What a week! 

House members voted to approve their Rules packages on Tuesday and– duty done– finally received committee assignments Thursday, kicking off the official start to the lawmaking session… about two months late. 

After a session that opened with promises of rules reform, we’ve been eagerly anticipating the release of the official language of the House rules proposals. This is because the House has tendedto be the most resistant to reforms such as public committee votes. Therefore, the House rules proposals serve as a sort of “high water mark” for how transparent this session’s Joint rules package is likely to be. 

Scotia, we were thrilled to see that the House’s proposals do include language that would make committee votes public, committee testimony public, and would require bill summaries written for every bill. These are key demands that Act on Mass volunteers and supporters have been advocating for since the very first “Transparency Pledge” rules vote in 2019. 

Make no mistake: that House leadership is poised to cede ground on these key reforms is a huge victory for our movement. If you’ve ever taken the time to email or call your representative in support of transparency reforms, or the Sunlight Act: this is your victory, too. If you participated in your district’s meetings with your representative during the Transparency is Power or People’s House campaigns: this is your victory, too. Even if you’re just a regular Scoop reader, who takes that much extra time in your week to stay informed despite all the efforts of those in power to keep you locked out of the process: this is your victory, too. 

Still, it’s not quite over yet. The House language differed from the Senate’s on key reform proposals, meaning that the differences will have to be sorted out in conference committee or between members of leadership before Joint rules can be finalized. This includes public committee votes, where the House language may allow for significant loopholes that would keep the public guessing. 

It’s another one of those weeks where we’ve got too much to cover in one newsletter. So, we’re saving a deep dive into the language of these proposals– and what we can expect from the Joint Rules– for next week. This week, we’re focused on the process of the Rules vote, which is a spectacle unto itself. And, despite lofty promises, this year's was more status quo than not.

---

State House Scoop

Transparency in print, perhaps, but not in process

As we mentioned in our last Scoop, the House released a mini summary of some of their key rules reforms last week. However, despite Speaker Mariano’s stated goal last week of making the legislature “more accessible,” the process by which this Rules vote took place suggested otherwise. 

The House’s two Rules packages were released at roughly 11 a.m. on Monday, during an informal session. The Rules debate was announced for the following day at 1 p.m. However, as of 12 P.M. Monday, no formal session had yet been scheduled for this week. After Act on Mass placed a call to the House clerk's office, the session was finally posted on the website - giving the public barely 24 hours notice to mobilize. 

On an even quicker timeline? Rank-and-file representatives, who had until 5 P.M. Monday to file amendments to the Rules. The Joint and House rules proposals numbered 62 pages and 146 pages respectively. This gave rank-and-file representatives and advocates alike less than 6 hours to read through more than 200 pages of potential rules changes and draft possible alterations. It goes without saying that the timeline made it nearly impossible to mobilize public pressure around particular amendments– likely by design. 

It is striking that in the very year that Speaker Mariano claims to want to decrease the centralization of power in leadership, it is the first session in a decade that not a single Democratic member filed corrective amendments to the Joint Rules. In past years, filing amendments has been a critical path for progressive members to push for additional transparency reforms or even simply to clarify convoluted language. In not filing amendments, rank-and-file members cede their power completely to the leadership-selected Rules committee and further entrench the precedent of moving in lock-step as a caucus.

Speaker Mariano compared to founding father, Question 1 compared to racial segregation: scenes from the Competition for Committee Assignments (aka “Rules Debate”) 

In our autocratic legislature, the task of ingratiating oneself to legislative leaders is unfortunately a full-time job for rank-and-file representatives. Even still, the Rules vote has longtime presented a particularly dominating pressure to kiss the ring. This is because it takes place directly before committee assignments are made, which lock in a representative’s formal proximity to power and salary bonuses for the next two years. Which, of course, is exactly why leadership drags it out so long– why not make ‘em sweat a little bit? 

It’s also one of the few moments in the legislative session, at least in the House, which still sees formal debate and speeches on the floor, followed by multiple roll call votes. Well, I should say: it’s one of the few moments that still sees the appearance of formal debate, speeches, and roll call votes. In reality– and especially this year, with no amendments offered by Democrats– outcomes are pre-determined and leadership runs the show. 

