Beacon Hill Roll Call reports local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of July 20 to July 24.
Abortion (H 5595)
The House, 119-33, approved and sent to the Senate legislation that would loosen restrictions on abortions that can be performed after 24 weeks of gestation. The bill removes existing requirements that limit abortions at 24 weeks of pregnancy or later to four specific medical circumstances, and instead allows licensed physicians and providers to rely on their best medical judgment when caring for patients.
Supporters said that under current law, the four specific categories do not account for the full spectrum of medical conditions encountered by women and their doctors: protecting the patient’s life or physical or mental health, or cases involving a lethal fetal anomaly or a grave fetal diagnosis.
“The goal of passing this legislation is simple. Medical decisions should be made by a patient and their doctor,” said sponsor Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton. “Massachusetts has one of the best health care systems in the country, and patients should be able to rely on their providers to deliver medically appropriate care without restrictions that can fail to account for the complexity of individual medical circumstances. By removing those barriers, we can ensure that no one has to leave Massachusetts to receive the care they need.”
“The good intentions of this bill’s sponsors are gravely misplaced,” said Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. “As written, their abortion-up-to-birth bill permits one provider — not even a physician — to subjectively decide that any unborn infant can be killed, even babies capable of surviving outside the womb and feeling pain within it. Just as concerning is the fact that the bill endangers women, since late-term abortions are far more complex and carry greater risk. Yet legislators want to allow these abortions outside of hospitals. Women experiencing unimaginable, heartwrenching pregnancy complications absolutely deserve all the support they need, but that support is not what this bill provides. Instead, this bill increases risks to women’s safety, allows gruesome violence against unborn children and grows abortion industry profits via taxpayer-funded late-term procedures.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Exempt earnings from overtime and tips from income tax (S 3178)
The Senate, 7-32, rejected an amendment that would exempt from the state’s 5% income tax up to $12,500 of earnings from overtime and up to $25,000 from tips.
Amendment sponsor Sen. Ryan Fattman, R-Sutton, said his amendment will put more money back in the pockets of hardworking individuals, including restaurant workers, construction workers and countless other individuals who are doing everything right. He said they are working overtime, picking up extra shifts, relying on tips and yet they feel like they’re falling further behind because the cost of living has exploded and housing prices have climbed beyond the reach of many first-time homeowners. He noted that tipped workers earn their income by providing excellent service and putting in long hours and argued that if you work more, you should keep more of what you earn.
“It’s unfortunate Massachusetts lawmakers did not give this tax cut to working people,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “The Massachusetts state Senate missed a great opportunity to help keep more money in the pockets of working people.”
A “No” vote is against the amendment exempting some earnings from overtime and tips from the income tax.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — No
- Sen. Paul Mark — No
Death tax/estate tax (S 3178)
The Senate, 5-34, rejected an amendment that would abolish the tax that the estates of people who die are required to pay following their death, before the money is distributed to any beneficiary. Current law only exempts the first $2 million and then imposes the tax on the remainder based on a graduated rate schedule ranging from 7.2% for estates of more than $2 million to 16% for estates of more than $10 million.
Most Republicans are against this tax and coined the name “death tax” to imply that the government taxes you even after you die. Most Democrats support the tax and call it an “estate tax” to imply that this tax is only paid by the wealthy.
Amendment supporters said this regressive tax is unfair and noted that Massachusetts is losing many residents who move to other states where this tax does not exist. They noted it is not fair to tax this money when a person dies because the person already paid taxes on it when he or she was alive.
Amendment opponents said the state cannot afford the loss in revenue, which would be hundreds of millions of dollars. They noted that the Legislature recently approved and the governor signed into law a bill that increased from $1 million to $2 million the amount of money that is exempt from this tax.
A “No” vote is against abolishing the tax.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — No
- Sen. Paul Mark — No
Change what triggers a refund to taxpayers (S 3178)
The Senate, 31-8 approved an amendment that would change the conditions under which a current law (known as Chapter 62F), approved by voters on the 1986 ballot, is triggered. That law requires that annual tax revenue above a certain amount collected by the state go back to the taxpayers. The amendment would only allow the law to be triggered if “the net state tax revenues in the fiscal year are less than 7.5% of the total statewide personal income for the calendar year ending in the fiscal year as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the United States Department of Commerce.”
“Our modern-day economy is completely different from what it was back in 1986 when Chapter 62F was enacted,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester. “Unfortunately, Chapter 62F uses a flawed method of calculating allowable revenue and economic growth from year to year that only considers income from wages and salaries, instead of a more comprehensive model that includes other income from gig economy work and passive income sources such as capital gains, which are both growing sources of income for residents. Currently, wages and salaries only make up just over 50% of total personal income in Massachusetts — a significant decline since 1986, which hasn’t been accounted for.”
