We did it: we survived another rules season.
The House voted on their rules last Wednesday (2/1). In case you didn’t catch it, you can read our full recap here, our press release here, and our live twitter coverage here. The bottom line: our amendment for public committee votes was rejected… wait for it… without a public vote. Yes, it’s maddening, but it’s also proving our point for us: our democracy is deeply broken, and we need to fix it.
One bit of good news emerged from that same session: Democrat Kristin Kassner, who beat Republican incumbent Lenny Mirra by one vote, was finally sworn in after a recount and weeks of delay.
Speaking of a little bit of good news among a sea of bad, let’s dive into the Senate’s rules debate.
State House Scoop
Senate removed term limits for the senate president
In a major backslide for democracy on Beacon Hill, the Senate voted to remove term limits for the senate president on Thursday. Only three Democrats were brave enough to vote against this power grab: Sens. Becca Rausch, John Keenan, and Walter Timilty. See the full roll call vote here.
Term limits are about sharing power. Like the house speaker, the senate president has almost unfettered power over their members, staff, and the flow of legislation. Being able to serve in that role indefinitely further concentrates that power, and all but guarantees they can pass the torch to their hand-picked successor. This isn’t democracy, it’s oligarchy.
Thank you to everyone who contacted their senators about this issue leading up to the vote!Now it’s time to tell them how you feel about their vote. We’ve now updated our email form to thank the senators who voted against removing the term limits, and express disappointment in the ones who did. Contact your senator about their vote on senate president term limits:
Senate held steady on public committee votes
Well, at least they didn’t backslide on everything. Both the Senate Rules and the Senate’s proposal for the Joint Rules included language for full public committee votes. Remember: the House and the Senate have to agree on the Joint Rules because they govern the work the two chambers do together–namely, joint committees. (See our full explanation of the rules here.) There is now a major difference between the two proposals about whether to publish committee votes. The likely next step is a conference committee where members from the House and the Senate will hammer out a compromise. Once that conference committee is announced we’ll be back in your inbox with action steps!
Healey walks back transparency commitment
“Hold my beer” - Governor Healey, presumably, after seeing the House and Senate walk back good governance standards over the past two weeks. During his administration, Governor Baker claimed that the Governor’s office was exempt to Public Records Law (PRL), making Massachusetts the only state in which all three branches of the government claimed exemption from PRL. Two weeks before taking office, Governor Healey committed to breaking from Baker on this decision; in an interview with GBH, she insisted that she would not only refuse to claim an exemption, but also support legislation to cut back the exemptions the legislature and judiciary claim to have.
Well, it wouldn’t be fair to hold her to campaign promises she made a whole six weeks ago, would it? On Monday, the Governor’s office released their Public Records guidelines, which insist that Healey’s office is in fact not subject to PRL. When asked by reporters whether she intended to introduce legislation to make her office subject to PRL, she told GBH’s Jim Braude: “I don’t think I need to file legislation. I think that I can just implement along the lines that I’ve articulated, you know, And that’s what I’m going to do.” Uh huh, sure.
In the Press
When you’re fighting a long fight like we are, you learn how to use your losses to build power. Press is key for any grassroots movement; it allows us to reach new audiences and build awareness among the electorate, which in turn applies pressure to elected leaders. Speaking of which–if you haven’t yet written a letter to the editor about this issue, (or even if you have!) this is a perfect opportunity to do so. See our full** LTE toolkit here.**
Here’s some of the press coverage we’ve received during these rules debates. You can find all coverage of these votes and our movement for state house reform on our News & Media page. And I wouldn’t mind if you shared them around your friends and family, either:
State House News Service: Reformers take transparency votes into rules debate
“Having a strong show of support for a bill in committee via a positive committee vote can make it hard for leadership to have to explain later why they decided to change a bill or shelve it or not take it on at all,” Leahy said. “And if legislative leaders want a bill to die, they can avoid and diffuse accountability if they are able to hide who voted which way or even how many people voted at all.”
CommonWealth Magazine: Under new rules, House returns to in-person sessions
“As a good governance watchdog, our goal at Act on Mass is to shine a light on the canyon between what voters want and believe and what their state house is doing. The legislature’s refusal to publish committee votes is a perfect example of this disconnect that is, frankly, anti-democratic.”
The Sun Chronicle (Opinion): Our View: The secrecy on Beacon Hill
“When legislators vote in secret in committees, they are incentivized to vote with leadership and can avoid the scrutiny of their constituents,” said Brenna Ransden, organizing director for Act on Mass, the good government group that put the non-binding question on ballots, in a new release.
Boston Globe: With zero public debate, Mass. Senate votes to abolish term limits for chamber president
“This is definitely a bad day for democracy on Beacon Hill,” said Erin Leahy, executive director of the group Act on Mass, which has pressed for more transparency in the Legislature. “To see the last of the Big Three that had term limits lose that safeguard portends a regression in . . . democratic values on Beacon Hill that I think everyone should be concerned about.”
Boston Herald: President-for-life? State Senate removes term limits
“This is about sharing power. This is about ensuring that, through their elected officials, everyday people are able to have a voice in their government. When the House, Senate, and Governor’s office are caught in a race to the bottom for democracy and accountability, we all lose,” she continued.
--
I want to take a moment to thank you for all the incredible advocacy you’ve done for this movement, especially in the past few weeks. Thank you for the calls and emails to legislators, for your letters to the editor, for meeting with your reps, for bringing new people into the fold. Thank you for donating so we can sustain this fight to hold the State House accountable over the long term. You are the foundation of this movement.
It was never going to be easy to revitalize our democracy, but, then again, what other choice do we have?
Onward, together,
Erin Leahy
Executive Director, Act on Mass
Want Saturday Scoops sent straight to your inbox? Subscribe to the Scoop here.