Although the rules package offered by House leadership this year did contain some encouraging steps forward for transparency, the debate around it and potential amendments followed a familiar playbook.

On Tuesday, the House met in closed-door caucuses for up to three hours before the actual “debate,” delaying the start time of any public debate until 2 p.m.. Then, after a speech from Majority Leader Mike Moran, voting on amendments began. Republicans had proposed 7 amendments to the Joint Rules and 22 to the House rules, mostly small changes that would improve transparency and aid member’s participation in the legislative process, with a few addressing the legislative audit. 

For each amendment that saw a vote, Democratic leaders had clearly hand-selected one member of the caucus to argue against it. Up first to bat, Rep. Kate Lipper-Garabedian, who argued passionately (29:01) against Amendment #2, which would have required that all matters taken up after in the lame duck session be taken with a roll call vote. Why slow things down with such pesky steps as telling the public how we vote, she said (paraphrase), and was awarded with her very first committee chairmanship the following day. The amendment was killed along party lines and Rep. Lipper-Garabedian gets a $13k pay boost. So it goes. 

These speeches afford representatives an opportunity to demonstrate their fealty to leadership by sacrificing themselves on the sword of anti-transparency. In the past, it’s led to some pathetic– but amusing– arguments. Take, for example, 2021’s Rules debate, where Democratic Rep. Jim O’Day claimed that placing term limits on the Speakership would “discriminate against the Speaker.” 

This year was no exception. My personal highlight came during Representative Michael Day’s rousing speech (44:30) against Amendment #4, which would require that legislative audits completed by the state Auditor – in accordance with the law passed by voters– be posted on the legislature’s website. 

Although the amendment did not concern the constitutionality of Question 1, Rep. Day repeated Senate President Spilka’s baseless argument comparing the legislative audit, passed by 72% of MA voters, to the Trump administration’s abuses of power. Then, he saw fit to make a joke calling founding father and author of Massachusetts’ constitution John Adams “the second-best representative to come out of Quincy”– an obvious reference to Speaker Ron Mariano, who represents Quincy. One has only to wonder what Mr. Adams would think of our representatives making a mockery of the will of the voters– and the right to petition which he made sure to endow us with. 

Rep. Day also debuted a brand new argument against the audit: comparing it to (seriously) (I am not joking) Jim Crow racial segregation. Rep. Day made the point that segregation was also “passed overwhelmingly by voters.” Yet, “the courts in their role, in the separation of powers, weighed it and then opined that those laws were unconstitutional.” Argument being: sometimes the "will of the voters" can be wrong? 

Aside from the moral implications of comparing a voter-approved investigation of an elected state body to, uh, the harms of racial segregation, I would say to Rep. Day that the key word there is “courts.” Indeed, only the courts are able to make formal opinions on constitutionality– certainly not members of the very legislative body that would be subject to the law passed by voters. Yet, legislative leaders have repeatedly resisted– and expressed their outright reluctance– to bringing the issue to court. 

Amendments concerning the audit were another key part of "rules debate" this year. Look for more on that next week! 

Massachusetts Leaders “If only there were someone who could do something about this” Quote of the Week

A new section in which we document the creative ways that our state leaders absolve themselves of responsibility for Massachusetts’ response to our federal crisis. 

This week’s feature goes to: Governor Maura Healey. At a forum put on by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, Governor Healey was asked about the potential impact on Massachusetts residents of Congressional Republican’s proposed tax cuts. 

She warned that the proposed $880 million cuts to Medicaid– to offset enormous tax cuts for the wealthy– could have devastating consequences in Massachusetts. “If that were to be passed,” Healey said, “in our state alone, 2 million residents, including 700,000 children and 200,000 seniors, would lose health care.” 

Indeed, Healey’s proposed FY2026 budget relies on $16 billion in federal funding, of which the majority is Medicaid funding. Loss of these funds would cause serious hardship for our state and its residents. 

Luckily, Governor Healey has years of experience stewarding the state through Republican tax cuts, following her tenure as attorney general during which she famously sued the Trump administration 96 times. She was selected to execute state law on behalf of 7,100,000 Bay Staters who count on her to lead us through crisis. Yet, despite her own powerful position, she took an odd tact when asked about next steps. State House News Service has the quote: 

Healey urged residents to speak up and use every tool they can to "stop bad things from happening to hundreds of millions of Americans" and to "stop bad things from happening like these tax cuts, which are just a way to funnel a whole lot of money to people who are at the very, very top."