“The voters of Massachusetts made themselves explicitly clear when 62F was first established that excess tax revenue collected by the state should be returned to the taxpayers,” said Sen. John Velis, D-Westfield, who also opposed the amendment. “Dramatic changes like these to our state’s only tax rebate law should again be decided by the voters themselves, which is why I opposed the amendment.”
A “Yes” vote is for the amendment that only allows the law to be triggered if the net state tax revenues in the fiscal year are less than 7.5% of the total statewide personal income.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — Yes
- Sen. Paul Mark — Yes
Also up on Beacon Hill
$575 million economic development package (S 3178)
The Senate approved, on a voice vote without a roll call, a $575 million economic development package. Senators added millions of dollars in local projects for their districts to the original bill proposed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
The House has already approved a different version of the measure and a conference committee will hammer out a compromise version.
Provisions in the Senate bill include $100 million to promote economic growth and job creation in the defense sector; $75 million to support the development and application of artificial intelligence; $25 million to boost downtown and main street vitality in cities and towns; $2.5 million to help convert vacant storefronts into pop-up opportunities for new small businesses; $20 million to support construction of early-stage and high-growth business; and $25 million to support arts, culture and the creative economy.
Other provisions require that large AI developers are complying with new safety requirements by requiring independent, third-party safety audits; criminalizing the creation, possession or sharing of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), in response to new AI technology and computer programs capable of generating synthetic images that are indistinguishable from real photos; and prohibiting the possession, operation, manufacture or sale of robots that are equipped with weapons — including firearms, chemical agents, weaponized lasers and explosives.
The package also includes creating a group to study the feasibility of a future international soccer tournament to be held in Massachusetts; making music affordable by reining in predatory ticket scalping and instituting a 110% cap on prices charged by ticket resale platforms for music concert tickets; giving cities and towns the option of re-establishing “Happy Hour” discounted alcohol sales policies; allowing cities and towns to permit public alcohol consumption in designated outdoor districts; increasing the production of new housing units through automatic two-family zoning across Massachusetts; and creating safety rules for fast electric scooters and e-bikes.
“Today the Senate took action to maintain the commonwealth’s economic edge while giving Massachusetts residents, families and businesses the best bet at success,” said Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. “The bill we passed today will help small businesses cut through red tape, provide opportunities for new families to find a home they can afford, and set our state up to face the challenges and embrace the opportunities of the coming years.”
“Senators did not have the interests of the taxpayers in mind when passing the economic development bill,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “All it does is spend more taxpayer money and make it harder for a tax rebate to occur. … Spending more tax dollars will never do anything but continue to make our state more expensive to live in and do business in.”
Support survivors of sexual abuse
Gov. Maura Healey held a ceremonial signing for two new laws that she had already signed on July 9. The laws strengthen protections for young people, support survivors of sexual assault and hold offenders accountable. These include the elimination the statute of limitations for rape cases when new DNA evidence identifies a suspect, as well as a provision to close a loophole that allowed adults in positions of authority to exploit 16- and 17-year-olds.
“As a former prosecutor and attorney general, I spent years working alongside survivors of sexual violence,” Healey said. “I saw firsthand the trauma they carry, and the extraordinary courage it takes to come forward. I also saw the devastation caused when our laws don’t do enough to protect survivors and hold offenders accountable. These new laws close dangerous loopholes, strengthen protections for children and make sure survivors have a better opportunity to seek justice. While no law can change what survivors have endured, we can take action to make our laws fairer, our communities safer and help survivors get the justice they deserve.”
“For too long, our laws have allowed adults in positions of authority and trust to exploit the very children they are supposed to protect and then hide behind a claim of consent,” said Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem. “That ends now. No figure of authority should ever be able to groom or assault a young person and walk away without accountability. Closing this loophole has been one of the most personal and important fights of my career, and I am proud that we got it done for the children and families of the commonwealth.”
Allow consumers to use insurance adjusters (S 785)
The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to legislation that would prohibit an insurance company from prohibiting the insured from hiring or using a public insurance adjuster or a public insurance adjusting firm. The measure has already been approved by the Senate. Additional approval is needed in each branch prior to the bill going to Gov. Maura Healey.
“An insured that has paid its premiums faithfully should have the choice to hire a public adjuster qualified to read the policy and get the claim paid,” said sponsor Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem. “With the House advancing this bill, both branches have now said plainly that a clause taking that choice away does not belong in a Massachusetts insurance policy.”
