Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on a roll call from the week of Jan. 25 to Jan. 29. There were no roll calls in the Senate last week.
The House, 144 to 14, and the Senate on a voice vote without a roll call, approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a 57-page climate change bill. A key section makes the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal net zero by 2050.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Mike Barrett, D-Cambridge, and Rep. Thomas Golden, D-Lowell, who led the successful charge for legislative approval of the legislation for several months in 2020. An identical measure had passed in the House by 145 to 9 and in the Senate by 38 to 2 in 2020 — margins that were large enough for the Legislature to easily override any gubernatorial veto. But it was too late. The 2020 Legislature ended on Jan. 5 and under legislative rules, any vetoes made, or amendments proposed, by the governor after that time could not go back to the Legislature for an override or consideration. So the bill died on the governor’s desk.
“While I support the bill’s goals and am largely in agreement with many of its proposals, 35 hours was not enough time to review and suggest amendments to such complex legislation,” Baker said in his veto message. “Had this bill been presented to me with more time while the Legislature was still in session, I would have returned it with amendments to address the concerns. Unfortunately, because the Legislature has adjourned, I do not have that option, and therefore, reluctantly, I cannot sign the legislation as currently written.
“The Massachusetts economy is just beginning to recover from the pandemic downturn caused by the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19,” Baker continued. “As we are all learning what the future will hold, I have concerns about the impacts portions of this bill will have for large sectors of the economy.”
Other provisions in the measure codify environmental justice provisions into Massachusetts law by defining environmental justice populations and providing new tools and protections for affected neighborhoods; provide $12 million in annual funding for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center to create a pathway to the clean energy industry for environmental justice populations and minority-owned and women-owned businesses; require an additional 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind and increase the state’s total authorization to 5,600 megawatts; set appliance energy efficiency standards for a variety of common appliances including plumbing, faucets, computers and commercial appliances; and set benchmarks for the adoption of clean energy technologies including electric vehicles, charging stations, solar technology, energy storage and heat pumps
“If not for the initiative and resolve of Speaker (Ron) Mariano and Senate President (Karen) Spilka … the bill would not have been before the Legislature in the first month of the 2021 to 2022 session,” said Rep. Tom Golden, D-Lowell, House chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. “I am beyond proud to have once again voted with my colleagues on this path-breaking legislation, and I look forward to continued collaboration to make it law and propel the commonwealth toward its clean energy future.”
“By sending last session’s climate bill back to Gov. Baker’s desk, the House and Senate have taken an important step forward, but further action is needed to ensure a safe, healthy future,” said Ben Hellerstein, state director for Environment Massachusetts. “Let’s clear the decks of last session’s business by passing this bill into law, and then let’s turn our attention to the other important climate policies awaiting action. Here’s hoping 2021 is the year Massachusetts sets its sights on 100 percent renewable energy.”
“I am an advocate for protecting the environment, but we need a commonsense approach,” said newly-elected Rep. Kelly Pease, R-Westfield. “There needs to be a balance between becoming greener and protecting our businesses and economy. Reducing emissions by 40 percent instead of 50 percent by 2030 would have less of an impact on businesses and our economy, and still allow us to reach our goals by 2050. There are a few issues with the current bill that need to be addressed so it will not be cost prohibitive for businesses and families while moving forward to a more environmentally friendly commonwealth.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Thousands of bills were defeated in the 2020 session that ended just a few weeks ago. Here are some of them and how they died.
This bill would have allowed restaurants and other food establishments to donate their edible leftover cooked food and non-perishable food to local food pantries and assistance shelters. The donor would receive a tax credit or deduction. The measure also would relieve the restaurant of any liability if a person were harmed by eating the donated food. The bill was defeated by being shipped off to a study committee.
This proposal would have required doctors to screen all patients by asking if they have a firearm in their home. The bill was defeated by being shipped off to a study committee.
This legislation would have allowed college student athletes in Massachusetts to have representation and receive compensation for the use of their name, image and likeness. The proposal would also require each college to establish an injured athlete fund to help student-athletes who suffer a career-ending or long-term injury. The bill was defeated by being shipped off to a study committee.
This proposal involved allowing cities and towns to permit people aged 16 and 17 to vote in local city and town elections. Current law requires that voters be 18. The bill was defeated by being shipped off to a study committee.
This legislation would have required all assisted living facilities to have a defibrillator in the building. The bill was defeated by being shipped off to a study committee.
This proposal would have prohibited any person or entity, including educational institutions, workplaces and public spaces, from implementing any policy that would explicitly target someone who wears their natural hairstyle. The measure defines natural hairstyle as “hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles including braids, locks, twists and other formation.”
The bill also would expand existing anti-bullying law in schools to include recognition for students who may be more vulnerable to bullying or harassment because on their natural hairstyle. Another provision requires the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to investigate complaints filed against employers who have discriminated based on natural hairstyle. The bill was only approved in the House.
This proposed bill would have prohibited a student from transporting or storing a firearm in a vehicle on the grounds of a school or college. Under current law, the student can only be charged with a misdemeanor under the hunting section of state law for storing a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle.
The proposal was first sparked by an incident in December of 2016 in which a loaded rifle was found in the trunk of a student’s car in the parking lot at Masconomet Regional High School in Boxford. The student had a valid firearms identification card, which a person between ages 15 and 18 may apply for with their parents’ permission. Officials discovered the loophole that the student could only be charged with a misdemeanor and the seeds were planted for the filing of this proposal. The bill was only approved in the House.
This legislation would have amended the current law that imposes a $50 fine or one-year prison sentence on drivers who interfere with a funeral procession. The bill would eliminate the option of a prison sentence. Violations include driving between the vehicles forming a funeral procession; joining a funeral procession to secure the right-of-way; and passing a funeral procession on a multiple lane highway on the funeral procession’s right side unless the funeral procession is in the farthest left lane. The bill was only approved in the House.
This bill would have required cities and towns to reserve 5 percent of on-street parking spaces for handicapped parking. The bill was only approved in the House.
This proposal would have allowed cities and towns to add $450 to the current $100 to $300 fine for violations of handicapped parking. The money would be used solely for funding and implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act on the city or town’s public property and in public buildings. The bill was only approved in the House.
This proposal would have made driving outside the terms of a hardship license the equivalent of driving with a license that has been suspended. The bill was filed in response to a 2007 court ruling in the case of a man who was convicted of drunk driving, received a hardship license and then was arrested for driving outside the hours the hardship license allowed. The court ruled that even though the man’s license restricted the hours during which he was allowed to drive a motor vehicle, his license was a “restored” license within the meaning of state law and therefore he could not be charged with driving with a suspended license. The bill was only approved in the House.
The legislation would have amended a current law that allows for the impoundment of a vehicle if the incapacitated driver is under the influence of alcohol. The bill would also allow the impoundment when the person is incapacitated because of some other substance abuse. The bill was only approved in the House.