 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Sunday, April 19, 2020
SJC did
the right thing, at last
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
The state’s
Supreme Judicial Court is making ballot access easier for
candidates seeking public office during the coronavirus
pandemic.
The court ordered
Friday that candidates looking to get on the ballot for the
state primary in September will only need 50% of the
signatures normally required by law.
The court also
wants deadlines for district and county candidates to submit
nomination papers to local election officials and the state
for certification to be extended to May 5 and June 2,
respectively to be be in line with deadlines for those
seeking federal office.
And the court
ordered Secretary of State William Galvin to allow the
limited electronic submission of nomination papers, rather
than “wet-ink” signatures.
The changes will
not extend to this November general election or for primary
elections past 2020....
Gants wrote in the
court’s decision that, “With the onset of the pandemic and
the imposition of restrictions that followed, the plaintiffs
and other candidates could not safely and reasonably gather
voter signatures in the usual ways.”
He added that
while the governor and state legislators had “expressed
their willingness” for a legislative fix, nothing had been
enacted at the time of the court’s hearing. "No fair-minded
person can dispute that the fundamental right to run for
elective office has been unconstitutionally burdened or
interfered with by the need to obtain the required 'wet'
signatures in the midst of this pandemic."
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 17, 2020
Supreme Judicial Court eases rules for candidates trying to
get on the ballot
Signature requirements relaxed due to pandemic
SENATE APPROVED A
BILL THAT DIDN’T LOWER THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES FOR
CANDIDATES FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE (S-2632) – On April 16,
the day before the SJC ruling, the Senate approved and sent
to the House a bill which mirrors the SJC decision except it
did not reduce the signatures required for candidates for
the state Legislature.
Here is how the
debate went in the Senate. Readers should keep in mind
when reading this that all of this debate was prior to
the SJC ruling. . . .
“In typical Beacon
Hill Democrat Party fashion, extending the signature
deadlines for qualifying as a candidate during this historic
crisis specifically excludes those of state legislators —
creating an even greater hurdle for non-incumbent
challengers lacking an established organization or
competitive funds,” said Chip Ford, Executive
Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“Incumbents have been raising money since the day they were
first elected, have their lists of established donors and
supporters, thus they have a built-in advantage. It
comes as no surprise that the vast majority in the
Legislature as usual takes care of itself above and ahead of
all else.”
Beacon Hill Roll
Call
April 13-17, 2020
By Bob Katzen
Solving an issue
that Democrats have been at loggerheads over for weeks, the
Supreme Judicial Court made clear Friday that the inaction
of the Legislature left them with little choice but to
intervene and reduce the signature-gathering requirements
for candidates running in 2020.
The state's
highest court issued its ruling one day after hearing oral
arguments in a lawsuit brought by three candidates running
for offices with the highest and lowest requirements for
collecting the signatures of voters.
The decision,
written by Chief Justice Ralph Gants, ordered that
requirements for all candidates seeking to appear on the
Sept. 1 primary ballot be reduced by 50 percent in order to
ensure easier access to the political process for
office-seekers struggling to collect signatures from voters
during the coronavirus pandemic.
The court also
extended the deadline for candidates for state and county
offices to submit signatures to local election clerks from
April 28 until May 5, and will allow for some use of
electronic signatures. The new May 5 deadline is consistent
with the deadlines for candidates running for federal
office.
"We emphasize that
the declaration we make and the equitable relief we provide
is limited to the primary election in these extraordinary
circumstances, which is the sole subject of the case before
us, and does not affect the minimum signature requirements
for the general election this year or for the primary
elections in any other year," Gants wrote in the court's
decision....
After a few snags,
the Senate on Thursday passed a bill to reduce the
requirement by 50 percent for all candidates needing 1,000
or more signatures, which would have excluded itself and
candidates for the House. House officials, however, told the
News Service that bill was unlikely to pass that chamber.
That left the
decision to the court.
"Here, where the
filing deadline for nomination papers fast approaches, and
the Legislature has yet to take decisive action, we have
little choice but to provide equitable relief," Gants wrote.
In the decision,
he added: "No fair-minded person can dispute that the
fundamental right to run for elective office has been
unconstitutionally burdened or interfered with by the need
to obtain the required 'wet' signatures in the midst of this
pandemic." ...
The court agreed
with the plaintiffs that relief provided to candidates for
all offices, not just federal and county candidates, and
said it found a "rational connection" to reducing the totals
by half.
Gants wrote that
candidates had 41 days from Feb. 11 until March 23 when the
governor issued an order limiting gatherings to no more than
10 people, which is "almost exactly fifty percent" of the
time between Feb. 11 and the new May 5 deadline.
State House News
Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
High Court Slashes Candidate Signature Requirements
SJC Acts Swiftly After Bill Fizzles on Beacon Hill
The Supreme
Judicial Court’s decision to ease the election rules was a
no-brainer. Except for state lawmakers — but brains aren’t
exactly their strong suit.
The Legislature is
first and foremost guided by political self-preservation and
saving its members’ own hides, and nowhere was that more
evident than the dispute over whether to lower the number of
required signatures to get on the fall ballot.
The deadly
coronavirus pandemic has obviously severely limited the
ability of candidates to get those signatures, so something
needed to be changed. Right?
Not so obvious to
lawmakers, especially House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who
refused to change the rules. The state Senate did pass a
bill cutting the signature requirements, but mostly to bail
out U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, who was having trouble getting
his 10,000 signatures. Their bill notably did not include
themselves. It was a petty move designed to keep potential
challengers off the ballot....
So the Supreme
Judicial Court finally did act on Friday, slashing in half
the number of required signatures for all ballot seekers —
not just some — for the Sept. 1 primary. And allowing
candidates to submit e-signatures obtained through the
Internet. The court also pushed back the filing date for
state candidates to May 5 and for county candidates to June
2....
The court
concluded: “No fair-minded person can dispute that the
fundamental right to run for elective office has been
unconstitutionally burdened or interfered with by the need
to obtain the required ‘wet’ signatures in the midst of this
pandemic.”
That “fair-minded
person” reference was a direct slap at legislators, who
simply through their own partisan reasons were keeping the
signature requirements intact — or changed only for those
they wanted to help.
So, even in a
pandemic that has turned the world upside down, our own
state lawmakers were thinking only of themselves.
What a shock. And
what a disgrace.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 17, 2020
Stubborn, selfish state lawmakers schooled by SJC in
signature fight
By Joe Battenfeld
State officials
will have about $4 billion, or 15 percent, less than they
anticipated for use in the fiscal 2021 budget, and MBTA and
school construction officials will also need to get by with
less, according to data released Thursday by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The foundation
said that based on its revised forecast, the MBTA will
receive $53 million less in dedicated sales tax revenue and
the Massachusetts School Building Authority will get $174
million less. Also, a transfer of $278 million to the rainy
day fund likely won't be triggered because taxes on
investment gains will not reach sufficient levels.
