Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ and representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of Nov. 30 to Dec. 4.
The House, 147 to 10, and the Senate, 40 to 0, approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a compromise version of a $46.2 billion fiscal year 2021 state budget for the fiscal year that began July 1. The state has been operating on temporary budgets approved by the Legislature. The package includes using $1.7 billion from the state’s Rainy Day Fund — $350 million more than Baker recommended. That withdrawal leaves the fund with about $1.8 billion.
The budget is $700 million more than the one proposed by Baker, who has 10 days to use his veto power to override items in the budget.
Other provisions include allowing abortions after 24 weeks in the case of lethal fetal anomalies and lowering the age from 18 to 16 at which a minor can choose to have an abortion without parental or judicial consent; extending for two years a current law allowing patients to redeem prescription drug discount coupons at pharmacies to reduce copays; and requiring that ignition interlock devices be installed in the vehicles of first-time drunk driving offenders. Current law only requires the devices for second and subsequent offenses. The device is connected to the ignition of a vehicle and prevents the vehicle from starting if it detects alcohol when an individual blows into the device.
Supporters said the package was a reasonable and fiscally responsible one that funds necessary programs.
“Many said that this was a time to be more conservative in our budgeting, but if anything, it was a time for the commonwealth to be a true commonwealth and take care of its people,” said Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. “I am proud of the budget we passed today, which helps us build an equitable recovery by investing in key areas to assist our most vulnerable residents impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Opponents voted against the budget for a variety of reasons including opposition to the abortion provision and the fact that they were given only a few hours to review the 396-page budget before voting.
A “Yes” vote is for the budget.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
The House, 91 to 67, and the Senate, 28 to 12, approved and sent to Gov. Baker the conference committee version of a bill making major changes in the state’s policing system.
Provisions include creating an independent, civilian-led commission with the power to investigate police misconduct and to certify, restrict, revoke or suspend certification for police officers and maintain a publicly available database of decertified officers. The legislation also sets standards for qualified immunity under which qualified immunity would not extend to a law enforcement officer who violates a person’s right to bias-free professional policing if that conduct results in the officer’s decertification.
Other provisions include banning the use of chokeholds; limiting the use of deadly force; requiring police officers who witness another officer using force beyond what is necessary or reasonable to intervene; creating a moratorium on facial recognition technology; and limiting no-knock police warrants in instances where children or people over 65 are present.
“This is a landmark decision that was demanded by the people and led by Black and Latino legislators of this state,” said Massachusetts Black and Latino Caucus Chair Rep. Carlos González, D-Springfield. “Our demands were agreed to by the speaker of the House and Senate president. Today we begin to address police accountability and transparency. We are making great strides to address racism in police departments and provide them the adequate training and support to address the daily and difficult challenges they have.”
In a letter to its 4,000-plus members, the leaders of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police say the legislation leaves police “disregarded, dismissed and disrespected.”
“The final compromise legislation is a final attack on police officers by lawmakers on Beacon Hill,” the letter reads. “It is 129 pages crowded with punitive measures, layers and layers of new bureaucracy, and the abridgment of basic due process rights of police. It was delivered with almost zero notice and zero time for our leadership, our legal team and our members to process it before debate and votes were scheduled.”
“This compromise piece of legislation creates, for the first time, an independent agency for the statewide certification of law enforcement officers and establishes uniform training and standards,” said Rep. Claire Cronin, D-Easton, House chair of the Judiciary Committee. “This legislation is about justice and fairness. Fairness for those that interact with police, and fairness for police as well.”
“We’re stripping it just from law enforcement here, and rest assured, we’ll be coming after somebody else’s qualified immunity tomorrow,” said Rep. Tim Whelan, R-Brewster, a former State Police officer. “It’s the same as in the House bill. Sixty-six of you voted against this bill in July because you disagreed with qualified immunity. It still exists in this bill.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — No
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
The Senate, 29 to 10, approved a motion to suspend rules to allow the Senate to meet beyond 8 p.m. The Senate continued its session for another 10 minutes and gave final approval to the policing bill.
Supporters of rule suspension said the vote on giving the policing bill final approval would be coming up in a few minutes and the Senate should stay in session to give final approval to the bill and send it to Gov. Baker.
Opponents of rule suspension said late night sessions are unnecessary and irresponsible, and argued the Legislature should not act on important matters while taxpayers are sleeping.
A “Yes” vote is for rule suspension to allow the session to go beyond 8 p.m. A “No” vote is against allowing it.
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — No
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
Several more bills were shipped off to a study committee where bills are never actually studied and are essentially defeated. It is another way to kill a bill instead of holding a vote on the bill itself. Here are some of the bills that will die in study:
This proposed bill would allow prosecutors the option to seek the death penalty for criminals who target and murder police officers solely because they wear the badge.
