$511,634 FOR PROMOTION OF HEALTH AND DISEASE PREVENTION (H 4900) | The House, 136-19, and Senate, 37-1, overrode Gov. Deval Patrick's $511,634 veto reduction (from $14,709,996 to $14,198,362) in funding for programs for the promotion of health and disease prevention including breast cancer prevention; screening for diabetes, ovarian cancer and multiple sclerosis; stroke prevention and education; prevention of hepatitis C, renal disease Lyme disease, colorectal cancer and prostate cancer; osteoporosis education and early detection and treatment of lung cancer and brain aneurysms.
Patrick also vetoed a provision providing that $75,000 of the funds be used for the operation of the New England Connection for PKU and Allied Disorders (NECPAD), an organization that provides patient and family education and support for people diagnosed with Phenylketonuria (PKU). According to the group's website, PKU is "a rare, inherited condition that prevents your body from metabolizing phenylalanine (Phe), which is one of the amino acids that are joined together to form proteins. When the infant or adult is untreated or poorly treated, Phe rises to high levels in the blood and can damage the brain by causing mental retardation, seizures, learning disabilities and emotional problems."
Override supporters said that the $511,634 is needed to help fund these public awareness programs that help people and save lives.
In his veto message, Gov. Patrick said, "I am striking language which earmarks funding for the NECPAD program for people with PKU that is not recommended, and I am reducing this item to an amount projected to be necessary.
A "Yes" vote is for the $511,634. A "No" vote is against the $511,634.
Rep. Lori Ehrlich Yes
Rep. Mary Grant Yes
Rep. Bradford Hill No
Rep. Bradley Jones No
Rep. John Keenan Yes
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis Yes
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis Yes
Sen. Frederick Berry Yes
Sen. Thomas McGee Yes
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
PENSION FOR CONVICTED CRIMINAL (H 4139) | The House, 128-27, and Senate, 26-6, overrode Gov. Patrick's veto of a bill that would exempt former North Adams Highway Superintendent Leo Senecal from a state law that prohibits convicted criminals from receiving a public pension. Senecal pleaded guilty in 1998 to the 1996 charge that he ordered city workers to dump 150 gallons of waste oil into an unlined trench instead of shipping it to a hazardous waste collection site. Senecal was placed on probation, fined thousands of dollars for the cleanup of the contaminated soil and went without pay for six months.
The measure was filed by Rep. Daniel Bosley (D-North Adams) and received the approval of North Adams Mayor John Barrett and the city council.
Supporters of the bill said that Senecal has an outstanding 40-year career in public service and should not be denied an estimated $36,000 annual pension because he made one mistake. They noted that he did not profit from the crime and was only trying to save the city some money. Some noted that the obscure law that he broke has not been enforced since his actions.
In his veto message, the governor said, "This legislation authorizes an unwarranted departure from the general law for a named individual, rather than addressing any legal or policy concerns posed by the law that it circumvents. I do not believe the public is well served by making individual legislative exceptions to a rule that is meant to apply uniformly." Patrick vetoed the bill in December.
(A "Yes" vote is for giving the pension to Senecal. A "No" vote is against giving the pension to him.)
Rep. Lori Ehrlich Yes
Rep. Mary Grant Didn't Vote
Rep. Bradford Hill No
Rep. Bradley Jones No
Rep. John Keenan Yes
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis Yes
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis Yes
Sen. Frederick Berry Yes
Sen. Thomas McGee Yes
Sen. Bruce Tarr No
$458,465 FOR LAWYERS TO REPRESENT INDIGENTS (H 4900) | The
House, voting 138-18, and Senate, 35-3, overrode Gov. Patrick's $458,465 veto reduction (from $29,294,603 to $28,836,138) in funding for the operation of the Committee for Public Counsel Services that pays for lawyers to represent indigent persons in criminal and civil cases.
Override supporters said that the $458,465 cut would hamper the administration of these services and noted that the Constitution requires that even poor defendants have a right to an adequate defense.
Override opponents said that this cut would save taxpayers $458,465 and still adequately fund this account. Some argued that additional money should go to district attorneys who prosecute the crimes and not to the criminals who commit them.
A "Yes" vote is for the $458,465. A "No" vote is against the $458,465.