Just three months
ago, executive and legislative branch leaders had agreed on
a fiscal 2021 tax revenue estimate of $31.15 billion. Put in
a larger context, the foundation's new fiscal 2021 tax
revenue estimate of $24.8 billion is about $1 billion less
than budget writers had available in fiscal 2018.
State House News
Service
Thursday, April 16, 2020
MTF: Tax Revenues For Budget Down 15 Percent
Though the
attention this week was mostly on the surge and hospital
capacity, the governor and lawmakers on Beacon Hill began to
cast an eye on life after the surge. On Monday, Baker joined
the governors of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware in a regional effort to
devise a plan for putting people back to work as it becomes
safe to do so....
At the State House
this week, instead of House Ways and Means releasing its
fiscal year 2021 budget, state financial managers met with a
panel of economists to try to wrap their arms around the
economic ramifications of the pandemic and begin to figure
out how they might pass a budget this year.
"The economic and
fiscal fallout from the pandemic puts an unprecedented
strain on the state's budget and resources, surpassing
previous fiscal crises because of its sudden and steep
onslaught," Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President
Eileen McAnneny said during Wednesday's hearing, in which
she projected state tax collections will drop by $4.4
billion, or 14.1 percent below the benchmark that top budget
officials agreed to back in January.
In another meeting
this week, lawmakers heard that between 60 and 80 percent of
businesses that participated in Springfield Regional Chamber
of Commerce survey said they think the pandemic will put
them out of business, and that many businesses simply don't
know yet how they might fare through the economic shutdown.
In the legislative
chambers, work continued this week on a number of bills but
trying to do everything without a quorum and by unanimous
consent -- meaning that the objection of a single lawmaker
can keep legislation from advancing -- has proved a bit
tricky....
As people are
still trying to figure out how to operate during a pandemic,
they are naturally looking forward and wondering how and
when restrictions will be lifted. In short, there are no
reliable answers, not yet, and public officials are weighing
the reality that COVID-19 is not going away anytime soon
with the awareness that record unemployment, with
joblessness still on the rise, also carries societal costs.
Rep. William
Driscoll of Milton, tapped by Speaker Robert DeLeo to help
with crisis response, tweeted this week that it was good
news that recovery phase planning is emerging, but added:
"Bad news: You are going to be receiving lots of
unintentionally mixed messages because the timelines &
various activity triggers are not generally aligned yet."
With reporters
working remotely and from the still-closed State House, the
News Service will continue to bring coverage of crisis
response and executive actions as well as our traditional
gavel-to-gavel coverage of House and Senate sessions....
Keeping the
current fiscal 2020 budget balanced is Gov. Charlie Baker's
job and his administration has yet to outline the scope of
the current problem, with less than three months left in the
fiscal year, or a plan to address it. Baker has waved off
layoffs as a solution, noting the critical work government
is doing during the crisis, and spending cuts are limited in
their effectiveness at this late stage of the fiscal year
when most of the budget has already been spent.
The $3.5 billion
rainy day reserve fund represents a pool of money that could
be drawn from and officials are also analyzing the stream of
federal funds that are coming to Massachusetts because of
the crisis and the potential for Congress to approve even
more new aid to the states.
As far as fiscal
2021 goes, legislative leaders are back to the basics. They
are working to agree on a substantially downgraded estimate
of available tax revenues, which would then presumably serve
as a basis for budgeting.
Spending cuts, the
use of one-time federal aid, and other budget-balancing
appear virtually certain, although legislative leaders must
first answer a more basic question: how will the usually
people-intensive process of passing a budget be accomplished
in an era of social distancing and in a Legislature that
isn't set up to operate remotely.
State House News
Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
Weekly Roundup - What We’ve Been Preparing For
As people are
still trying to figure out how to operate during a pandemic,
they are naturally looking forward and wondering how and
when restrictions will be lifted. In short, there are no
reliable answers, not yet, and public officials are weighing
the reality that COVID-19 is not going away anytime soon
with the awareness that record unemployment, with
joblessness still on the rise, also carries societal costs.
Rep. William
Driscoll of Milton, tapped by Speaker Robert DeLeo to help
with crisis response, tweeted this week that it was good
news that recovery phase planning is emerging, but added:
"Bad
news: You are going to be receiving lots of unintentionally
mixed messages because the timelines & various activity
triggers are not generally aligned yet."
With reporters
working remotely and from the still-closed State House, the
News Service will continue to bring coverage of crisis
response and executive actions as well as our traditional
gavel-to-gavel coverage of House and Senate sessions.
— THE LEGISLATURE: The House
and Senate continue to operate in a diminished capacity,
unable to meet as a group due to social distancing,
encountering challenges in achieving the unanimous consent
required to advance bills, and facing up to technological
shortcomings that have hampered the required transition in
communication capacity.
During the
pandemic, the branches have been holding long sessions
attended usually by a handful of members, and often filled
with recesses while legislators try to work things out
privately. Transparency has suffered. Much of the work is
executed without explanation, much less debate, and media
availabilities are nowhere close to the daily opportunities
offered by Gov. Baker, who has outlined detailed plans to
address the crisis while also engaging in daily, informative
Q&A sessions with reporters.
House and Senate
leaders continue to explore options for remote operations, a
novel approach to fiscal 2021 budget, and whether to extend
formal sessions beyond July 31, a deadline set in internal
rules, in order to stay active for crisis response and
salvage work on other priorities, such as health care,
transportation and climate change. - By Michael P. Norton
— THE STATE BUDGET: With tax
collections collapsing, here are the storylines to watch on
Beacon Hill.
Keeping the
current fiscal 2020 budget balanced is Gov. Charlie Baker's
job and his administration has yet to outline the scope of
the current problem, with less than three months left in the
fiscal year, or a plan to address it. Baker has waved off
layoffs as a solution, noting the critical work government
is doing during the crisis, and spending cuts are limited in
their effectiveness at this late stage of the fiscal year
when most of the budget has already been spent.
The $3.5 billion
rainy day reserve fund represents a pool of money that could
be drawn from and officials are also analyzing the stream of
federal funds that are coming to Massachusetts because of
the crisis and the potential for Congress to approve even
more new aid to the states.
As far as fiscal
2021 goes, legislative leaders are back to the basics. They
are working to agree on a substantially downgraded estimate
of available tax revenues, which would then presumably serve
as a basis for budgeting.
Spending cuts, the
use of one-time federal aid, and other budget-balancing
appear virtually certain, although legislative leaders must
first answer a more basic question: how will the usually
people-intensive process of passing a budget be accomplished
in an era of social distancing and in a Legislature that
isn't set up to operate remotely. - By Michael P. Norton
State House News
Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
Advances - Week of April 19, 2020
Equifax will pay
Massachusetts $18.2 million and change its security
practices as part of a settlement between the credit
reporting agency and the state stemming from a major 2017
data breach, Attorney General Maura Healey announced Friday.
