Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on roll calls from prior sessions on the $60.9 billion fiscal year 2026 state budget. There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.
$10 million for cities and towns (H 4000)
The House, 26-130, rejected an amendment that would repeal the state’s 2023 No-Cost Calls Law, which provides $10 million to fund unlimited phone calls for inmates at county and state correctional facilities, and would redirect the $10 million to support unrestricted local aid for cities and towns. The amendment would also establish a commission to study and develop recommendations for a fiscally constrained and sustainable alternative to the No-Cost Calls Law.
“The state’s sheriffs have collectively raised concerns about the No-Cost Calls Program’s rising costs, which Norfolk County Sheriff Patrick McDermott recently testified has already cost taxpayers $12.5 million this fiscal year,” said sponsor Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “By redirecting the money allocated to this program to unrestricted general government aid, we can assist our cities and towns that are struggling to pay for essential municipal programs and services. I also believe it’s critical to have a commission study the No-Cost Calls Program to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently and effectively.”
Rep. Michael Day, D-Stoneham, said the No-Cost Calls Law works because when prisoners are able to communicate with their families, it results in better success rates and less recidivism. He argued that this $10 million is well-spent and means we have to spend less money on our criminal justice system.
A “No” vote is for keeping the $10 million funding for the No-Cost Calls Law.)
- Rep. Natalie Blais — No
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — No
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
Allow debate and vote on 2034 gas vehicle ban (H 4000)
The House, 132-25, supported the ruling of the chair that prohibited admission to the House, for debate and a vote, an amendment that would prevent the state from banning all gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
The chair ruled that the amendment should not be allowed for consideration because the House has already rejected an amendment to postpone the ban and this amendment to prevent the ban outright exceeds the amendment to postpone.
“The chair had ruled that the underlying amendment should not be taken up because the House had already rejected an amendment that would have delayed the enforcement of the [ban],” said Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “I voted against the chair’s ruling so that the underlying amendment could at least be taken up for consideration by the House.”
Rep. Mark Cusack, D-Braintree, said the ruling of the chair is correct, and that a delay in the ban and prevention of the ban are similar. Under House rules, only one can be considered.
A “yes” vote is for the ruling of the chair that prohibits the admission to the House, for debate and a vote, an amendment that would prevent the state from banning all gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
- Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
MBTA Communities Act (H 4000)
The House, 30-126, rejected an amendment to the current law, known as the MBTA Communities Act, which, according to the state’s website, requires that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than half a mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children.”
Cities or towns that do not comply with the MBTA law are in danger of losing various state grants. The amendment would put the law on hold and not enforce it until Dec. 31, 2026.
Amendment sponsor Rep. Ken Sweezey, R-Hanson, said the law should be put on hold to allow public hearings on several bills filed to deal with this emergency.
“[The] amendment addresses the emergency created by unfair enforcement of the MBTA Communities Act by this administration,” Sweezey said. “There are over 20 bills filed pertaining to revisions to the law. I support the public hearing process and look forward to the work we continue to do to help our towns but wish more consideration would have been given to granting temporary relief through this amendment.”
Rep. Danielle Gregoire, D-Marlborough, said the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the MBTA Communities Act is the law of the land and is constitutional. She said that 95% of communities subject to this law are in compliance or interim compliance. She noted that this law mandates zoning changes, but it does not mandate that anyone build anything.
A “no” vote is against the delay until Dec. 31, 2026.
- Rep. Natalie Blais — No
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — No
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
Also up on Beacon Hill
Student ID cards and suicide line (H 2221)
The House gave initial approval to legislation that would require that newly printed student identification cards for public school students in grades six through 12 and students in public colleges include the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline phone numbers and text message numbers. The line directs all callers to trained call takers who are available to provide free, confidential emotional support for those in crisis.
The measure allows schools that have a supply of unissued student identification cards that do not comply with this new requirement to issue the old student identification cards to students until the remaining supply is depleted.
In 2024, the House and Senate approved different versions of this bill, but the legislative session ended before the two sides could agree on a version.