“Given the anti-police sentiments expressed this year by many members of the Legislature, I was unfortunately not surprised by this bill being sent to study,” commented the bill’s sponsor Rep. Shawn Dooley, R-Norfolk. “As a matter of fact, I was surprised it stayed in play as long as it did. I will definitely refile this next session as I feel this is an important discussion to have and I hope it can be brought to the floor for actual debate as opposed to being swept aside by being attached to a bogus study order.”
The bill involves criminalizing suicide coercion in Massachusetts by imposing up to a five-year prison sentence on any person who knows of another person’s propensity for suicidal ideation and exercises substantial control over the other person through control of the other person’s physical location or circumstances; deceptively or fraudulently manipulates the other person’s fears, affections or sympathies; or has undue influence whereby the will of one person is substituted for the wishes of another.
The bill, called “Conrad’s Law,” is named after then-18-year-old Conrad Roy III who, in 2014, killed himself after being pressured by then-17-year-old Michelle Carter via a phone call following thousands of texts. Carter was convicted of manslaughter and served 12 months of a 15-month prison sentence.
Other actions that will result in a prison sentence include intentionally coercing or encouraging the person to commit or attempt to commit suicide; intentionally providing the physical means, or knowledge of such means, to the other person for the purpose of enabling that other person to commit or attempt to commit suicide; and participating in a physical act that causes, aids, encourages or assists the other person in committing or attempting to commit suicide.
“When a loved one is in a mental health crisis, we expect that those close to them will do their best to connect them with the resources they need,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Natalie Higgins, D-Leominster. “Recently, we have seen a number of unspeakable tragedies that exposed a clear gap in our laws. … We hope Massachusetts will join the 40 other states that recognize the crime of suicide by coercion.”
It was more than a year ago, on Oct. 15, 2009, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a controversial bill that would impose up to a $100 fine on a person the first time he or she uses the word “bitch” to accost, annoy, degrade or demean another person. The measure makes the use of the word “bitch” equivalent to disorderly conduct. Second and subsequent offenders would pay up to a $200 fine and/or serve up to a six-month jail sentence.
The controversial proposal met its fate more than a year later on Nov. 12, 2020, when the House sent the bill off to a study committee.
Rep. Daniel Hunt, D-Boston, filed the bill at the request of a constituent whose name he would not divulge. Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that give citizens the “right of free petition” — the power to propose their own legislation. A citizen’s proposal must be filed in conjunction with his or her representative or senator or any other state representative or senator.
Many legislators will file a constituent’s bill even if they do not agree with it. When filing any bill, each legislator has the option to check a box that indicates the legislator is filing the bill by request on a constituent’s behalf. If the legislator checks that box, the Legislature’s website will list the following disclaimer prominently: “The presenting legislator is not a sponsor of this measure.”
Apparently, Rep. Hunt did not check the box and when word of the bill got out, most people thought he had filed it for himself. At the time, Hunt received many emails and phones calls, many of them not so kind and many accusing him or trying to stifle the First Amendment that guarantees free speech.
Hunt declined to comment about the bill on the record in response to several requests made by Beacon Hill Roll Call.
In an article in The Boston Globe in October of 2019, Hunt was more forthcoming. According to the Globe, when asked whether the situation bothered him, Hunt replied that he thinks it’s “their right to express themselves to an elected official.” However, he also noted that “a lot of them are from middle America or somewhere else.” Hunt said the bill has done one beneficial thing: It’s given many an important civics lesson. “I think it’s important for people to be involved in their government one way or the other, and this has generated some attention,” he said. “So maybe that will educate people on the process and have them more engaged on other issues.”
In an October 2019 interview with the Boston Herald, Hunt defended his bill by saying that it was introduced at the request of an unidentified constituent and that even if it didn’t survive a constitutional challenge, it could still be educational for otherwise apathetic citizens. “This might also illuminate the exhaustive legislative process for people that might not normally be engaged,” Hunt told the Herald.
Meanwhile, many legal experts say the proposed bill is clearly unconstitutional.
This proposed bill would increase the penalties for violating a restraining order. Current law imposes up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to 2½ years in prison on offenders for violating a restraining order. The increased penalties would be a fine of up to $10,000 and/or up to five years in prison.
Rep. Tim Whelan, R-Brewster, the bill’s sponsor, said he filed it with designs to add incremental increases in prison sentences for second and subsequent violations of restraining orders.
“It was filed with the intent of providing a further deterrent to those who serially violate restraining orders,” Whelan said. “I will refile this in the next session.”
The bill would create a child abuse registry and require the name of anyone convicted of child abuse or neglect of a child under 18 to be listed in that registry.
Sen. John Velis, D-Westfield, the sponsor of the bill, did not respond himself to repeated attempts to comment on the measure.
“This was a bill that former Rep. (now Sen.) Velis filed on behalf of a constituent,” responded his Chief of Staff Katie Verra. “The bill was very near and dear to the constituent’s heart. With a new team and a new role as senator, he will have to see if this is something he decides to file again.”