Healey sued
Equifax shortly after the company's alleged missteps exposed
personal data, including Social Security numbers and
driver's license numbers, of 147 million Americans and 3
million Massachusetts residents. The attorney general said
the company also failed to notify consumers in a timely
manner once the breach occurred....
The $18.2 million
will mostly go into the general fund for use on any state
purpose. Some may also be available for local consumer
groups to assist customers.
State House News
Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
Equifax to Pay Mass. $18.2 Mil in Settlement
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Digging up
political news unrelated to the Wuhan Chinese Pandemic
is impossible these days. Even with the plague and
its attendant restrictions and compliances little
affects the political class if they can help it.
When accommodations are raised for democracy itself even
common sense solutions are resisted and rejected by the
Legislature — such as any
threat to their power and advantage. Such was the
case with lowering signature requirements during this
crisis for challengers to their sinecures.
Surprisingly, if
not shockingly, on Friday the state Supreme Judicial Court
did the unthinkable: It stepped on the Legislature's
scheme to limit competition in its own self-serving
interest. This is not the nature of things with the
court, which is beholding to the Legislature for its budget
and salaries and
knows it only too well. We've seen how this usually works out (Term
Limits, legislative pay raise repeals, limited sessions, rules reform,
etc.) and it's been disappointing and pretty disillusioning.
But on Friday the
court did the right thing. In
its ruling the high court stymied the Democrat
legislative leadership by reducing the number of signatures
required to get on the ballot by 50%, and extended the
deadline for collecting them by an additional week.
"Here, where the
filing deadline for nomination papers fast approaches, and
the Legislature has yet to take decisive action, we have
little choice but to provide equitable relief," Chief
Justice Ralph Gants wrote.
Before the court's
decision, when asked by Beacon Hill Roll Call for a comment
on the Legislature's intransience I responded:
“In typical Beacon Hill
Democrat Party fashion, extending the signature
deadlines for qualifying as a candidate during this
historic crisis specifically excludes those of state
legislators — creating an even greater hurdle for
non-incumbent challengers lacking an established
organization or competitive funds. Incumbents have
been raising money since the day they were first
elected, have their lists of established donors and
supporters, thus they have a built-in advantage. It
comes as no surprise that the vast majority in the
Legislature as usual takes care of itself above and
ahead of all else.”
The pettiness and
selfishness of so-called legislative leaders
— especially with the "we're
all in this together" political claptrap
we're deluged with these days
— is beneath even them; in better
people than them it would be.
But as Boston
Herald columnist Joe Battenfeld noted:
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to ease the election
rules was a no-brainer. Except for state lawmakers — but
brains aren’t exactly their strong suit.
The Legislature is first and foremost guided by political
self-preservation and saving its members’ own hides, and
nowhere was that more evident than the dispute over whether
to lower the number of required signatures to get on the
fall ballot. . . .
So, even in a pandemic that has
turned the world upside down, our own state
lawmakers were thinking only of themselves.
What a shock. And what a
disgrace.
"Just three months
ago, executive and legislative branch leaders had agreed on
a fiscal 2021 tax revenue estimate of $31.15 billion, the
State House News Service noted. "Put in
a larger context, the foundation's new fiscal 2021 tax
revenue estimate of $24.8 billion is about $1 billion less
than budget writers had available in fiscal 2018."
It further
reported:
State officials
will have about $4 billion, or 15 percent, less than they
anticipated for use in the fiscal 2021 budget, and MBTA and
school construction officials will also need to get by with
less, according to data released Thursday by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The foundation
said that based on its revised forecast, the MBTA will
receive $53 million less in dedicated sales tax revenue and
the Massachusetts School Building Authority will get $174
million less. Also, a transfer of $278 million to the rainy
day fund likely won't be triggered because taxes on
investment gains will not reach sufficient levels.
Other relevant
news points we're watching:
● In another meeting
this week, lawmakers heard that between 60 and 80 percent of
businesses that participated in Springfield Regional Chamber
of Commerce survey said they think the pandemic will put
them out of business, and that many businesses simply don't
know yet how they might fare through the economic shutdown.
● The House and Senate
continue to operate in a diminished capacity, unable to meet
as a group due to social distancing, encountering challenges
in achieving the unanimous consent required to advance
bills, and facing up to technological shortcomings that have
hampered the required transition in communication capacity.
● During the
pandemic, the branches have been holding long sessions
attended usually by a handful of members, and often filled
with recesses while legislators try to work things out
privately. Transparency has suffered. Much of the work is
executed without explanation, much less debate, and media
availabilities are nowhere close to the daily opportunities
offered by Gov. Baker, who has outlined detailed plans to
address the crisis while also engaging in daily, informative
Q&A sessions with reporters.
● Keeping the
current fiscal 2020 budget balanced is Gov. Charlie Baker's
job and his administration has yet to outline the scope of
the current problem, with less than three months left in the
fiscal year, or a plan to address it. Baker has waved off
layoffs as a solution, noting the critical work government
is doing during the crisis, and spending cuts are limited in
their effectiveness at this late stage of the fiscal year
when most of the budget has already been spent.
● As far as fiscal
2021 goes, legislative leaders are back to the basics. They
are working to agree on a substantially downgraded estimate
of available tax revenues, which would then presumably serve
as a basis for budgeting.
● Spending cuts, the
use of one-time federal aid, and other budget-balancing
appear virtually certain, although legislative leaders must
first answer a more basic question: how will the usually
people-intensive process of passing a budget be accomplished
in an era of social distancing and in a Legislature that
isn't set up to operate remotely.
What's with
this — again?
Every time the
state (Attorney General) sues allegedly on behalf of its
citizens for egregious harm done to them, the monetary
settlement rarely if ever makes it to those harmed victims.
Remember the "Tobacco Settlement" of the late-90s?
CLT
certainly does. Those multiple billions the state
has received from it and will into the future went and
continues to go straight into the state's general fund, to
be spent as legislators see fit.
So much for helping the "victims." Well here
we go again:
The State House
News Service reported on Friday ("Equifax to Pay Mass. $18.2
Mil in Settlement"):
Equifax will pay Massachusetts
$18.2 million and change its security practices as
part of a settlement between the credit reporting
agency and the state stemming from a major 2017 data
breach, Attorney General Maura Healey announced
Friday.
Healey sued Equifax shortly
after the company's alleged missteps exposed
personal data, including Social Security numbers and
driver's license numbers, of 147 million Americans
and 3 million Massachusetts residents. The attorney
general said the company also failed to notify
consumers in a timely manner once the breach
occurred....
