 million for local school districts and relief for home heating costs.
“This amendment is crucial to bring relief and local aid to struggling residents and towns across Massachusetts,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “It includes gas tax relief, $100 million designated to fund local aid for our schools, as well as demanding that the state’s long-overdue Net Zero cost-impact study be made public. I supported this amendment because it provides residents with transparency, solutions to local overrides and ultimately places discretionary funds back into taxpayers’ pockets.”
Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), the sponsor of the amendment, did not respond to repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to provide more details about the Republican version and the reason he proposed it and urged members to vote for it.
Amendment opponents said the Republican version is well-intended but unlike the Democratic version, has not been vetted and has not been the subject of months of conversations and input by many senators and groups. They said the GOP version also eliminates many important programs that are in the Democratic version.
Sen. Mike Rodrigues (D-Westport), the chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and the chief opponent of the GOP version, did not respond to repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to provide more details about the Republican version and the reason he opposed it and urged members to vote against it.
(A “Yes” vote is for the Republican version. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Joanne Comerford, No; Sen. Paul Mark, No; Sen. Jacob Oliveira, No; Sen. John Velis, No
SHELTERS (S 3290): Senate 34-4, approved an amendment to the state’s Emergency Assistance Shelter Program for homeless families. The amendment would loosen some of the restrictions lawmakers imposed two years ago, when a surge in demand, including families sleeping at Logan Airport, prompted the state to tighten eligibility and limit stays. The amendment codifies a rapid-track shelter option, extends the length of stay from six months to nine months and expands income eligibility from 115% to 120% of the federal poverty level.
Amendment supporters said the changes better reflect the current housing market, reduce administrative hurdles and help families move toward permanent housing.
Sen. Robyn Kennedy (D-Worcester), the sponsor of the amendment, did not respond to repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her to provide more details about the amendment and the reason she filed it and urged members to vote for it.
“I voted against this amendment because we are changing a significant, bipartisan policy recommendation that was agreed upon after months of meetings and included in the final report of the Emergency Assistance Commission,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “Attaching a significant policy change such as this to a closeout supplemental budget bill immediately following an election sends the wrong message. It also erases months of bipartisan policymaking on this issue, in which I participated as a member of the commission.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Joanne Comerford, Yes; Sen. Paul Mark, Yes; Sen. Jacob Oliveira, Yes; Sen. John Velis, Yes
Also Up on Beacon Hill
PREVENT SUSPENSION OF ABORTION LAW: Back in August, the Legislature approved and Gov. Maura Healey signed into law a bill that would loosen restrictions on abortions that can be performed after 24 weeks of gestation by removing existing requirements that limit abortions at 24 weeks of pregnancy or later to four specific medical circumstances, and instead allows licensed physicians and providers to rely on their best medical judgment when caring for patients.
The Compassionate Care Coalition, led by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and Massachusetts Family Action, opposes the law and is working hard to repeal it. The group recently announced that it dropped off 113,477 signatures, certified by local city and towns clerks, to Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office. Those numbers surpass the 37,289 signatures needed to get the question on the 2028 ballot for voters to decide and the 49,719 signatures needed to suspend the law in the interim. While local city and town officials have certified the signatures, the Secretary of State’s office still has to certify the signatures in order for the question to go on the 2028 ballot. If the signatures are certified by Galvin, the question will not only go on the 2028 ballot, but under current state law, instead of taking effect immediately, it would be suspended until voters decide its fate in 2028.
However, last week Gov. Healey foiled that plan and attached to the law an emergency preamble that forces the law to take effect immediately and prevents it from being suspended. Upon attaching the emergency preamble, Healey wrote that “any further delay in implementing the Act would prolong uncertainty for patients, families, physicians and health care institutions, and risk further harm to the health and safety of women in Massachusetts.”
“Gov. Healey’s preamble reflects an utter disregard for the men and women she was elected to represent,” said Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life and vice chair of the Compassionate Care Coalition. “In a matter of a few weeks, more than 113,000 of her constituents went out of their way to oppose a highly controversial, deeply consequential, law that blindsided legislators and voters alike. Healey ignored their questions and concerns on August 10, and she has once again prevented any dialogue.”
NINE BALLOT QUESTIONS: There were nine questions on the November 3 ballot for Bay State voters to approve or reject. Five were approved while four were rejected. Here are the unofficial results which still need certification by the secretary of state:
QUESTION 1 WAS APPROVED: It will make records of the legislature and the governor public records.
QUESTION 2 WAS APPROVED: It will allow employees of the committee for public counsel services (CPCS) to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. The CPCS pays for lawyers to represent indigent persons in criminal and civil cases.
QUESTION 3 WAS REJECTED: It would have eliminated political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the all-party primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.
QUESTION 4 WAS APPROVED: It will permit eligible individuals to register to vote on Election Day.
QUESTION 5 WAS REJECTED: It would have limited the amount of revenue the state can collect each year and provide that the excess amount, above that limit, be refunded to taxpayers.
QUESTION 6 WAS APPROVED: It will establish a “nature for all fund” that would receive 50% of state taxes collected from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses for the first year of its operation and 100% in subsequent years.
QUESTION 7 WAS REJECTED: It would have allowed single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet and meets other conditions.
QUESTION 8 WAS REJECTED: It would have prohibited the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana.
QUESTION 9 WAS APPROVED: It will keep in place a current law which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns and assault-style weapons.
Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com.