“Making suicide prevention resources more available and accessible will help ensure that every student is aware of the free, confidential resources that are available to them at any time,” said sponsor Rep. Jack Lewis, D-Framingham. “Supporting this initiative is an essential part of providing young people with equitable access to critical resources, promoting help-seeking behaviors and destigmatizing mental health.”
Remove food dyes from school food (S 1531)
The Public Health Committee held a hearing on legislation that would prohibit public schools from selling food that contains any food dyes. A school would be permitted to sell any products that might contain any food dye only if the sale of the items takes place away from a school’s premises, occurs on a school’s premises at least half an hour after the end of the school day or is at booster sales, concession stands or other school-related events.
“Removing food dyes from the public-school setting is a step toward ensuring the whole child is considered when it comes to education,” said sponsor Sen. Ryan Fattman, R-Spencer. “Science continues to show the harmful impact of food dyes on children, especially when it comes to their ability to focus, which is crucial to learning. The impact of this change would be minor to school districts but major for students who are impacted by these harmful chemicals.”
Allow doctors to dispense hearing aids (H 367)
The Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure held a hearing on a bill that would allow ear, nose and throat (ENT) doctors to dispense hearing aids by audiologists in the ENT doctor’s office. Massachusetts is one of only two states that does not allow this. Current Massachusetts law requires anyone needing hearing aids to make a separate appointment with an audiologist outside of an ENT office to obtain hearing aids.
Sponsor Rep. Carole Fiola, D-Fall River, said the proposal would eliminate the need to make multiple appointments and would make treatment convenient for patients.
“There are [currently] numerous obstacles for those who need to go to separate offices to obtain hearing aids, especially those who are caretakers, elderly or with low income, because of transportation and scheduling,” Fiola said.
Ban hostile architecture that targets the homeless (H 3307)
A proposal heard by the State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee would prohibit the state, the MBTA, and cities and towns from constructing “hostile architecture” that supporters of the ban say targets the homeless and tries to push them out of certain areas. The bill defines hostile architecture as “any building or structure that is designed or intended to prevent unhoused individuals from sitting or lying on the building or structure at street level.”
“Designing public spaces that are hostile to people experiencing homelessness does nothing to address the problem of homelessness,” said sponsor Rep. Mike Connolly, D-Cambridge. “In fact, designing public spaces with hostile architecture merely sends the issue further away from public view, making it more dangerous for those who need both short-term help and longer-term policy.”
Supporters say that family homelessness in Greater Boston has doubled over the last decade, shelters are overcrowded and waiting lists for affordable housing are in the tens of thousands. They note that policies that sterilize the homelessness crisis in public spaces are not only inhumane, but they also only serve to mask the problem.
According to Robert Rosenberger, an associate professor of philosophy at Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied and written extensively on the subject, hostile architecture includes armrests that divide benches so that the bench is not long enough to sleep on, sprinklers that are turned on at night and certain trash cans.
“Garbage cans … serve several functions for people living unhoused,” Rosenberger said. “Some people use garbage cans as a source of recyclable materials [that] can often be exchanged for a small sum of money. Garbage cans are also sometimes approached as a source of discarded food.”
He noted that many newer garbage cans are built so that people cannot reach inside them to obtain recycled bottles or cans or leftover food.
Simple language on the state’s website (H 3378)
Another bill before the State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee would require the state’s chief digital officer to improve the websites and services for state executive offices and agencies by requiring the use of plain and simple language consistent with the average reading comprehension level of Massachusetts, as determined by the commissioner of elementary and secondary education.
“This bill was inspired by a conversation I had with a constituent who retired from working in a state agency,” said sponsor Rep. David LeBoeuf, D-Worcester. “In his work, he noticed many of the forms, web portals and other resources used technical legal terms. This can inadvertently lead to residents filling them out inaccurately or not fully comprehending particular requirements. This bill would encourage greater partnerships between our technical services teams and state agencies to enhance user experience of online forms and find ways to make these improved forms available in alternative ways to individuals without internet access.”
“This bill seeks to clarify language used by government offices for the common person here in Massachusetts that may not understand the phraseology used by the university crowd that our current website design caters to,” said Rep. John Gaskey, R-Carver, who signed on as one of the co-sponsors of the bill.