The $18.2 million will mostly
go into the general fund for use on any state
purpose. Some may also be available for local
consumer groups to assist customers.
Wait, hold on!
Tell me just how the state was harmed when
citizens had their credit histories breached and exposed
— and why the state is the sole
beneficiary of any "settlement" for that breach?
If you were one of
that multitude (half the state's residents) whose names,
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and
drivers' licenses numbers were exposed in the
massive Equifax data breach, I doubt you feel convinced
or grateful that you've been made whole again by this
"settlement" shell game. I sure don't, after having my credit
cards hacked shortly thereafter. It took months for me
to get the cards cancelled and reissued, get everything
straightened out then have my credit histories (supposedly)
frozen. The state through its attorneys general likely
hopes for more such abuses of its citizens so it can profit
from their hardships and misery again and again.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 17, 2020
Supreme Judicial Court eases rules for candidates trying to
get on the ballot
Signature requirements relaxed due to pandemic
By Lisa Kashinsky
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court is making ballot access
easier for candidates seeking public office during the
coronavirus pandemic.
The court ordered Friday that candidates looking to get on
the ballot for the state primary in September will only need
50% of the signatures normally required by law.
The court also wants deadlines for district and county
candidates to submit nomination papers to local election
officials and the state for certification to be extended to
May 5 and June 2, respectively to be be in line with
deadlines for those seeking federal office.
And the court ordered Secretary of State William Galvin to
allow the limited electronic submission of nomination
papers, rather than “wet-ink” signatures.
The changes will not extend to this November general
election or for primary elections past 2020. They do not
apply to ballot questions or non-party federal candidates,
Galvin’s office said.
“We are pleased that the court accepted many of our
recommendations with respect to deadlines and signature
requirements and we are working now to implement the order
and notify our local election officials,” Galvin’s office
said in a statement.
U.S. Senate candidates are currently need 10,000 signatures
to get on the ballot, and congressional candidates must get
2,000. Governor’s Council and some county offices need
1,000. State Senate candidates need 300 and state
representative candidates need 150.
The ruling by Chief Justice Ralph Gants comes the day after
the court heard arguments over an emergency petition filed
on behalf of Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Kevin O’Connor,
Democratic 8th Congressional District candidate Robert
Goldstein and state representative candidate Melissa Bower
Smith asking for relief from typical ballot access
requirements due to the social distancing restrictions of
the coronavirus pandemic.
Gants wrote in the court’s decision that, “With the onset of
the pandemic and the imposition of restrictions that
followed, the plaintiffs and other candidates could not
safely and reasonably gather voter signatures in the usual
ways.”
He added that while the governor and state legislators had
“expressed their willingness” for a legislative fix, nothing
had been enacted at the time of the court’s hearing.
U.S. Senate candidates currently need 10,000 signatures to
get on the ballot, and congressional candidates must get
2,000. Governor’s Council and some county offices need
1,000. State Senate candidates need 300 and state
representative candidates need 150.
Attorney Rob Jones had called on the court to either void
the requirements entirely, or to institute a two-thirds
reduction in the number of signatures needed, a “modest”
deadline extension and to allow electronic signatures — and
to extend that relief to state House and Senate candidates
as well.
State Assistant Attorney General Anne Sterman argued for a
50% reduction — similar to a proposal passed in the state
Senate Thursday — as well as to extend the deadline for
county and district candidates to match federal candidates,
and to allow a “limited form of electronic signatures.”
The court’s decision to halve those requirements will likely
benefit U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, who had just 7,000
signatures before social distancing rules went into effect.
The campaign said Friday it has now received some 20,000
requests from voters to be mailed nominating sheets to sign.
Campaign manager John Walsh said the senator and his team
“applaud that the Supreme Judicial Court ruled today to
alter signature requirements with the health and safety of
the voters of Massachusetts in mind.”
The Kennedy campaign said it has more than 10,000
signatures.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 45 - Report No. 16
April 13-17, 2020
By Bob Katzen
SENATE APPROVED A BILL THAT DIDN’T LOWER THE NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE (S-2632)
– On April 16, the day before the SJC ruling, the Senate
approved and sent to the House a bill which mirrors the SJC
decision except it did not reduce the signatures required
for candidates for the state Legislature.
Here is how the debate went in the Senate. Readers should
keep in mind when reading this that all of this debate
was prior to the SJC ruling.
Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) offered an amendment to lower
the signature requirement for state senator from 300 to 150
and for State Representative from 150 to 75. With just nine
senators in the chamber because of COVID-19, the amendment
was defeated on a five to four standing vote.
Supporters of the amendment said it is outrageous that the
Legislature reduced the number of signatures required for
many offices but left the number for candidates for the
state Legislature the same. They said the refusal to reduce
those numbers makes the bill a pro-incumbent proposal that
makes it less likely for challengers for House and Senate
seats to get on the ballot.
“Our main focus in the Legislature should be dealing with
challenges we face during this pandemic, such as sourcing
PPE for healthcare workers, or finding solutions to the
unemployment crisis,” said Fattman. “It is egregious to be
spending time protecting certain incumbents when there are
so many struggling to figure out where their next meal comes
from. This is why my amendment proposed fairness to all. We
can either reduce the signature count for every candidate or
keep it the same for every candidate.”
“I am gratified that the Senate approved my bill halving the
requirements for candidates who need 1,000 or more
signatures to get on the ballot,” said Sen. Joan Lovely
(D-Salem), Chair of the Senate Committee on Rules. “This
bill prudently protects both civic-minded citizens and
potential officeholders and represents a reasonable step for
the Senate to take in this perilous period.”
“In typical Beacon Hill Democrat Party fashion, extending
the signature deadlines for qualifying as a candidate during
this historic crisis specifically excludes those of state
legislators — creating an even greater hurdle for
non-incumbent challengers lacking an established
organization or competitive funds,” said Chip Ford,
Executive Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“Incumbents have been raising money since the day they were
first elected, have their lists of established donors and
supporters, thus they have a built-in advantage. It comes as
no surprise that the vast majority in the Legislature as
usual takes care of itself above and ahead of all else.”
“During this pandemic, we need to uphold our democratic
processes while prioritizing public health and safety, and
this bill strikes that balance, said Sen. Barry Finegold
(D-Andover), Senate chair of the Committee on Election Laws.
“The Senate’s decision to reduce the threshold for
candidates needing more than 1,000 signatures is a fair,
commonsense compromise. Those who have run for office or
worked on campaigns know that the massive, coordinated
effort of a statewide campaign differs in character and
nature from the smaller legislative races, which in normal
times only require a small fraction of the number of
signatures. Getting on the ballot in Massachusetts is a
process that, for good reason, requires community support,
and reducing the signature requirement to an extremely low
number would undermine that.”
