Happy Saturday!
If it feels like there’s something special in the air, there is: it’s the last Saturday Scoop before the official end of formal sessions. Since last week, no new substantive policy bills have been signed into law. We’re still at a grand total of 13 new statewide laws for the entire 1.5 year session. Just one of those was a law responding to the specific threats of the Trump administration.
This means that a lot of policy bills are still outstanding. Many bills have already met their fate with a “study order” in their originating committee. From those that passed their initial committee, more than 2,000 are still stuck in House or Senate Ways & Means, the leadership-dominated committees that typically serve as the last stop before a bill is moved to the chamber for a full vote. With the week that’s left, few of those bills are likely to see the light of day. The list of what else voters can expect to be finalized in the next week is short and vague; Speaker Ron Mariano attested that “other things” would be taken up by the House this week, but declined to specify.
For me, the unceremonious fate of all these bills was really getting to me this week. Each of those bills—whether I agree with them or not!—represents a meaningful effort by one of my fellow Bay Staters to make a change to our state’s General Laws. For many of these bills, advocates and members of the public took time off work to sit for hours in dusty hearing rooms, waiting for their chance to testify for or against the specific language of that bill. They made thousands of emails and phone calls. They secured co-sponsorships. All that human effort, just to die with no debate and no vote, just because it’s not a priority for state house leadership. It’s a travesty.
We’re not the only ones fired up: the progressive movement is rallying to call out state house leaders for their lack of action on popular priorities like healthcare, criminal justice reform, environmental protection, justice for Native Americans, and LGBTQ+ rights. Join our grassroots coalition on the state house steps next Thursday at 1 pm for “Grading the State House: A Report Card on (In)action”, a rally to urge legislative leaders to take action in their last few hours.
REGISTER FOR STATE HOUSE REPORT CARD RALLY >>
State House Scoop
Before voters get the chance to decide, Senate moves to nullify public records outcome
Just this week, the Secretary of State’s offices announced the order of the nine questions that will be decided by voters on the Massachusetts ballot this fall. They are as follows:
- Question 1: Expanding the Public Records Law
- Question 2: Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees
- Question 3: State Primary Elections
- Question 4: Election Day Registration
- Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate
- Question 6: Natural Resource Conservation Fund
- Question 7: Single Family Homes
- Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana
- Question 9: Firearms Regulation
Many, including Secretary of State Bill Galvin, have linked the deluge of ballot questions to inaction by the Legislature. Just this week, GBH’s Jim Braude published an op-ed in the Boston Globe, writing: “The high number of questions is a symptom of a larger problem: an uncompetitive, unaccountable Legislature.”
That uncompetitive, unaccountable Legislature had one thing to say this week: they don’t want public records law applied to them. On Thursday, Senate Ways & Means released their version (S.3200) of the House’s dreadful audit-rollback bill, which we mobilized against in June.
The Senate’s version, thankfully, does not include the unconstitutional provisions that would undermine the audit passed by voters in 2024. However, it is clearly intended to supersede the will of the voters on another issue: brand-new Question 1 – Expanding the Public Records Law.
As a reminder, Massachusetts is currently the only state in the entire country in which our legislature, judiciary, and Governor’s office exempt themselves from public records law. The common-sense transparency standards that are followed by municipal workers, city councilors, and most state employees simply do not apply to those who write, enforce, and adjudicate our laws. Just this year, the Society of Professional Journalists granted Massachusetts its “Black Hole Award,” recognizing the state’s “troubling lack of transparency and disregard for the public’s right to know,” in no small part due to our dismal public records regime.
Question 1 is designed to shine some sunlight on that “black hole.” It would simply apply the state’s existing public records law to the Legislature and Governor’s office, with some key exemptions for sensitive constituent information and developing policy positions. Act on Mass has supported the Public Records Law ballot question since it was first proposed last year. With volunteers and supporters, we helped to gather signatures for it across the state. I testified in favorof the question at the legislature’s public hearing in March.
The Senate has already tried to block this question from advancing to the ballot once, using a backdoor to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court in March. This effort was unsuccessful. Now, they’re trying to weaken it with legislation before the voters even get the chance to weigh in!
Indeed, like the House version, S.3200 would create a new public records regime solely for the legislative branch. It would be managed by a “legislative records officer” hired by… legislative leaders. It would apply only to a limited list of 19 “legislative records.” Most alarmingly, the bill seems intended to preclude the impact of the proposed ballot question by outlining that public records for the legislature would “solely” be governed under the bill’s language.
What of the new “legislative records”? To quote the Senate fact sheet, these would include “voting records; committee testimony; financial records including legislator and staff salaries, operating expenditures, and vendor expenditures; independent, third-party audits conducted pursuant to the Senate or House rules; ethics disclosures; certain contracts; employee handbooks; the Orders of the Day; and Senate and House Journals.” Any records not on this list would explicitly not be subject to public records law.
One thing the 19 approved record types have in common?
They are all already public! Moreover, with the exception of employee handbooks and ethics disclosures, the latter of which often need to be sought in-person at the Office of the House or Senate clerk, all of these items are currently searchable on the Internet. As far as we can tell, this bill would offer very little in the way of new transparency, while allowing legislators to claim that they “got rid of the exemption.”
In fact, Senate leadership wrote in a cheeky section that clarifies: “If the legislative record requested is available on a public website, the legislative records access officer may furnish the legislative record by providing reasonable assistance in locating the requested record.” This records officer is going to be very disappointed to find out that their real job is Eminent Guide to Finding Things Already on the Legislature’s Website. We’d be happy to refer them to our State House 201 training!
This list would explicitly exclude legislator communications, keeping all their emails with lobbyists far from public eyes.
