Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from recent sessions.
All three roll calls are on amendments to the Senate version of the PROTECT Act that supporters said would establish statewide standards governing interactions between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. Opponents of the bill said they voted against the measure for a number of reasons, including because of a provision that prohibits local and state law enforcement from working with federal law enforcement to apprehend dangerous felons accused of committing violent crimes.
The House has already approved its own version of the measure and a House-Senate conference committee will eventually hammer out a compromise version.
Give federal money to sheriffs and Department of Correction (S 3072)
The Senate, 5-34, rejected an amendment that would strike a section of the bill that provides that any payments made by the federal government to reimburse the Department of Correction for costs associated with executing its responsibilities must be transferred to and then distributed by the Office for Refugees and Immigrants to designated nonprofits that would use the funds to increase access to legal representation for immigrants and refugees in the state.
Supporters said the amendment would ensure that this money stays with the sheriffs and the Department of Correction, which performed their duties and generated the federal funds, rather than being unfairly diverted to nonprofits for a wholly different purpose.
“I voted ‘No’ because taxpayer reimbursement funds should remain focused on core state priorities rather than being automatically redirected to outside nonprofit organizations,” said Sen. Patrick O’Connor, R-Weymouth. “This amendment improves accountability and gives lawmakers greater flexibility in allocating public funds.”
Amendment opponents said the money would be put to good use by nonprofits to increase access to legal representation for immigrants and refugees who cannot become legal immigrants because they don’t have the money necessary to go through the lengthy and expensive process to do so.
A “No” vote is against the amendment and supports the funds being used to help legal representation for immigrants and refugees.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — No
- Sen. Paul Mark — No
Include all criminal offenses (S 3072)
The Senate, 7-32, rejected an amendment to a section of the bill that allows a law enforcement official to request information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status when the officer has an articulable, case-specific reason to believe the person’s citizenship or immigration status is directly material to a list of specific criminal offenses the person has committed. The amendment would allow more criminal offenses to be considered.
Supporters said the amendment is a fair one that would broaden the provision and make it apply to all criminal offenses. Amendment opponents said the bill applies to all felonies and that the amendment is not necessary.
A “No” vote is against the amendment that would broaden the provision and make it apply to all criminal offenses.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — No
- Sen. Paul Mark — No
Verify that aid recipients are in the country legally (S 3072)
The Senate, 5-34, rejected an amendment that would require any agency, organization or other entity receiving public funds for the purpose of providing legal representation in matters involving federal immigration law to implement mechanisms to ensure that no funds are provided to help an individual who is not lawfully present in the United States.
“I voted ‘Yes’ because state-funded legal aid programs should prioritize assistance for individuals who are legally present in the United States,” said Sen. Patrick O’Connor, R-Weymouth. ”This amendment adds an important verification safeguard to ensure public resources are used as intended and with transparency.”
Amendment opponents said this would unfairly take away the ability for nonprofits to represent people who are lawfully here in the country but can’t afford to pay a private lawyer to help them.
A “No” vote is against the amendment that would require recipients to prove that they are here legally.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — No
- Sen. Paul Mark — No
Also up on Beacon Hill
Zero-emission vehicles (S 2694)
The Revenue Committee held a hearing on legislation that supporters say would encourage the purchase of heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles (classes 3 through 8) — if purchased before Jan. 1, 2035. The measure directs that, in calculating the motor vehicle excise tax and state sales tax, the taxable value of the zero-emission vehicles be based on the lesser of the vehicle’s actual list or sales price, or the median list or sales price of comparable internal combustion engine vehicles of the same class and year.
Supporters say the proposal would encourage the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and ensure that they are not subject to disproportionately higher taxes due to higher upfront costs. They note the bill would guarantee that the state’s fiscal policy aligns with its clean transportation goals.
Sens. Paul Mark, D-Becket, Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, and Joan Lovely, D- Salem, the co-sponsors of the bill, did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking them why they filed the measure.
Study the distribution of Lottery revenue (H 5160)
Another proposal before the Revenue Committee would create a special commission to examine and study the distribution of Lottery revenue to cities and towns. The commission would also provide recommendations to improve distributional equity.
Supporters say the current system does not work well and is unfair to many cities and towns. They argued that the study would examine whether revenue should be distributed to municipalities in proportion to the municipality’s residents’ spending on the Lottery.
Ensure seniors qualify for Senior Circuit Breaker Discount (H 5298)
Another bill that was heard by the Revenue Committee was one that supporters say would ensure that seniors are allowed to take the Senior Circuit Breaker Discount even if they take advantage of a senior property tax deferral.
The Senior Circuit Breaker Discount can be taken by seniors with homes valued at less than $1,298,000 and who earn $75,000 or less for a single individual who is not the head of a household; 94,000 for a head of household; and $112,000 for married couples filing a joint return. To qualify as a homeowner, your property tax payments, together with half of your water and sewer expense, must exceed 10% of your total Massachusetts income for the tax year. If you are a renter, 25% of your annual Massachusetts rent must exceed 10% of your total Massachusetts income for the tax year.
“Seniors on a fixed income are struggling to pay for food, electricity, gas and property taxes,” said sponsor Rep. Kristin Kassner, D-Hamilton. “After passing home rule petitions in two of our towns to expand access to senior property tax deferral, we learned that if seniors take the deferral, they no longer qualify for the Senior Circuit Breaker Discount on their state taxes. This bill would allow income-qualifying seniors to defer property taxes (with the taxes paid in full with interest upon the sale of their home) and still qualify for the Senior Circuit Breaker.”
Attorney general announces $7.8 million settlement
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell announced a $7.8 million settlement with American First Finance (AFF) resolving allegations that the company used unfair and deceptive business practices to mislead consumers with expensive lease-to-own contracts. The settlement requires AFF to pay $2 million to the state, which will then distribute it to impacted customers as restitution. The settlement also includes nearly $5.8 million in credits to existing consumer accounts.
“Consumers making significant purchases deserve to be presented with clear, straightforward payment options,” Campbell said. “When companies mislead buyers and profit off the confusion they create, that violates our consumer protection laws and unfairly puts our residents at risk. My office will continue to hold companies that take advantage of consumers accountable, especially when they target our most vulnerable communities.”