“The majority party that runs the Statehouse once again
demonstrated that they will put their interests ahead of the
public’s,” said Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Executive
Director Paul Craney. “It serves no one but themselves to
keep the signature threshold for themselves. This is a
selfish act during a time when people are hurting. Their
actions today will put more people at a health risk and it
only benefits their chances at reelection. It’s unfortunate
but should not surprise anyone who closely follows the
actions of the majority party at the Statehouse.”
Jim Lyons, chairman of the Republican State Committee, said
Senate Democrats voted in lockstep to advance an election
bill that would immediately benefit one of their most
powerful incumbents, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey. “This is exactly
the kind of game the Democrats intended to play, as soon as
they heard Sen. Markey was 3,000 signatures short,” the
Democrats panicked and wanted to change the rules to help
their guy, and were in quite a hurry to do so — but too bad
if you’re trying to qualify to run against one of them.”
State House News Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
High Court Slashes Candidate Signature Requirements
SJC Acts Swiftly After Bill Fizzles on Beacon Hill
By Matt Murphy
Solving an issue that Democrats have been at loggerheads
over for weeks, the Supreme Judicial Court made clear Friday
that the inaction of the Legislature left them with little
choice but to intervene and reduce the signature-gathering
requirements for candidates running in 2020.
The state's highest court issued its ruling one day after
hearing oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by three
candidates running for offices with the highest and lowest
requirements for collecting the signatures of voters.
The decision, written by Chief Justice Ralph Gants, ordered
that requirements for all candidates seeking to appear on
the Sept. 1 primary ballot be reduced by 50 percent in order
to ensure easier access to the political process for
office-seekers struggling to collect signatures from voters
during the coronavirus pandemic.
The court also extended the deadline for candidates for
state and county offices to submit signatures to local
election clerks from April 28 until May 5, and will allow
for some use of electronic signatures. The new May 5
deadline is consistent with the deadlines for candidates
running for federal office.
"We emphasize that the declaration we make and the equitable
relief we provide is limited to the primary election in
these extraordinary circumstances, which is the sole subject
of the case before us, and does not affect the minimum
signature requirements for the general election this year or
for the primary elections in any other year," Gants wrote in
the court's decision.
Many candidates have been clamoring for weeks for relief
from the signatures requirements, while others have said
they've found ways around social distancing precautions by
leaving nomination papers on unmanned tables with pens, or
using the mail to send and retrieve papers.
After a few snags, the Senate on Thursday passed a bill to
reduce the requirement by 50 percent for all candidates
needing 1,000 or more signatures, which would have excluded
itself and candidates for the House. House officials,
however, told the News Service that bill was unlikely to
pass that chamber.
That left the decision to the court.
"Here, where the filing deadline for nomination papers fast
approaches, and the Legislature has yet to take decisive
action, we have little choice but to provide equitable
relief," Gants wrote.
In the decision, he added: "No fair-minded person can
dispute that the fundamental right to run for elective
office has been unconstitutionally burdened or interfered
with by the need to obtain the required 'wet' signatures in
the midst of this pandemic."
The lawsuit was brought by U.S. Senate candidates Kevin
O'Connor, a Republican, U.S. House candidates Robbie
Goldstein, a Democrat running the Eighth Congressional
District, and Melissa Bower Smith, a Democrat running for
the state House on the South Shore.
The candidate's attorney Robert Jones, of Ropes and Gray,
asked the SJC on Thursday to either waive signature
requirements altogether, or reduce the totals by two-thirds.
The plaintiffs were also seeking the extension and the use
of electronic signatures.
The ruling allows for a limited use of electronic
signatures, consistent with the recommendation of Secretary
of State William Galvin, who had recommended to the court a
remedy very similar to the one provided.
In order to meet their reduced requirements, the court said
candidates can scan and post their nomination papers online
for voters to print or download the image and either apply
an electronic signature with a computer mouse or stylus, or
sign the printed version, and return the form electronically
or by mail.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Scott Kafker said he
worried the court was being forced to "stray into territory
reserved for the Legislature," and his preferred remedy
might have been to simply allow the full use of electronic
signatures for campaigns to meet their statutory signature
gathering requirements.
"In sum, while I agree with the court that the technological
limitations described by the Secretary prevent us from
replacing the in-person requirement with electronic
signatures alone in the short time before the signatures are
due, and require the multifaceted remedy the court proposes,
I feel compelled to emphasize that those responsible for our
election process must have the necessary tools to quickly
adapt to the current pandemic and the future crises to
follow," Kafker wrote in his own opinion.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs that relief provided to
candidates for all offices, not just federal and county
candidates, and said it found a "rational connection" to
reducing the totals by half.
Gants wrote that candidates had 41 days from Feb. 11 until
March 23 when the governor issued an order limiting
gatherings to no more than 10 people, which is "almost
exactly fifty percent" of the time between Feb. 11 and the
new May 5 deadline.
The decision was cheered not just by the plaintiffs, but
other candidates seeking office and struggling to meet their
requirements.
Dave Cavell, a candidate for Congress in the Fourth
District, Tweeted, "BREAKING: We won the signature gathering
case!!! Signature requirement cut in half, electronic
signatures allowed. This is a victory not just for
campaigns, but for public safety and for democracy."
O'Connor's campaign said it was "satisfied" with the
reduction by one half, and not two-thirds. The Republican
started to make a big push for the change after his father
contracted COVID-19 and he shared that his mother had been
gathering signatures for his campaign until he ceased all
collection activity.
"Today’s decision marks a victory for the people of
Massachusetts, and is a rebuke to the legislature, which for
weeks has failed to act to address this dangerous public
policy conflict. The ruling serves the interests of public
health and democracy. Of equal importance, it reinforces the
fundamental principle that no one — not even entrenched
political incumbents — are above our federal and state
constitutions," O'Connor said in a statement.
Goldstein, the lead plaintiff who is attempting to run in
the primary against U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, also said he
was "pleased" with the outcome.
"As an infectious disease physician, I could not in good
conscience put my campaign above the health and safety of
countless volunteers and election clerks. I'm also proud to
have had the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with
the other brave candidates as we led an important fight that
could very well ripple across generations yet to come,"
Goldstein said.
U.S. Sen. Edward Markey was among the candidates who had not
yet gathered the 10,000 signatures required of him to
qualify for the ballot. After telling the Boston Globe 10
days ago that it had about 7,000 signatures, campaign
manager John Walsh said Friday said the incumbent now had
requests for 20,896 additional nomination sheets, putting it
on pace to collect more than 20,000 certified signatures by
the deadline.
The campaign turned to its 4,500 volunteers, and asked
supporters to get 10 of their friends to sign his papers,
Walsh said.
"We recognize and applaud that the Supreme Judicial Court
ruled today to alter signature requirements with the health
and safety of the voters of Massachusetts in mind. Our
campaign will continue to operate with this same commitment
- to the best interests of Massachusetts families," Walsh
said in a statement.