From FOIA requests that detailed the true destruction of DOGE in the federal government to copies of contracting documents from your local school board, one of the main strengths of public records law is that the public gets to decide what records are interesting to us. Public records law is particularly powerful as a tool of the press, who can use it to inform complex investigations and uncover corruption hidden in files that might seem trivial to the untrained eye. This piecemeal approach to legislative records would keep the “public” out of “public records.”
We’re stating plainly: more than 80,000 Massachusetts residents signed their name for the chance to apply existing public records law to the Legislature and the Governor’s office. We should have the right to decide that at the ballot, not have that choice made for us.
The Senate will vote on this next Thursday—just one day before the end of formal sessions. We’re working to see if we can secure amendments to improve this bill before it passes, and will update when we know more. In the meantime, your Senator should hear from you: this bill is dubious. NO to limited records. Let the people decide!
Isabel’s Candidate Corner
Hi, Scoop Readers!
This is Isabel Harper, Act on Mass’ Organizing Director. We are officially six weeks away from Primary day (September 1st!) here in Massachusetts. I know right, where did June and July go? Time flies when you’re getting a stipend reform question on local ballots, launching a new organizing tool, and doing Statehouse 101s.
On top of all that, we are so proud to be endorsing eight candidates this cycle, including our newest endorsement, Lorena Betts! Between now and the primary, I’ll be highlighting one or two endorsed candidates in each edition of The Saturday Scoop. As you may have seen, The State House News Service found that 60% of Massachusetts legislative races this year are uncontested. That’s exactly why we’re so excited to celebrate challengers who are putting transparency, accountability, and a more responsive Legislature at the center of their campaigns.
One such candidate is Alison Leary. Leary’s race against incumbent John Lawn is already demonstrating why electoral competition matters. Last week, An Act Establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts (H.5590) was reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing to Joint Rules for the first time ever. Did I mention that John Lawn is the House Chair of Health Care Financing…. interesting. For years, single-payer healthcare advocates have fought to move this legislation forward. Yet, the year the committee chair faces a challenger, the bill finally receives meaningful movement. While this progress is certainly welcome, it’s worth noting that under the Legislature’s new rules, the Joint Rules Committee is no longer required to act by the traditional July 31 deadline. Instead, it can wait until January (after the primary) to make a final decision. That means legislators can campaign on advancing a bill without voters necessarily seeing what will ultimately happen to it.
Alison Leary, on the other hand, has been a consistent advocate for universal healthcare in Massachusetts and a longtime ally of both Act on Mass and MassCare. She is running for the 10th Middlesex House seat, which represents Newton, Waltham, and Watertown. You can learn more about Alison on her website, and support her campaign here.
DONATE TO THE LEARY CAMPAIGN >>
The second candidate I’d like to highlight is Mike Zullas. Zullas is running for the State Senate seat in the Norfolk, Plymouth, and Bristol district, which includes Braintree, Bridgewater, Easton, Milton, Randolph, Stoughton, and West Bridgewater. Mike served for years on the town council in Milton, and is now running against the incumbent, William Driscoll. From this experience, he saw first hand how Massachusetts’ lack of legislative momentum keeps the State from supporting cities and towns. As policies at the federal level cause the cost of living to skyrocket, Zullas is dedicated to investing in affordability, public education, and local infrastructure in the Senate next session. You can read more about his campaign on his website, and I particularly recommend taking a look at how transparency is at the heart of his vision for this seat. I hope you’ll join me in supporting his run.
DONATE TO THE ZULLAS CAMPAIGN HERE >>
As always, thank you for reading! Keeping up-to-date on our state legislature is a great first step in tangibly improving the lives of our fellow Bay-Staters. Keep an eye on future Scoops for joint canvasses in Alison and Mike’s districts.
Best,
Isabel
What else we’re reading this week
Great reporting and writing from around the Bay State this week!
- The Senate plans next week to vote on a new framework for public access to legislative records, one that follows similar contours of what the House supported last month but without any of the language representatives passed to narrow the scope of the voter-approved legislative audit.—Senate to vote on public records access, leaves out House audit scale back by Colin Young for State House News Service (paywall)
- Reading the tea leaves on Mariano’s fun agenda—The crystal ball approach to fun by Katie Lannan for MASSterList
- Kathleen Teahan, a Massachusetts Democratic State Legislator for ten years, from 1997-2007, pulls back the curtain on some of the more puzzling, yet essential aspects of lawmaking, lobbying, and gaining an effective voice in governing—For the People, Against the Tide by Kathleen Teahan
Take Action
Support AOM’s endorsed candidates!
Take action by signing up to knock doors, phonebook, or get a yard sign for one of our endorsed candidates this weekend!
- Michael Lachenmeyer, 12th Hampden: sign up here
- Ravi Simon, 13th Middlesex: sign up here
- Evan MacKay, 25th Middlesex, sign up here
- Alison Leary, 10th Middlesex: sign up here
- Lorena Betts, 16th Middlesex: sign up here
- Daniel Lander, Suffolk & Middlesex: sign up here
- Persis Yu, Norfolk & Suffolk: sign up here
- Mike Zullas, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Bristol: sign up here
Every District Accountable: Has your Rep signed the pledge?
We had a great launch event for our “Every District Accountable: Good Government for Mass” pledge this week! Here are some resources about it:
- Click here to see if legislative candidates in your district have signed the pledge yet
- Activist toolkit: check this document for details on the five commitments in the pledge and a script to contact your legislator about it
- Part of an org that’s interested in co-sponsoring the pledge? Sign up here!
Thanks for reading and for supporting Act on Mass! Have a great rest of your weekend.
Scotia
Scotia Hille (she/her)
Executive Director, Act on Mass