There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on roll calls from recent sessions on debate of the Senate version of the state’s $46 billion fiscal year 2021 state budget.
The Senate, 4 to 35, rejected an amendment that would allow bars, pubs and any other establishments that don’t serve food to reopen during the pandemic under the same timetable as restaurants that do serve food. Under current law, restaurants can offer takeout and delivery in Phase 1, outdoor seating in Step 1 of Phase 2, and indoor seating in Step 2 of Phase 2. Bars, pubs and other non-food establishments are designated as Phase 4 businesses and cannot reopen until there is a treatment or vaccine for COVID-19.
“We have a duty to examine the administration’s executive orders for fairness and rationality and how these orders are playing out in our districts,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen. “How are seated patrons in a restaurant confined with socially distanced seating, capacity and cleaning requirements safer when removing their masks to ingest food and wine or beer, than seated patrons in a pub complying with requirements and removing masks to ingest just a glass of wine or beer? I have yet to receive a valid explanation for this. We need to acknowledge this order is making a morality judgment and not one based on public health.”
“I voted against this amendment to preserve the ability for our local boards of health to keep people safe and ensure current public health protocols and standards — as issued by the governor to provide owners, operators, workers and patrons of restaurants with instructions to help protect the public against the spread of COVID-19 — are not compromised,” said Senate Ways and Means Chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport.
A “No” vote is against the amendment.
Sen. Joanne Comerford — No
Sen. Anne Gobi — No
Sen. Adam Hinds — No
The Senate, 9 to 30, rejected an amendment that supporters say eliminates a current contradiction in the law that allows some restaurants to open and others not to open based on what food is on the menu.
“This amendment allows restaurants to serve seated patrons without restriction or limitation or requirement as to which menu items are being served,” said the amendment’s sponsor Sen. DiZoglio. “Yes, we need to protect the public, and this does not remove Department of Public Health safety protocols. What the amendment does is give restaurants and pubs the ability to survive without arbitrary restrictions on what type of food and drink they serve. We affect their livelihoods with every action, or inaction, we take.”
DiZoglio said there was a pub in her district that obtained a food service license (serving sandwiches) for the purposes of qualifying as a restaurant, but somehow this was not sufficient for the state to allow the pub to open. She noted she filed this amendment because of this confusion around what exactly qualifies as a restaurant.
Sen. Rodrigues said his arguments against the prior amendment on treating bar and pubs the same as restaurants also applies to this amendment.
A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.
Sen. Joanne Comerford — No
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — No
The Senate, 39 to 0, approved an amendment that would establish an online “Supply and Buy Mass” program that would support the Massachusetts economy during its recovery from the economic shutdown in response to the pandemic. The amendment includes creation of an interactive database to identify, connect and support businesses that produce consumer goods in Massachusetts; identifying obstacles to conducting business here; and acting as a resource to connect local suppliers and purchasers.
“I’ve had the humble opportunity to engage with small business owners to generate proposals to benefit small businesses, which are all the more relevant in light of COVID-19,” said Sen. DiZoglio about her amendment. “It will be of tremendous help to have the Supply and Buy Mass program created by this amendment. Having online accessibility to producers of personal protective equipment before needs outpaced supply would have put us much further ahead than we found ourselves. The amendment updates our resources to be in line with the times.”
A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law a $45.9 billion fiscal year 2021 state budget that was approved by the House and Senate and sent to him on Dec. 4. Baker also vetoed and amended several items and cut $156 million in spending on various programs.
Baker supported some of the abortion initiatives in the budget, including making abortions available to women after 24 weeks in cases where a doctor has diagnosed a fatal fetal anomaly. He said the budget affirmatively establishes in Massachusetts law a woman’s right to access an abortion and ensures that a woman can access an abortion in cases where the child will not survive after birth.
“These are important changes to protect a woman’s reproductive rights and autonomy in the commonwealth, and I support them,” Baker said in his message to the Legislature. “However, I cannot support the other ways that this section expands the availability of late-term abortions and permits minors age 16 and 17 to get an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian.”
The ROE Act Coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, released a statement saying it is deeply disappointed by Gov. Baker’s failure to recognize the urgent need to improve access to care.
“His amendment pushes abortion care out of reach for many, especially for people with low incomes and communities of color,” the statement reads. “The governor cannot have it both ways. He cannot call himself pro-choice and keep anti-choice restrictions in place. Current law in Massachusetts is broken, and this amendment maintains the state’s greatest barriers to care. For decades, medically unnecessary barriers to abortion have sent people out of state, forced young people to go before a judge, and delayed and denied care. Under Gov. Baker’s amendment, these hardships will continue. These barriers disproportionately harm people of color and people with low incomes.”
“I’m glad to see the governor push back on this radical abortion legislation,” said Massachusetts Family Institute President Andrew Beckwith. “Particularly during this Advent season, and in the middle of COVID-19, we should be embracing life, not death, for our unborn children.”
“Although there remains much in this bill with which to take issue, we thank Gov. Baker for the commonsense recommendation to raise the age for consent to abortion to 18,” said Patricia Stewart, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
The House and Senate are likely to attempt to override Baker’s veto of lowering the age from 18 to 16, which was approved by apparent veto-proof margins in the House of 108 to 49 and 33 to 7 in the Senate. The Legislature has until the 2020 legislative session ends on Jan. 5, 2021 to act on these abortion provisions.
Gov. Baker has returned the bill making changes in the state’s policing system to the Legislature without his signature. He offered several amendments for legislators to consider.
“There are … a small number of proposals in (the bill) that I cannot accept because they introduce barriers to effective administration and the protection of public safety without advancing the central goal of improving police accountability and professionalism,” Baker told legislators in a letter along with his amendments. He added, “If they are not addressed, I do not intend to sign the … bill.”