U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III had already announced this week
that he had gathered 15,000 signatures to qualify for the
primary ballot to run against Markey before the SJC's
decision.
And in the Sixth District, Democrat Angus McQuilken said he
"still has work to do" to collect the reduced requirement of
1,000 signatures to run in the primary against U.S. Rep.
Seth Moulton, but is now confident he can get there.
"This is an important decision that protects ballot access
and voter choice while recognizing the public health crisis
that we're in," McQuilken said. "Our campaign still has work
to do in collecting the necessary signatures, but with this
issue resolved I am one hundred percent confident that we
will get the signatures we need, make the primary ballot,
and give voters in the 6th District a real choice for who
should represent them in Congress."
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 17, 2020
Stubborn, selfish state lawmakers schooled by SJC in
signature fight
By Joe Battenfeld
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to ease the election
rules was a no-brainer. Except for state lawmakers — but
brains aren’t exactly their strong suit.
The Legislature is first and foremost guided by political
self-preservation and saving its members’ own hides, and
nowhere was that more evident than the dispute over whether
to lower the number of required signatures to get on the
fall ballot.
The deadly coronavirus pandemic has obviously severely
limited the ability of candidates to get those signatures,
so something needed to be changed. Right?
Not so obvious to lawmakers, especially House Speaker Robert
DeLeo, who refused to change the rules. The state Senate did
pass a bill cutting the signature requirements, but mostly
to bail out U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, who was having trouble
getting his 10,000 signatures. Their bill notably did not
include themselves. It was a petty move designed to keep
potential challengers off the ballot.
Three candidates, including GOP U.S. Senate candidate Kevin
O’Connor, had to go to the state’s highest court to ask it
to change the unfair and unsafe signature rules.
So the Supreme Judicial Court finally did act on Friday,
slashing in half the number of required signatures for all
ballot seekers — not just some — for the Sept. 1 primary.
And allowing candidates to submit e-signatures obtained
through the Internet. The court also pushed back the filing
date for state candidates to May 5 and for county candidates
to June 2.
The ruling was a big relief for incumbent Markey, who avoids
the embarrassment of failing to get on the ballot.
“With the onset of the pandemic … candidates could not
safely and reasonably gather voter signatures in the usual
ways, namely, going to places where large numbers of
potential registered voters are likely to be, such as town
centers, malls, grocery stores, or political meetings,”
Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote. “If a candidate seeks to
obtain signatures on nomination papers in the traditional
ways, he or she reasonably may fear that doing so might risk
the health and safety not only of the person requesting the
signature but also of the persons who are signing, of the
families with whom they live, and potentially of their
entire community.”
The court concluded: “No fair-minded person can dispute that
the fundamental right to run for elective office has been
unconstitutionally burdened or interfered with by the need
to obtain the required ‘wet’ signatures in the midst of this
pandemic.”
That “fair-minded person” reference was a direct slap at
legislators, who simply through their own partisan reasons
were keeping the signature requirements intact — or changed
only for those they wanted to help.
So, even in a pandemic that has turned the world upside
down, our own state lawmakers were thinking only of
themselves.
What a shock. And what a disgrace.
State House News Service
Thursday, April 16, 2020
MTF: Tax Revenues For Budget Down 15 Percent
By Michael P. Norton
State officials will have about $4 billion, or 15 percent,
less than they anticipated for use in the fiscal 2021
budget, and MBTA and school construction officials will also
need to get by with less, according to data released
Thursday by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The foundation said that based on its revised forecast, the
MBTA will receive $53 million less in dedicated sales tax
revenue and the Massachusetts School Building Authority will
get $174 million less. Also, a transfer of $278 million to
the rainy day fund likely won't be triggered because taxes
on investment gains will not reach sufficient levels.
Just three months ago, executive and legislative branch
leaders had agreed on a fiscal 2021 tax revenue estimate of
$31.15 billion. Put in a larger context, the foundation's
new fiscal 2021 tax revenue estimate of $24.8 billion is
about $1 billion less than budget writers had available in
fiscal 2018.
"The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the state's financial
picture dramatically in a very short timeframe," MTF
concluded in its new report. "The unprecedented steps to
curtail the spread of the virus will force big changes in
public policy to deal with the crisis both in the short term
and in the long run."
The Baker administration has not announced any information
about budget-balancing measures for the current fiscal year,
one in which tax collections are taking a major tumble in
the last quarter after a strong performance over the first
nine months. Legislative leaders also have not announced any
budget plans for fiscal 2021, including a process for
passing a spending bill amidst social distancing, and are
still working to agree on a new revenue estimate.
State House News Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
Weekly Roundup - What We’ve Been Preparing For
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Colin A. Young
"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill may or may not have actually uttered that
now-famous phrase, but it's an appropriate mantra for
Massachusetts as the surge of patients suffering from
COVID-19 and requiring hospital care begins to put
tremendous strain on the state's health care system and its
workers.
The arrival of the expected influx put a greater emphasis on
hospital capacity and resources this week, and Gov. Charlie
Baker repeatedly urged people to continue to stay home as
much as possible and away from other people to help slow the
spread of the coronavirus, stressing that the
sometimes-difficult distancing measures are key to limiting
the surge's scale and duration.
"We're right in the surge and things are going to get worse
before they get better," Rep. Jon Santiago said Thursday in
one of his regular social media updates. Santiago has seen
the build-up and arrival of the surge up close -- he works
as an emergency department doctor at Boston Medical Center.
This weekend, he will be working 12-hour shifts at the field
hospital the state set up at the Boston Convention and
Exhibition Center.
Concerned that the rapidly-spreading and highly-contagious
coronavirus might infect more people than Bay State
hospitals could care for, Baker and his administration have
worked with hospitals and providers for more than two months
to add to hospital bed capacity, keep beds that would be
used by patients having elective procedures open, and set up
alternative sites in Boston, Worcester, Cape Cod, Dartmouth
and Lowell to be ready for this moment -- for however long
it might last.
"I would say at this point in time I believe, with the
addition of some of the other stuff that's coming online
over the course of the next five to seven days, we are
pretty well positioned to deal with this," Baker said
Wednesday.
Late Friday afternoon, the Department of Public Health
reported that there are now 34,402 cases of COVID-19 in the
state and that 1,404 people have died as a result. One week
ago, the number of COVID-19 cases stood at 20,974 and 599
people had lost their lives to the disease.
If it was not clear enough already, Friday's update on the
number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 highlighted the fact
that this is not at all similar to the seasonal flu, as some
cynics have tried to dismissively argue.
In less than one month, COVID-19 has killed almost as many
people in Massachusetts (1,404) than the flu and pneumonia
did in the entirety of 2018 (1,441), according to the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control.