… 

Man, if only we residents had a particular tool at our disposal... like a powerful leader we had collectively elected, with control over state agencies that manage health care access, and influence over the state’s $8 billion dollar rainy day fund...

Also worth reading!

Take some time to read these two fantastic pieces of reporting that were released this week. 

--

Become a Scoop sustainer

The Saturday Scoop is a free newsletter that recaps the previous week on Beacon Hill. We will always keep the Scoop free, but it is not free to run.

Become a Scoop Sustainer today to help subsidize the Scoop and keep it free and sustainable for all.

--

Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.

---

Syd's Sprinkles

Syd’s Sprinkles: An update on the Shelter System and Right-To-Shelter

This past week, the House and Senate came to an agreement on the future of Massachusetts’ emergency shelter system. 

This supplemental budget – which has just been signed by Governor Healey– has many of the provisions that were proposed by lawmakers since before the start of this session. This includes: 

  • $425 million for the shelter system from state’s former budget surpluses (which, according to Senator Rodrigues, will still have over $150 million remaining after this disbursement to the shelter system)
  • Cutting the cap on families from over 7,000 to 4,000 by 2026
  • Cut down the length of tays from nine to six months
  • Mandate reports on how Healey’s administration will begin to phase out the use of hotels and motels as emergency shelters

The “intent to remain” provision – which requires applicants to show proof that they do not intend to leave Massachusetts in the near future via proof of Masshealth enrollment, etc. – is still included in the bill, as well as require proof of lawful status and eligibility for shelter before entering into the system.   

In addition to the aforementioned provisions, the bill includes stricter processes to apply for shelter. This includes calls for requiring all applicants to outline their criminal convictions and to limit their eligibility to receive benefits if they do not disclose their histories, but there is no requirement for eviction if past criminal offenses are disclosed [paywalled]. 

This new legislation, which ultimately is aimed at slashing the costs of the shelter system, is coming at a time when our vulnerable populations are being targeted at the federal level and need support from those at the state level. You can read more about some of Trump’s initial actions here in a previous edition of the Scoop. 

The lack of protection at the state level has major repercussions for communities across the state. 

Businesses are suffering due to concerns of ICE raids in our communities, which means that once lively spaces that served as centers of community and culture are now deserted and facing threats of closure due to lack of business. 

These businesses are not the only ones hurting, but families and children are also suffering the consequences of not having the peace of mind that protection at the state level could bring. Across the country, migrant students have been kept home from school given the threats of mass deportation that Trump has promised. This sentiment is only amplified by Trump’s removal of sensitive location status, meaning that ICE can enter schools, churches, and other safe spaces to carry out the president’s will. 

Not only are children living in fear and anxiety about the safety of themselves and their families, they are also facing the risk of unequal access to education due to the threats of ICE presence at or around their schools – no matter whether the threats were real or merely rumors. No matter how much administrators assure parents that their schools are safe for the children they are meant to serve, Trump’s threats are a constant and looming presence that have real impact on families across the country – regardless of whether the threats are carried out or not.  

It is a shame that our legislature failed to pass important legislation like the Safe Communities Actthat would have protected our state. This bill would have not only given peace of mind to migrant communities, but to all communities across the state by providing a safeguard against local law enforcement working with ICE officials and ultimately preventing all community members of color from being racially profiled by law enforcement. 

---

Take Action

Mass Alliance Grassroots Campaign Training

Fed up with federal uncertainty and the lack of leadership from state officials? Ever thought about running for office or helping someone get there? Consider attending Mass Alliance's 2-day bootcamp campaign training, which will cover the necessary skills for running a grassroots campaign for public office. Come to learn the ropes from experienced campaign operatives, organizers, and elected officials, for a fee of $125. 

SIGN UP FOR GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN TRAINING>>

---

Phew, that's all we've got this week. Please enjoy your weekend– especially those extra rays of sunlight just starting to burst out of Beacon Hill's dome. 

In solidarity,

Scotia

Scotia Hille (she/her)

Executive Director, Act on Mass