There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call begins a series highlighting the bills that were approved by the Legislature in 2022 and signed into law by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The House, 119 to 36, and the Senate, 32 to 8, gained the two-thirds vote necessary to override Gov. Baker’s veto of legislation that allows, starting July 1, 2023, undocumented/illegal immigrants to apply for a Massachusetts standard driver’s license. The legislation requires an applicant “without legal presence” in the United States to provide the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) with a foreign passport and at least one of five other documents: a driver’s license from another state, a foreign driver’s license, a birth certificate, a foreign national identification card, or a marriage certificate or divorce decree from any U.S. state.
Opponents of the bill gathered sufficient signatures to put the proposed law on the November ballot for voters to decide. Voters approved the law in the November election.
“This is a victory for all, making our roads safer and allowing the 185,000 immigrants without status the ability to earn a driver’s license,” said sponsor Sen. Brendan Crighton, D-Lynn. “No one should fear deportation over essential everyday tasks, such as getting to work, school, doctor’s appointment and grocery stores.”
“I cannot sign this legislation because it requires the Registry of Motor Vehicles to issue state credentials to people without the ability to verify their identity,” Baker had said in his veto message. “The registry does not have the expertise or ability to verify the validity of many types of documents from other countries. The bill also fails to include any measures to distinguish standard Massachusetts driver’s licenses issued to persons who demonstrate lawful presence from those who don’t.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — No
The House, 155 to 0, and the Senate, 40 to 0, approved and Gov. Baker signed into law a bill that prohibits any person or entity, including educational institutions, workplaces and public spaces, from implementing any policy that would explicitly target someone who wears their natural hairstyle. The measure defines natural hairstyle as “hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles including braids, locks, twists and other formation.”
The bill also expands existing anti-bullying law in schools to include recognition for students who may be more vulnerable to bullying or harassment because of their natural hairstyle. Another provision requires the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to investigate complaints filed against employers who have discriminated based on natural hairstyle.
“On the long march toward justice, and especially racial justice, the Senate’s unanimous passage of this legislation marks another step forward,” said Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester. “We would not be at this point without the great courage and strength of Mya and Deanna Cook, who as 15-year-old students faced discrimination and abuse from their high school for their hairstyles, and bravely stood up for their rights and those of so many other Black women.”
“I am beyond delighted that the (bill) passed unanimously in the House, and words cannot describe how great it is to see the years of hard work from advocates, staff, legislators and community members bear fruit,” said co-sponsor Rep. Steve Ultrino, D-Malden. “The votes in our chamber sent a clear message: race-based discrimination has no place in our commonwealth. On this day, we ensured that a person’s racial and cultural identity will no longer be an obstacle to their education, professional career and path to success.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
The House, 137 to 16, and the Senate, 40 to 0, approved and Gov. Baker signed into law a bill designed to further protect reproductive health care and those who perform abortions in Massachusetts. The measure declares that both reproductive health care and gender-affirming care are secured rights in Massachusetts, and shields providers of reproductive and gender-affirming care and their patients from out-of-state legal action. The measure also ensures that patients who are more than 24 weeks into a pregnancy can receive an abortion because of a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions.
Other provisions include preventing the state’s cooperation with anti-abortion and anti-gender-affirming care laws in other states; mandating health insurance coverage for abortion and abortion-related care with no cost-sharing; ensuring access to emergency contraception; providing confidentiality to providers of reproductive and gender-affirming care; clarifying that vending machines may dispense over-the-counter drugs, such as Plan B (the “morning after” pill); and ensuring access to medication abortion on all public college and university campuses.
“Massachusetts remains steadfast in its commitment to protect access to reproductive health care services, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Gov. Baker. “The court’s decision has major consequences for women across the country who live in states with limited access to these services, and our administration took quick action in the hours following that decision by issuing an executive order to protect access here in the commonwealth. This new legislation signed today builds on that action by protecting patients and providers from legal interference from more restrictive laws in other states.”