Residents of long-term care facilities like nursing homes
account for exactly half of the COVID-19 deaths in
Massachusetts and state public health officials are
"intensely focused" on controlling the spread of COVID-19
among residents of long-term care facilities, Health and
Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders said this week.
That includes hiring a Billerica consultancy, KCP Advisory,
to provide crisis management help and to help establish
dedicated COVID-19 units in existing nursing homes.
There are 383 nursing homes, 255 assisted living residences
and 93 rest homes in Massachusetts, the governor said.
Approximately 38,000 people live in nursing homes, 16,500 in
assisted living facilities and 3,000 residents in rest
homes.
As of Friday, 240 long-term care facilities had reported at
least one case of COVID-19, 5,142 residents or staff members
had tested positive and 702 COVID-19 deaths had been
reported at long-term care facilities.
"The government is now acting very forcefully to see what we
can do about that to mitigate COVID-19," Santiago said,
detailing the state's "significant testing" of nursing home
residents including those who are not showing symptoms and
increased rates for providers. "We really need to address
these hotspots because a lot of our deaths are coming from
there."
The coronavirus hotspots around Massachusetts became a bit
clearer this week when the state began releasing
town-by-town data. The first weekly release showed that
Chelsea, Brockton, Randolph and Williamstown had the highest
rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 residents.
"Having the ability to look at this virus through the lens
of its impact on specific cities and towns will help us
identify potential hotspots, inform the public health
response, assist cities and towns working to slow the spread
and help the state appropriately deploy resources," Sudders
said.
Though the attention this week was mostly on the surge and
hospital capacity, the governor and lawmakers on Beacon Hill
began to cast an eye on life after the surge. On Monday,
Baker joined the governors of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware in a regional
effort to devise a plan for putting people back to work as
it becomes safe to do so.
"The situation we're in now is unsustainable. People can't
stay in their homes for this length of time, they can't stay
out of work, you can't keep the economy closed forever. You
just can't. Society can't handle it, personally or
economically," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is
spearheading the regional effort, said Friday.
Baker on Thursday cautioned Massachusetts that even though
the groundwork for re-opening the economy and society is
starting to be laid, "this virus obviously doesn't work on a
schedule" and Massachusetts isn't close to being out of the
woods.
"I know it's been a long time, but letting up now would only
result in greater harm," he said.
At the State House this week, instead of House Ways and
Means releasing its fiscal year 2021 budget, state financial
managers met with a panel of economists to try to wrap their
arms around the economic ramifications of the pandemic and
begin to figure out how they might pass a budget this year.
"The economic and fiscal fallout from the pandemic puts an
unprecedented strain on the state's budget and resources,
surpassing previous fiscal crises because of its sudden and
steep onslaught," Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
President Eileen McAnneny said during Wednesday's hearing,
in which she projected state tax collections will drop by
$4.4 billion, or 14.1 percent below the benchmark that top
budget officials agreed to back in January.
In another meeting this week, lawmakers heard that between
60 and 80 percent of businesses that participated in
Springfield Regional Chamber of Commerce survey said they
think the pandemic will put them out of business, and that
many businesses simply don't know yet how they might fare
through the economic shutdown.
In the legislative chambers, work continued this week on a
number of bills but trying to do everything without a quorum
and by unanimous consent -- meaning that the objection of a
single lawmaker can keep legislation from advancing -- has
proved a bit tricky.
A bill negotiated by members of the House and Senate to
temporarily halt all evictions and foreclosures during the
pandemic was blocked Thursday when Republican Rep. Shawn
Dooley used a procedural method to bring the House session
to an end. Dooley on Friday said his concerns remain but he
did not block the bill from getting to Baker's desk Friday
afternoon.
While many new COVID-19 bills await vetting, the branches on
Friday afternoon sent Baker a version of his own bill to
provide liability protections for health care workers and
facilities during the pandemic. Kate Walsh, the president
and CEO of Boston Medical Center, told the Financial
Services Committee this week that the need for the bill "is
days away." Baker signed the bill into law late Friday
afternoon.
On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Judicial Court took an
issue that the House and Senate seemingly disagreed on --
whether and how to lower the ballot nomination signature
thresholds for statewide and county races in 2020 -- out of
lawmakers' hands with a ruling that reduces the number of
signatures needed by 50 percent, extends the deadlines to
submit signatures and allows for some use of electronic
signatures.
State House News Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
Advances - Week of April 19, 2020
After spending weeks living with the widespread restrictions
of life during the COVID-19 pandemic, Massachusetts remains
in the trenches of its war against a virus that, in just a
month, has taken more than 1,400 lives and infected tens of
thousands more people. The state, and everyone involved in
state government, remains in the throes of the crisis, with
new daily infections and deaths at or near their highest
levels, reflecting the long-expected surge.
As harrowing as the days and nights are, especially for
families losing loved ones and those on the front lines of
providing care and delivering essential services, planning
has begun among public officials for the other side of the
surge. Massachusetts, like other parts of the world, finds
itself straddling two realities: confronting the immediate
and dire challenges and trying to reduce new infections
while planning for the resumption of some semblance of life
as we all knew it before 2020.
As people are still trying to figure out how to operate
during a pandemic, they are naturally looking forward and
wondering how and when restrictions will be lifted. In
short, there are no reliable answers, not yet, and public
officials are weighing the reality that COVID-19 is not
going away anytime soon with the awareness that record
unemployment, with joblessness still on the rise, also
carries societal costs.
Rep. William Driscoll of Milton, tapped by Speaker Robert
DeLeo to help with crisis response, tweeted this week that
it was good news that recovery phase planning is emerging,
but added: "Bad news: You are going to be receiving lots of
unintentionally mixed messages because the timelines &
various activity triggers are not generally aligned yet."
With reporters working remotely and from the still-closed
State House, the News Service will continue to bring
coverage of crisis response and executive actions as well as
our traditional gavel-to-gavel coverage of House and Senate
sessions.
— SURGE RESPONSE:
Experts are looking for a reduction in new COVID-19
infections and hospitalizations that would both ease
pressure on the care system and signal that social
distancing, increased testing and quarantine and isolation
efforts are having a positive impact. So far, they haven't
seen it. The Baker administration's projections estimated
for weeks that the surge would begin between April 10 and
April 20 and that, over the course of the outbreak, between
47,000 and 172,000 people could become infected in
Massachusetts. In recent days, the governor said several
times that the surge has arrived but that the peak strain on
hospitals will hit later this month. As of Thursday, the
state had about 9,600 hospital beds -- more than half its
capacity -- available for COVID-19 patients and had deployed
439 additional ventilators to facilities. Dr. Lou Ann Bruno
Murtha, chief infectious disease physician at Cambridge
Health Alliance, said during an online town hall Wednesday
hosted by Rep. Marjorie Decker that supply shortages have
been a "major issue" and there have been testing challenges.
