Beacon Hill Roll Call reports local senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of Nov. 2 to Nov. 6. There were no roll calls in the House last week.
$2.62 billion supplemental budget (S 3290)
The Senate, 34-4, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored $2.62 billion supplemental 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 healthcare for low-income people and people with disabilities; $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 for 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],” Fattman said. “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 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.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — Yes
- Sen. Paul Mark — Yes
Republican version of supplemental budget (S 3290)
The 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 requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to provide more details about the Republican version and the reason he proposed it.
Amendment opponents said the Republican version is well-intended, but unlike the Democratic version, it 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, chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and the chief opponent of the GOP version, did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to provide more details about the Republican version and the reason he opposed it.
A “No” vote is against the Republican version.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — No
- Sen. Paul Mark — No
Shelters (S 3290)
The Senate, 34-4, approved an amendment to the state’s Emergency Assistance Family Shelter Program. The amendment would loosen some of the restrictions lawmakers imposed two years ago, when a surge in demand 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 requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her to provide more details about the amendment and the reason she filed 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.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — Yes
- Sen. Paul Mark — Yes
Also up on Beacon Hill
Nine ballot questions
There were nine questions on the Nov. 3 ballot for Massachusetts 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 changed how the state calculates its tax-revenue limit under Chapter 62F, the cap voters approved in 1986. The new limit would have been based on the previous year’s net state revenue, plus the average growth in Massachusetts wages and salaries over the past three years. It would have also counted revenue from the state’s surtax on incomes over $1 million toward the cap.
QUESTION 6 WAS APPROVED: It will establish a “Nature for All Fund” that will use revenue from an existing sales tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses to support statewide natural resource conservation efforts.
QUESTION 7 WAS REJECTED: It would have allowed single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area by right 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 that increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns and assault-style weapons.