“In the face of an increasing amount of anti-abortion and anti-gender-affirming care laws enacted across the country, Massachusetts continues to serve as a national leader in protecting these essential rights with the passage of this legislation,” said Sen. Cindy Friedman, D-Arlington, the lead sponsor of the measure and Senate chair of the Committee on Health Care Financing. “We must do everything we can to protect the rights of our providers, patients and visitors to the commonwealth.”
“As a candidate for governor in 2014, Charlie Baker was sold as a Bill Weld-style Republican — socially liberal but fiscally conservative,” said Catholic Action League Executive Director C.J. Doyle. “The abortion expansion bill (that) he signed … imposes new burdens on taxpayers and business owners, increases the scope of government … and denies personal freedom of choice for those opposed to abortion. There is no conscience clause for pharmacists, business owners or non-profit organizations, and the religious exemption is so narrowly drawn that most Catholic educational institutions will not qualify under it. Baker’s legacy on this legislation is one of higher spending, bigger government and less personal freedom.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
The House, 143 to 9, and the Senate, 38 to 2, approved and Gov. Baker signed into law legislation that will expand the clean energy industry and reduce emissions from the transportation and building sectors with a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
“Massachusetts has an opportunity to meet the urgency of the climate crisis through our nation-leading innovation, workforce and energy resources,” said Rep. Jeff Roy, D-Franklin, House chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. “This timely and comprehensive piece of legislation is carefully calibrated to provide a portfolio of robust clean energy, including offshore wind, and decarbonize our largest-emitting industries, all while attracting a world-class supply chain, intensive workforce training initiatives and the investment necessary to prepare our electric distribution system for the energy needs of the future.”
“The bill dramatically increases the cost of energy in Massachusetts at a time when energy costs already hover at record highs, and the price of all other goods are increasing due to record inflation,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman, R-Sutton. “People won’t be able to afford this legislation, especially the drastic changes that will be needed in older homes. Everyone laments how expensive housing is, yet the Legislature just made housing more expensive by passing this bill.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
The House, 154 to 0, and the Senate, 39 to 0, approved and the governor signed into law a bill requiring the state to implement a Women’s Rights History Trail Program.
The measure includes requiring the state to designate properties and sites that are historically and thematically associated with the struggle for women’s rights and women’s suffrage. Another provision provides that the state promote education and awareness of the struggle for women’s rights in the state. A 13-member Women’s Rights History Trail Task Force would be formed to research, solicit public input and make recommendations for sites, properties and attractions to be included in the trail.
“Massachusetts has a rich history of involvement in the women’s rights movement,” said the bill’s Senate sponsor Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem. “Women have had a pivotal role in shaping the policies of our commonwealth, and this bill will ensure that those contributions are known and celebrated. … The history of these women is our history, and we must continue to advance that history forward.”
“This legislation ensures that the many women from our commonwealth who contributed to the fabric of our nation and democracy are recognized, and their accomplishments preserved in our state’s history, so that their legacies may serve as inspiration for future generations of young women,” said House sponsor Rep. Hannah Kane, R-Shrewsbury.
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, announced that the group will end its 48-year operation at the end of the year.
“It’s a new era — time for new energy to move the tax limitation movement forward in Massachusetts,” Ford said. “For going on half a century, CLT has carried the burden of leadership in that indispensable mission. The time has come to pass the tax limitation torch on to another generation. Fortunately for Bay State taxpayers, and especially for CLT members, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance is positioned well to run with that torch.”
“We thank Chip Ford for having faith in us to carry on the tremendous legacy of Citizens for Limited Taxation,” said Paul Craney, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “From the 5% income tax roll back, to Proposition 2½ and Chapter 62F, CLT’s legacy continues to have a measurable, positive impact on the businesses and working families of Massachusetts every day. We look forward to preserving that legacy and continuing on their mission of taxpayer protection for decades to come.”
The late Barbara Anderson, the group’s first executive director, died in 2016 and Associate Director Chip Faulkner died in 2019. Both died at the age of 73. Ford, Citizens for Limited Taxation’s executive director since 2016, turned 73 last month and decided it’s time to step aside.
“I’m not particularly superstitious,” Ford said, “but why tempt the fates? With Paul Craney and his team at MassFiscal so ably advancing the mission, this is a good time and place for CLT and me to take our leave.”