"The modeling shows that we have several weeks of disease to
contend with. This is our second week of surge," she said.
"We are working extremely hard and we anticipate we're going
to continue to have to do so for the next several weeks." -
By Michael P. Norton and Chris Lisinski
— HOUSING BILL ON GUV'S
DESK: Legislation aimed at keeping vulnerable tenants in
their homes during the pandemic is on Gov. Baker's desk,
days after the governor said he hoped lawmakers would agree
on a bill. House and Senate Democratic negotiators reached a
deal Wednesday on a compromise bill (H 4647) that would
impose a moratorium on almost all evictions and foreclosures
for 120 days after enactment or until 45 days after Gov.
Baker lifts the state of emergency, whichever comes first,
albeit with language allowing Baker to extend the
enforcement. Courts are not scheduling new hearings for
evictions amid the outbreak, but advocates have pushed for
the language for weeks as a statewide guarantee. - By
Chris Lisinski and Katie Lannan
— TRACKING THE HOTSPOTS:
Five weeks into the state of emergency, Massachusetts
residents are only just now beginning to learn broad details
about where infections are concentrated. State officials for
weeks have limited their data releases to the county level
and only broadly outlined the extensive reach of COVID-19 at
long-term care facilities, where the virus is having some of
its most lethal effects. This week, state officials began
releasing town-by-town data on infections, enabling a
clearer public understanding of hotspots such as Brocton,
Chelsea, Lawrence, Randolph and Williamstown. New
municipal-level data is scheduled to be released Wednesday
afternoon. Frustrated lawmakers are also pressing for
passage of legislation, or disclosure without it, of more
detailed information about infections in specific long-term
care facilities. - By Michael P. Norton
— CRISIS CARE STANDARDS:
Democratic legislative leaders on Thursday night vowed
action to address the disparate effects of COVID-19 on
communities of color and said they agree with their
colleagues that voluntary crisis care standards released by
the Department of Public Health need to be improved. The
timeline for action, and details on solutions, however, were
not outlined, and this remains a major issue to watch as the
crisis unfolds and in the face of reports that the virus is
hitting harder in certain cities and towns. "The Legislature
will act to ensure a mechanism for robust data collection
and establish a diversity task force to make recommendations
around equitable access to care during this public health
emergency," House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Karen Spilka said in their joint statement. Boston officials
have already set up a similar task force, and a city council
committee plans a hearing next week around ensuring that
health inequities don't drive the allocation of medical
resources. Legislative leaders have had some success moving
key bills to Gov. Baker's desk during the COVID-19 crisis
but have needed to win full buy-in from lawmakers to avoid
the type of objections from single members that have slowed
movement on some virus-related bills. The commitment from
Spilka and DeLeo comes after groups including the
Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus and the
Pioneer Institute have called for a re-thinking of the care
standards. Baker administration officials have stressed that
the guidelines are voluntary and that they hope they never
need to be used. "Frankly, if we had no ethically based
guidelines for the fair distribution of scant resources of
care, inequities would occur," Health and Human Services
Secretary Marylou Sudders said Monday. She said hospitals
are urged to use the guidelines as a framework and adapt
them in accordance with their own standards, "in a manner
that limits any inequitable impact on individuals and
communities of color, immigrants, people with disabilities
and historically marginalized communities." - By Michael
P. Norton and Katie Lannan
— THE LEGISLATURE: The
House and Senate continue to operate in a diminished
capacity, unable to meet as a group due to social
distancing, encountering challenges in achieving the
unanimous consent required to advance bills, and facing up
to technological shortcomings that have hampered the
required transition in communication capacity.
During the pandemic, the branches have been holding long
sessions attended usually by a handful of members, and often
filled with recesses while legislators try to work things
out privately. Transparency has suffered. Much of the work
is executed without explanation, much less debate, and media
availabilities are nowhere close to the daily opportunities
offered by Gov. Baker, who has outlined detailed plans to
address the crisis while also engaging in daily, informative
Q&A sessions with reporters.
House and Senate leaders continue to explore options for
remote operations, a novel approach to fiscal 2021 budget,
and whether to extend formal sessions beyond July 31, a
deadline set in internal rules, in order to stay active for
crisis response and salvage work on other priorities, such
as health care, transportation and climate change. - By
Michael P. Norton
— THE STATE BUDGET: With
tax collections collapsing, here are the storylines to watch
on Beacon Hill.
Keeping the current fiscal 2020 budget balanced is Gov.
Charlie Baker's job and his administration has yet to
outline the scope of the current problem, with less than
three months left in the fiscal year, or a plan to address
it. Baker has waved off layoffs as a solution, noting the
critical work government is doing during the crisis, and
spending cuts are limited in their effectiveness at this
late stage of the fiscal year when most of the budget has
already been spent.
The $3.5 billion rainy day reserve fund represents a pool of
money that could be drawn from and officials are also
analyzing the stream of federal funds that are coming to
Massachusetts because of the crisis and the potential for
Congress to approve even more new aid to the states.
As far as fiscal 2021 goes, legislative leaders are back to
the basics. They are working to agree on a substantially
downgraded estimate of available tax revenues, which would
then presumably serve as a basis for budgeting.
Spending cuts, the use of one-time federal aid, and other
budget-balancing appear virtually certain, although
legislative leaders must first answer a more basic question:
how will the usually people-intensive process of passing a
budget be accomplished in an era of social distancing and in
a Legislature that isn't set up to operate remotely. - By
Michael P. Norton
State House News Service
Friday, April 17, 2020
Equifax to Pay Mass. $18.2 Mil in Settlement
By Chris Lisinski
Equifax will pay Massachusetts $18.2 million and change its
security practices as part of a settlement between the
credit reporting agency and the state stemming from a major
2017 data breach, Attorney General Maura Healey announced
Friday.
Healey sued Equifax shortly after the company's alleged
missteps exposed personal data, including Social Security
numbers and driver's license numbers, of 147 million
Americans and 3 million Massachusetts residents. The
attorney general said the company also failed to notify
consumers in a timely manner once the breach occurred.
Her office reached its own settlement with Equifax about
nine months after declining to join other states in July
2019 agreements, which the attorney general told reporters
allowed Massachusetts to secure a larger payment and more
strict conditions on the company.
"This is one of the largest penalties ever paid to a single
state over a data breach, but it reflects how seriously we
took it and how egregious the conduct was by Equifax,"
Healey told reporters on a conference call Friday afternoon.
The $18.2 million will mostly go into the general fund for
use on any state purpose. Some may also be available for
local consumer groups to assist customers.
As part of the settlement, Equifax will also be required to
minimize its data collection, maintain up-to-date software,
conduct regular security monitoring, and submit for outside
review of its practices, Healey said. |
|
|
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