Rep. Lori Ehrlich Yes
Rep. Mary Grant Yes
Rep. Bradford Hill No
Rep. Bradley Jones No
Rep. John Keenan Yes
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis Yes
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis Yes
Sen. Frederick Berry Yes
Sen. Thomas McGee Yes
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
EPEAL 1913 MARRIAGE RESTRICTION (S 800) | The House, voting 119-36, approved and Gov. Patrick signed into law legislation that repeals a 1913 law which prohibits out-of-state couples from getting married in Massachusetts if their home state does not recognize the union. State officials had used this law, upheld in 2004 by the Supreme Judicial Court, to prevent out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying here.
Repeal supporters said that this antiquated law is an endorsement of discrimination that should be eliminated and argued that it was originally put on the books to block interracial marriages. Some noted that repeal would lead to many more visitors to Massachusetts and would be an economic boon.
Opponents of repeal said that their support of the 1913 law does not mean that they are trying to turn back the clock on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. They argued that the repeal would create chaos and legal battles between Massachusetts and the 48 states that do not allow same-sex marriage. Some cited the court decision upholding the 1913 law and noted that the decision also mentioned that there was not enough evidence to prove that the law was originally designed to block interracial marriages.
A "Yes" vote is for repealing the 1913 law. A "No" vote is against repeal and favors the 1913 law.
Rep. Lori Ehrlich Yes
Rep. Mary Grant Yes
Rep. Bradford Hill Yes
Rep. Bradley Jones Yes
Rep. John Keenan Yes
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis Yes
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis Yes
ELECT PRESIDENT BY POPULAR VOTE (H 678) | The House, voting 119-37, and the Senate, 116-37, approved and sent to the Senate legislation that would make Massachusetts a member of The Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.
The agreement would require states that join the pact to cast all of their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins a majority of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The pact would become effective when states representing at least 270 electoral votes | a majority of the 538-vote Electoral College | join this compact.
States currently have a number of electoral votes equal to the number of senators and representatives that the state has in Congress. This endeavor is led by Fair Vote | a national group that says Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, with a total of 50 electoral votes, have already joined the agreement.
The proposal does not abolish the Electoral College | a feat that would require the even more difficult task of amending the Constitution. Its sponsors are attempting to do an end-run around the Constitution by taking advantage of a part of the document that they say gives the states exclusive and complete power to determine how to allocate their electoral votes.
Supporters said that the Electoral College is an antiquated system that gives voters in states with a large number of electoral votes more voting power than those in other states and was designed by the framers because they did not trust the common citizen to vote correctly. They argued that presidential candidates concentrate on and campaign in a handful of swing states while ignoring most of the states that are already solidly Democratic or Republican. Some pointed to the 2000 election in which Al Gore received more popular votes than President Bush but was not elected because Bush won the majority of the Electoral College.
Some opponents said that the Electoral College is a good system that has worked well and should not be changed. They argued that the Electoral College actually gives voters in smaller states power that they would not have if the president was elected strictly by a popular vote system in which candidates would concentrate on states with larger populations. Some argued that electing the president by popular vote would give wealthy fringe candidates a chance at success by focusing their efforts in a few major urban centers. Others said that the change to a popular vote is a very serious issue that needs more study.
A "Yes" vote is for the bill making Massachusetts a member of The Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. A "No" vote is against the bill.
Rep. Lori Ehrlich Yes
Rep. Mary Grant Yes
Rep. Bradford Hill No
Rep. Bradley Jones No
Rep. John Keenan Yes
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis Yes
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis Yes
REDUCE GUN FEES (H 5022) | The House, voting 97-59, approved an amendment that would reduce the firearms licensing fee from $100 to $40 and expand to six years the length of time for which the license is valid.
Under current law, the license is valid for five or six years, depending on the birthday of the license-holder. The state receives $75 of the current $100 fee while the local community gets $25. Under the new $40 fee, communities would still receive the same $25 while the state's share would be reduced to $15.
Amendment supporters said that the fee was raised in 1998 in order to fund a new and more efficient system of licensing. They argued that the system is now in place and it is time to reduce the fee.
Amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss.
The House in May rejected the same amendment on a 76-82 roll call. Both roll calls are listed. The first is from May. The second is from last week.
A "Yes" vote is for the amendment reducing the fee to $40. A "No" vote is against the reduction and favors the $100 fee.
Rep. Lori Ehrlich No/No
Rep. Mary Grant No/Yes
Rep. Bradford Hill Yes/Yes
Rep. Bradley Jones Yes/Yes
Rep. John Keenan No/No
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes/Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis No/No
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis No/Yes
INCREASE ELDERLY PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT (H 4264) The House, voting 62-93, rejected an amendment allowing communities, by vote of the city council or town meeting, to expand the eligibility for and amount of the property tax abatement currently provided to senior citizens under state law.
