I’m not going to lie to you: I’m terribly behind on holiday gift shopping this year.
But you know who’s even more behind on delivering their promises? The State House. (See what I did there?)
With just weeks left of the 192nd legislative session, it’s becoming more and more clear that the legislature will not act on the major priorities that died in the chaos of the end of session crunch. By punting these to the next session, if they pass them again at all, they are effectively moving back the implementation of these policies by months or years. Among these victims of the legislature’s procrastination: the 5-year jail and prison construction moratorium, no-cost-calls for loved ones of incarcerated individuals, remote participation in local government, sealing eviction records, and funding for sexual and domestic violence survivors.
And that’s not even mentioning all the progressive bills they didn’t even attempt to pass.
Bah humbug.
Let’s dive in.
State House Scoop
Legislature sitting on funding for migrant shelters
Emergency shelters in the state are quickly reaching capacity as a large number of migrants from countries including Brazil, Haiti, and Venezuela seek asylum in Massachusetts. In order to expand emergency shelter services for those seeking asylum, Governor Baker announced plans to use a former Army base in Devins as a temporary shelter and intake facility, but needs legislature-appropriated funds to do it. Baker’s $139 million spending bill to fund this project has been sitting in Ways & Means on Beacon Hill for weeks. The legislature ought to move on this funding swiftly, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg: these migrants are trying to start a new life in a state in the middle of an affordable housing crisis. Unless we act immediately and boldly on housing, many of these new Bay Staters are destined for houselessness.
MA seeks federal funding for early steps towards east-west rail
Amtrak and the Mass Department of Transportation applied for $108 million in federal funds for railroad improvements between Springfield and Worcester this week. This marks one of the first concrete steps the state has taken towards an infrastructure project so long-awaited its status is nearly mythical: the east-west rail. While the MBTA is still scraping by with severe understaffing issues, promises of a new rail connecting Boston to Springfield, as well as general transportation funding generated by the freshly-passed Fair Share Amendment, has this transit enthusiast feeling optimistic for the first time since… well, when was that orange line fire again?
Low-income communities less likely to have contested races
Data from last month’s midterm election show that the Bay State’s low-income communities turned out at a lower rate than their wealthier counterparts. There are many reasons for this, including access to resources and education levels, but one factor is clear from a quick glance at the election returns: low-income districts had far fewer contested elections. If there is no possibility to affect change at the ballot box, there is little incentive to vote. So: why are fewer people running for office and contesting incumbents in these areas? For one, marginalized communities tend to be less trustful of government–and with good reason; by definition, these are the populations who are underserved by government at all levels. Second, the barriers to running for office are high; it’s extremely difficult to hold down a full time job in addition to campaigning, and unless you have wealthy friends who can fund your campaign early on, it can be impossible to get off the ground. Compounding this with the name-recognition, war chest, and establishment endorsements granted to nearly every incumbent, it’s a wonder how anyone manages to run for office at all.
If the legislature was at all serious about wanting more diversity on Beacon Hill, they should do everything in their power to make it easier, especially for low-income people and People of Color, to run for office. But on the other hand, then it would be harder for them to be reelected…
In Memoriam: The Graveyard of the 192nd Session
Now that our legislature is through with major business for the rest of the year, it’s time to take a look back through the 192nd legislative session and pay our respects to some of the popular progressive bills that died, yet again.
This bill (H. 769, An Act supporting parents running for public office) would remove a significant barrier to running for office by allowing candidates to cover childcare costs over the course of their campaign with campaign funds. Under current Massachusetts law, it is illegal for candidates to expense childcare with campaign funds. This creates an unwritten prerequisite for any caretakers considering running for office: you must be able to personally finance childcare costs throughout the campaign. Running a serious campaign requires hours of work every day–hours during which a candidate might otherwise be caring for their children. For low income families and other marginalized groups, this is often insurmountable.
Childcare is an eligible campaign expense for congressional candidates, and is already legal in many other states, including Texas, Alabama, and Wisconsin. Trailing behind our friends in red states on this equity issue, our legislature has refused to act on this bill despite years of advocacy. And if you’re an avid reader of the Scoop, you already know what went down: this bill has been sent to “study” five years running. If there are clear harms to marginalized communities, and most of the rest of the country is already doing it, why is the Massachusetts legislature holding out? We know MA has the least competitive elections in the country, and that doesn’t come from nowhere; by maintaining barriers to running for office, incumbents increase their already sky-high odds of reelection.
--
That’s all for today! I’ll be back in your inbox next week. Until then, happy last minute gift shopping, and wish me luck on mine!
In solidarity,
Erin Leahy
Executive Director, Act on Mass
Want Saturday Scoops sent straight to your inbox? Subscribe to the Scoop here.