“These adjusters provide an invaluable resource to consumers by walking them through every step of filing an insurance claim and using their professional experience to negotiate directly with the insurance companies,” said co-sponsor Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “[The bill] will ensure that these important protections remain in place for Massachusetts residents.”
Make asparagus the official state vegetable (H 5088)
The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to a bill, requested by third graders at Hadley Elementary School, to make asparagus the official state vegetable.
“Asparagus is woven into the history of the Pioneer Valley, and ‘Hadley Grass’ once supplied 80% of the nation’s crop,” said Rep. Homar Gomez, D-Easthampton. “Designating it the official state vegetable honors the farmers who built that legacy and gives Massachusetts growers a marketing edge, the same way state-fruit status has boosted our cranberry industry. I’m especially proud that this effort was driven by Hadley third graders, whose civic engagement shows exactly why this recognition matters.”
“When a classroom filled with passionate third graders advocates for asparagus to become the official state vegetable, I listen closely,” said Senate sponsor Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton. “It was inspiring to meet with these students at Hadley Elementary School as they shared the history and regional significance of asparagus. … I am grateful to these young people for reminding us how democracy works.”
Official state crustacean (H 5335)
The House gave initial approval to a bill that would make the American lobster the official state crustacean.
“This bill is about celebrating and uplifting a significant sector of the state’s blue economy, our historic maritime culture and a sustainable fishery,” said House sponsor Rep. Joan Meschino, D-Hull. “I am glad to file this bill in partnership with the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association and help to honor a crucial industry in the commonwealth.”
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
The Healey-Driscoll administration announced the launch of Phase 1 of a statewide Accessory Dwelling Unit Incentive Program that will help homeowners determine whether building an ADU is right for their property, including understanding site conditions, local permitting requirements, utility needs, preliminary design options and high-level cost estimates before investing significant time and resources in an ADU project.
“Massachusetts needs to build more homes, and ADUs are one of the fastest ways to create new housing in communities across our state,” Healey said. “Our Affordable Homes Act made it easier to build ADUs, and we saw major interest from homeowners. Now we’re giving them the tools they need to turn an idea into reality, creating more housing options while helping families stay in the communities they love.”
“Homeowners are excited about ADUs, but many do not know where to start,” said Rachel Heller, executive director of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. “A feasibility study gives a family an objective, professional assessment of what is possible on their property, what it may cost and what hurdles need to be addressed before they invest significant time and money.”
Order of November ballot questions
Secretary of State William Galvin released the order of the nine questions that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Ballot question numbers this year were assigned at the direction of First Deputy Secretary Michelle Tassinari, director of the Elections Division. The questions were not ordered randomly but instead were ordered in a manner intended to maximize space on the ballot, with the length of the question summaries being the primary consideration.
Galvin’s office said that with so many questions, ballots in most cities and towns are expected to be 2 to 3 pages long. The length of each community’s ballot will depend on the number of offices and candidates running in that community, whether the ballot must be printed in more than one language and any local questions that may be added to the ballot by the city or town.
Here are the ballot positions of the nine questions:
- Question 1: Expand the Public Records Law — Would make most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records. It exempts documents related to the development of public policy and communications between legislators and their constituents, if those communications are reasonably related to a constituent’s request for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services or interacting with a government agency.
- Question 2: Allow collective bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) employees — Would allow employees of the CPCS to form a union.
- Question 3: Eliminate political party primaries — Would implement All-Party State Primaries, known as Jungle Primaries, that would eliminate 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 with the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election.
- Question 4: Election Day registration — Would allow prospective voters to register and cast a ballot in a single trip to the polls on Election Day. Current law does not allow same-day registration.
- Question 5: Surplus tax — Would require revenue generated from the Fair Share Amendment to count toward the allowable state tax revenue limitations, under Chapter 62F, which provides that whenever revenue collections in a fiscal year exceed an annual cap tied to wage and salary growth, the excess is returned to taxpayers.
- Question 6: Create a Natural Resource Conservation Fund — Would place sales tax revenue from sporting goods like golf clubs, RVs and camping gear into a new “Nature for All Fund” that sponsors say could generate $100 million annually for water and nature conservation and restoration efforts.
- Question 7: Single-family homes — Would make it easier for residents to purchase a home by updating zoning rules, including allowing single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet; has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road or public way that it faces; and has access to public sewer and water services.
- Question 8: Prohibit retail sale of adult recreational-use marijuana — Would repeal the current laws that legalize, regulate and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana.
- Question 9: Firearms regulations — Would repeal the 2024 gun control law.