The amendment allows communities to increase the abatement from a maximum of $1,000 to a new maximum of $2,000; raises the maximum allowable qualifying income from $12,000 to $40,000 for an individual senior and from $30,000 to $60,000 for a married senior couple.
Amendment supporters said this local option amendment would allow communities to offer more property tax relief to more seniors who are on fixed incomes and in desperate need of tax relief. They noted that rising fuel prices and the increased cost of food and prescriptions has made it difficult for seniors to make ends meet.
Amendment opponents said that that cities and towns cannot afford the revenue loss. They noted that they sympathized with these seniors, but argued that the existing lower abatement will have to be sufficient for the time being.
A "Yes" vote is for the amendment allowing communities to expand the eligibility for and amount of the senior property tax abatement. A "No" vote is against allowing it.
Rep. Lori Ehrlich No
Rep. Mary Grant Yes
Rep. Bradford Hill Yes
Rep. Bradley Jones Yes
Rep. John Keenan No
Rep. Barbara L'Italien Yes
Rep. Theodore Speliotis Yes
Rep. Joyce Spiliotis No
ALLOW VOTER REGISTRATION ON ELECTION DAY (S 2807) The Senate, voting 33-5, approved legislation that would allow people to register to vote on Election Day and be allowed to vote immediately. Current law requires people to register three weeks before an election in order to be eligible to vote in it.
The proposal would require the applicant to show a valid photo identification including Massachusetts' driver's license or other state-issued identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, other government document or a current student fee statement.
Supporters said that same-day registration would cost only $1 million annually and make it easier for hundreds of thousands of unregistered voters to register and participate in the election process. They argued that currently many new citizens, college students and individuals who have recently moved and changed their addresses are denied the right to vote on Election Day.
Opponents said that same-day registration would open the door to fraud, create major problems and carries a price tag of up to $5 million annually. They argued that people already have ample time prior to an election to register to vote at city and town halls, the Registry of Motor Vehicles and by mail. Some said that the bill was a ploy to register new voters to help defeat the November ballot question repealing the state's 5.3 percent income tax.
A "Yes" vote is for Election Day registration. A "No" vote is against Election Day registration.
Sen. Frederick Berry Yes
Sen. Thomas McGee Yes
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
MUST SHOW ID TO VOTE (S 2807) The Senate, voting 9-29, rejected an amendment requiring all voters to show identification at their polling places in order to be allowed to vote. Acceptable forms of ID would include documents issued by federal, state or local governments and a Social Security card.
Amendment supporters said that it is illogical that all voters are not required to show identification prior to voting and noted that 24 other states have laws requiring IDs. They argued that people cannot cash a check, rent a car, rent a DVD or even enter some government buildings without showing an ID.
Amendment opponents said that the amendment would disenfranchise thousands of voters including people who do not have a current address because they are in a homeless shelter or domestic violence facility. Others said that there have been no widespread reports of voter fraud in Massachusetts.
A "Yes" vote is for requiring all voters to show identification at their polling places in order to be allowed to vote. A "No" vote is against the requirement).
Sen. Frederick Berry No
Sen. Thomas McGee No
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
MERGE MASS TURNPIKE WITH MASS HIGHWAY (S 2852) | The Senate, voting 7-31, rejected an amendment to merge the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority with the Massachusetts Highway Department.
Amendment supporters said that it is fiscally irresponsible to maintain two agencies when millions of dollars could be saved by consolidating them. They noted that the Turnpike spends $211,000 per mile on highway maintenance compared with $76,000 per mile that the Highway Department spends.
Some amendment opponents said that the merger is irresponsible and would require the state and its taxpayers to absorb billions of dollars of the Turnpike's debt and could also jeopardize the state' bond rating. Others defended the Turnpike Authority and argued that the turnpike is one of the best maintained roads in the nation.
A "Yes" vote is for the merger. A "No" vote is against the merger.
Sen. Frederick Berry No
Sen. Thomas McGee No
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
PERMANENT SALES TAX HOLIDAY (H 4995) | The Senate, voting 5-32, rejected an amendment establishing a permanent annual two-day sales tax holiday in August. The Department of Revenue would choose the dates of the holiday and announce them by July 15 each year.
Amendment supporters said that it is time to make this successful holiday a permanent one and noted that similar tax-free holidays over the past four years have helped both shoppers and consumers. They noted that a permanent holiday would give consumers the opportunity to plan purchases in advance and not have to sit around each year and see if the Legislature decides to approve a holiday.