One of those proposals unacceptable to the governor would ban police from using facial recognition systems to solve crimes.
“I propose to enhance the study of facial recognition already proposed in the bill while striking out the law change that drastically limits its use by any public agency,” Baker continued. “The restrictions on the technology, with only significantly limited exceptions for law enforcement, ignores the important role it can play in solving crime. For example, in the last few years here in Massachusetts, a child rapist and an accomplice to a double murder are both now in prison thanks to facial recognition technology.”
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, supports the ban.
“Unfortunately, Gov. Baker rejected a crucial due process provision that would protect Massachusetts residents from unregulated police use of face surveillance technology, which has been proven to unfairly target Black and Brown people, leading to the arrest of innocent people,” Rose said. “Unchecked police use of surveillance technology also harms everyone’s rights to anonymity, privacy and free speech. We urge the Legislature to reject Gov. Baker’s amendment and to ensure passage of commonsense regulations of government use of face surveillance.”
The governor was in agreement or willing to accept most of the bill, including creating an independent, civilian-led commission with the power to investigate police misconduct and to certify, restrict, revoke or suspend certification for police officers and maintain a publicly available database of decertified officers; setting standards for qualified immunity under which qualified immunity would not extend to a law enforcement officer who violates a person’s right to bias-free professional policing if that conduct results in the officer’s decertification; banning the use of chokeholds; limiting the use of deadly force; requiring police officers who witness another officer using force beyond what is necessary or reasonable to intervene; and limiting no-knock police warrants in instances where children or people over 65 are present.
The Senate gave initial approval to legislation that would provide victims of violent crime and human trafficking with enhanced protections. The bill standardizes the process for law enforcement, prosecution, judicial and investigative agencies to provide non-citizen victims, who have been helpful in the investigation or prosecution of serious crimes, with the certification form they need to apply for a U-visa or T-visa.
In 2000, Congress created the U-visas and T-visas as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to help immigrant victims come forward to law enforcement. As part of this visa process, a state or local government agency must complete a visa certification form, certifying that the applicant is a victim of a violent crime or trafficking and that person was helpful in the investigation or prosecution of said crime.
Supporters said that 13 states have implemented statewide standards for visa certifications, but noted the standards around victim certification are still inconsistent across Massachusetts.
“Human trafficking is a vicious crime and modern-day version of slavery that has little understanding amongst the general public both locally and globally,” said Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, who sponsored an earlier version of the proposal. “Many victims are vulnerable women or children with very few financial resources and are lured into trafficking with false promises of economic opportunity and prosperity. Many victims are also immigrants who may fear retaliation from their trafficker should they seek to contact law enforcement or any other resource for help.”
“This bill makes a tremendous difference in the lives of immigrant survivors at such a critical moment during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Julie Dahlstrom, director and clinical associate professor at the Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program at the Boston University School of Law. “It sends a clear signal to immigrant survivors, who are often fearful to report to law enforcement, that they can step forward to report violent crime and human trafficking and access important protections.”
“As a former legal services attorney, I helped hundreds of victims of crimes with various legal issues and saw firsthand just how important it is to pass laws that would increase victim and witness participation in the criminal legal system,” said Rep. Tram Nguyen, D-Andover, a sponsor of an earlier version of the measure. “This bill will not only promote justice and keep victims safe, but it will also help law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes and enhance public safety for everyone in our communities.”
Several bills heard by the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy were shipped off to a study committee where bills are never actually studied and are essentially defeated. It is another way to kill a bill instead of holding a vote on the bill itself.
Here are three bills filed by Rep. Hannah Kane, R-Shrewsbury, the ranking Republican on the Committee on Cannabis Policy, that were sent to the study committee. Kane said she intends to file each of the three bills again next session.
Must be 21 to attend marijuana-related event (H 3704): Prohibits anyone under 21 from attending marijuana-related events, conferences, forums and exhibitions and imposes up to a $2,000 fine on event sponsors who violate this restriction. The bill exempts marijuana use prevention programs for youth, youth educational programs or substance misuse programs related to marijuana use.
“Numerous cannabis-related events, some with no minimum age of entry and others with an 18 years of age or older entry requirement, occur in Massachusetts every year, attracting thousands,” Kane said. “These events draw teenagers, young college students and parents who bring their children from all over the commonwealth and beyond. Given the proven harmful impact of marijuana use on the adolescent brain, as well as decreased perception of harm that advertising has on young people through the normalization of consumption, it is necessary to bring age of use and all efforts of promotion and marketing into alignment with current Massachusetts law.”
Ban marijuana use near daycare centers and places where youth congregate (H 3528): Updates existing language to prohibit possession and consumption of marijuana near daycare centers and any facility where children commonly congregate. The amendment replaces current language in the law that is vague and bans the use near any youth center.
“(The bill) would tighten the existing law to ensure that marijuana and/or marijuana accessories are not possessed or consumed in proximity to any facility where children are most likely to congregate,” Kane said.
Prohibit discounts (H 5326): Prohibits recreational, non-medical marijuana retail shops from offering a “discount” to medical marijuana cardholders.
Supporters say there is a loophole in current law that allows marijuana establishments to offer discounts to medical marijuana cardholders, encouraging these individuals to buy marijuana from their establishment instead of the medical marijuana-approved establishments for which the cards are designed. Recreational marijuana is currently taxed while medical marijuana is not.
“The discounts generally involve discounting the price paid for (non-medical) marijuana by an amount equal to what the buyer will be required to pay in sales and excise tax, thereby negating the price difference between medical and recreational marijuana,” Kane said. “When the initial law was enacted, it was never imagined nor sanctioned that marijuana establishments would be able to entice medical marijuana users by offering these discounts.”