Citizens for Limited Taxation led the charge for many tax-savings measures over the years, including passage of Proposition 2½ that limited property taxes, repeal of the 1975 7.5% surtax and the rollback of the 1989 income tax hike. Most recently, Citizens for Limited Taxation was responsible for the return of $2.9 billion to taxpayers based on Chapter 62F, a 1986 law proposed by the organization and approved by the voters. That law requires that tax revenue above a certain amount collected by the state go back to the taxpayers. The state has determined that the net state tax revenues of $41.8 billion for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2022 is some $2.9 billion above the allowable state tax revenues of $38.8 million.
The Senate approved and sent to the House a bill that would allow a candidate for public office to use campaign funds for child care while the candidate is campaigning on his or her own behalf or attending events directly related to his or her campaign.
The bill prohibits payments to family members, unless the relative owns, operates or is employed by a professional day care or babysitting service and the cost of the service is not greater than the family member would otherwise charge.
Under current law, candidates are prohibited from using campaign funds for personal use. The state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance has classified child care, while performing campaign duties, as a personal expense rather than a campaign expense.
“This bill would break down a major barrier to open elective office to people who have traditionally not had that opportunity,” said Senate sponsor Sen. Pat Jehlen, D-Somerville. “Many of us currently in office would not be here today if we didn’t have trusted people taking care of our kids while we knocked on doors for our first campaigns. Allowing campaign finances to be used for child care means that more people in our communities can participate than ever before and amplify the voices of those who have previously not been heard.”
“It’s exciting to see (the bill) move through the Senate,” said House sponsor Rep. Mike Connolly, D-Cambridge. “We filed this bill so that all candidates, no matter their economic or family background, can have a better opportunity to run for state or local office. Allowing candidates to use their own campaign funds for child care will help to strengthen the diversity of the candidate pool and the representation in our elected bodies.”
The House approved a Senate-approved measure that requires standardized certification of an estimated 1,800 Massachusetts hospital technicians by a nationally accredited organization. These 1,800 technicians are responsible for ensuring that surgical instruments are safe and sanitary to protect patients from possible infection. The proposal also requires the technicians to complete an annual education curriculum. It was filed as a response to several high-profile incidents across the state in which surgical tools used in operations on patients may have been improperly disinfected.
Supporters said that technicians are currently allowed to work with a high school diploma or equivalent degree and without additional relevant training, despite being required to stay up to date with the latest practices for more than 37,000 different surgical instruments.
Sen. Anne Gobi, D-Spencer, said she co-sponsored the bill to make sure that central service technicians have proper credentials.
“The reason is that they are responsible for the sterilization and packaging of surgical equipment,” Gobi said. “That is a critical duty, and improper sterilization can lead to infection and could lead to death.”
Final approval is needed in each branch prior to the proposal going to Gov. Baker.
The House approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would require that the autopsy report for a child under the age of 2 be reviewed and approved by the chief medical examiner to determine the cause of death. Changes to the autopsy report would also have to be reviewed and approved by the chief medical examiner.
Supporters said the measure addresses recent cases in which the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office changed the cause of death for deaths of children under 2, creating serious implications for ongoing court cases and for the families of those children. They noted that the most experienced person in the office should provide oversight to what are typically junior medical examiners without pediatric autopsy experience. They argued this will provide more confidence and peace of mind for families who have tragically lost infants.
“Cases involving very young children are complex and sensitive — and fortunately, rare — representing a small portion of the cases handled by the Medical Examiner’s Office,” said Sen. Cindy Friedman, D-Arlington. “That means that pediatric cases deserve to be reviewed and approved by the most experienced medical examiner — and that is the chief medical examiner. I hope the Senate takes up the matter soon; it’s the least that we can do when these tragedies occur.”
“I am deeply appreciative that the House has affirmed the importance of this bill for the second time this session,” said House sponsor Rep. Marjorie Decker, D-Cambridge. “I hope that the Senate will take it up soon so that we can send it to Gov. Baker’s desk.”