Amendment opponents said that it is fiscally irresponsible to approve a permanent holiday without regard to the economic situation of the state during a specific year. They argued that the Legislature should look at the state's economy and decide one year at a time whether the state can afford a sales tax holiday. Some noted that a permanent holiday would hurt year-round retail sales because many consumers would hold off until August to make big purchases.
A "Yes" vote is for establishing a permanent annual two-day sales tax holiday in August. A "No" vote is against establishing it.
Sen. Frederick Berry No
Sen. Thomas McGee No
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
TAX DEDUCTION FOR WINTER HEATING COSTS (H 4995) | The Senate, voting 9-28, rejected an amendment providing tax relief to consumers who will face the skyrocketing price of heating their homes this winter. The amendment allows up to an $800 tax deduction for the winter purchase of home heating oil and natural gas by individuals who earn less than $50,000 per year and families that earn less than $75,000.
The deduction was approved by the Legislature in 2005 but only applied to that year's winter and has not been renewed since.
Amendment supporters said that this would help millions of families deal with the skyrocketing cost of heating their homes and argued that without this tax relief, many people would have to choose between heating their homes and buying food. They noted that it helped more than 900,000 families in 2005 and cost only $27 million.
Some amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss that the tax deduction would cause. Others said they agree that many consumers need help with heating their homes this winter but argued that the help should be in the form of direct assistance rather than tax deductions.
The Senate defeated a similar proposal in January on a 7-31 roll call. Both roll calls are listed. The first vote is on the January roll call. The second vote is on last week's roll call.
A "Yes" vote is for the tax deduction. A "No" vote is against the tax deduction.
Sen. Frederick Berry No/No
Sen. Thomas McGee No/No
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes/Yes
SEX OFFENDER LAWS (H 4811) | The Senate, voting 35-1, approved and sent to Gov. Patrick a bill imposing mandatory minimum prison sentences for six newly created crimes of rape or sexual abuse of a child. The measure is based on Jessica's Law which supporters call the national model for child sex crime laws.
The new crimes include a mandatory minimum ten-year prison sentence for a first offense of the new crime of aggravated child rape | defined as instances that include rape when a weapon is used, when a child is kidnapped, drugged or forced to appear in child pornography or when the perpetrator is in a position of authority including teachers, clergy, coaches and doctors. The proposal does not impose mandatory sentences for several categories of child sex crimes including rape of a child under 16 with force | a provision that some senators said is a key part of Jessica's Law.
Another provision allows the attorney general and district attorneys to obtain from Internet service providers through a subpoena, without a warrant, the identity of computer users who are subjects of a criminal investigation.
Supporters said that the bill would get tough with child sexual predators and impose mandatory sentences for many heinous child rape and sexual abuse crimes. They noted that the measure is a balanced one that still gives prosecutors flexibility by allowing them to enter plea agreements and lower the charge in cases in which they don't feel that they can get a conviction or in which children are afraid to testify.
Opponents said that the measure goes too far and takes discretion away from prosecutors. They argued that mandatory sentences have been a failure in the past and noted that taking discretion away from prosecutors will result in fewer convictions and in children being traumatized by testifying against the offender who, even if convicted, would not necessarily receive a mandatory sentence.
Some legislators who voted for the bill said that it was a first step but does not go far enough and is much weaker than other states' versions of Jessica's Law.
A "Yes" vote is for the bill. A "No" vote is against the bill.
Sen. Frederick Berry Didn't Vote
Sen. Thomas McGee Yes
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
PROHIBIT SEX OFFENDERS FROM DRIVING ICE CREAM TRUCKS AND SCHOOL BUSES (H 4811) | The Senate, voting 14-21, rejected an amendment prohibiting convicted sex offenders from driving an ice cream truck.
Current law allows sex offenders to drive an ice cream truck. The amendment would also have prohibited sex offenders from driving a school bus. It broadens current law that only prohibits anyone convicted of the crime of rape, unnatural act or sodomy from driving a school bus.
Amendment supporters said that sex offenders should not be allowed to work in these two fields that cater to millions of children across the state. They argued that the amendment is merely an extension of current laws that require criminal background checks and prohibit specific offenders from holding specific jobs.
Amendment opponents said that the amendment is well-intentioned, but argued that it creates a slippery slope that would result in proposals to ban sex offenders from other jobs involving children and eventually all jobs.
A "Yes" vote was for the amendment prohibiting sex offenders from driving an ice cream truck or school bus. A "No" vote was against the ban.
Sen. Frederick Berry Didn't Vote
Sen. Thomas McGee No
Sen. Bruce Tarr Yes
