Beacon Hill Roll Call: Legislature passes $63.4B state budget

THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call reports local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of June 29-July 3.

$63.4 BILLION FISCAL 2027 STATE BUDGET (H 5555) — The House, 142-6, and Senate, 39-1, approved and sent to Gov. Maura Healey a $63.4 billion fiscal 2027 conference committee version of a state budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, 2026. The House and Senate had approved different versions of the budget and a conference committee hammered out this compromise version. The price tag is 4 percent higher than last year’s package.

“Our budget is a chance each year to make life more affordable for residents while strengthening the public services we all rely on, including our schools and transit systems — and the Senate delivered for fiscal year 2027,” said Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. “As a longtime advocate for expanded public education from cradle to career, I am especially proud of our commitment to reexamining how we address K-12 costs at the very moment we fulfill the promise of the Student Opportunity Act. Overall, this final budget protects our residents, grows opportunities, supports our municipalities and cuts costs for individuals and families.”

“As a result of the Trump Administration’s sweeping federal funding cuts, reckless trade policies and war with Iran, this budget has come during a period of significant economic uncertainty,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy. “That’s why I’m incredibly proud of the investments that this budget makes despite those challenges, from funding for free school meals and for the final year of the Student Opportunity Act, to robust support for the MBTA, to nearly $10 billion for cities and towns across the commonwealth — all without raising taxes.”

“Grounded in fiscal responsibility, the fiscal year 2027 budget leads with a steady hand and delivers a spending plan that does not raise any taxes or fees on residents and businesses of the commonwealth, while making major investments in education and local aid, emphasizing our continuing commitment to supporting all 351 cities and towns,” said Sen. Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport, chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.

Not everyone agreed.

“At a time when Massachusetts families and small businesses are pleading for affordability and meaningful tax relief, this budget delivers virtually neither,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman, R-Sutton. “Instead, it continues the commonwealth’s perpetuated pattern of unsustainable spending growth while failing to prioritize the core services that residents rely on every day. Our focus should be on strengthening local communities, supporting municipal services, improving public safety and providing relief to hardworking taxpayers — not funding special interest initiatives such as legal defense funds for individuals who are unlawfully present in our state. Massachusetts can and must do better. We should be delivering a budget that reflects fiscal responsibility, affordability and the priorities of the people we were elected to serve. For those reasons, I was compelled to vote No.”

“Legislative leaders will point to a smaller rate of spending growth as evidence of fiscal restraint, but the underlying budget tells a different story,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “Rather than confronting structural spending problems, this budget depends on one-time funding sources and accounting shifts while continuing to expand programs that will place increasing pressure on taxpayers in the years ahead. Massachusetts has benefited for years from generous federal funding while failing to improve oversight and accountability. As those federal dollars become less certain, taxpayers could be left paying the price for years of poor fiscal management.”

“The State Legislature did it again — they passed a budget that prioritizes illegals over middle-class taxpayers, failed to do anything about the cost of living and neglected to provide any tax relief,” said Rep. John Gaskey, R-Carver. ”That’s why I unapologetically voted No on this boondoggle.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the budget. A “No” vote is against it.)

Voting yes: Rep. James Arciero, Rep. Simon Cataldo, Rep. Rodney Elliott, Rep. Kimberly Ferguson, Rep. Colleen Garry, Rep. Kenneth Gordon, Rep. Natalie Higgins, Rep. Tara Hong, Rep. Meghan Kilcoyne, Rep. Michael Kushmerek, Rep. Tram  Nguyen, Rep. David Robertson, Rep. Margaret Scarsdale, Rep. Dan Sena, Sen. Michael Barrett,  Sen. John Cronin,  Sen. James Eldridge, Sen. Barry Finegold, Sen. Cindy Friedman, Sen. Vanna Howard, Sen. Bruce Tarr.

TOXIC MEDICAL DEVICES (H 5550) — The House, 139-0, approved a bill that would ban the use of DEHP, a toxic chemical which is commonly added to plastic intravenous bags and tubing and linked to breast, liver, lung and testicular cancer. Many IV bags currently contain DEHP, which is added to improve the plastic’s flexibility but can pose serious health dangers to patients. The measure also prevents manufacturers from replacing DEHP with similar ortho-phthalates and encourages the transition to safer alternatives while preserving limited exemptions for specialized blood collection and cell therapy products.

The Senate has approved its own version of the measure, and the House version now goes to the Senate for consideration.

“An Act relative to toxic-free medical devices is a straightforward bill that aims to protect patients — especially infants, children, pregnant women and those with cancer from being unnecessarily exposed to harmful chemicals,” said House sponsor Rep. Jim O’Day, D-West Boylston. “Long-term exposure to DEHP in medical instruments like IV bags and tubing has long raised concerns in the medical community, particularly when safer alternatives are available … Our state has never waited for others to set the standard on patient safety.”

(A “Yes” vote us for the bill.)

Voting yes: Rep. James Arciero, Rep. Simon Cataldo, Rep. Rodney Elliott, Rep. Kimberly Ferguson, Rep. Colleen Garry, Rep. Kenneth Gordon, Rep. Natalie Higgins, Rep. Tara Hong, Rep. Meghan Kilcoyne, Rep. Michael Kushmerek, Rep. Marc Lombardo, Rep. Tram  Nguyen, Rep. David Robertson, Rep. Margaret Scarsdale, Rep. Dan Sena.

REQUIRE MORE DISCLOSURES BY BALLOT QUESTION GROUPS (H 5549) — The House, 149-0, approved a bill requiring more frequent public reporting of fundraising and spending by groups supporting or opposing ballot questions. Under the bill, ballot question committees would be required to provide monthly reports on their finances. After September of that year, campaigns would have to file biweekly reports until Election Day. The bill would hold ballot question campaigns to the same standard of disclosure already followed by candidates for office. Currently, ballot committees don’t have to report on their finances between Jan. 20 and September.

The bill also establishes a thirteen-member special legislative commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the statewide initiative petition process and to submit recommendations, including proposed constitutional amendments where appropriate, by Dec. 31, 2027.

The Senate has approved its own version of the measure, and the House version now goes to the Senate for consideration.

“This Act will bring ballot question committees and their campaign reporting requirements in line with the reporting schedule that we, as duly elected representatives of the people, adhere to,” said Rep. Dan Ryan, D-Boston, primary House sponsor of the bill. “These requirements allow voters to see who is influencing the messages they are hearing leading up to Election Day.”

“Massachusetts voters deserve to know who is behind the campaigns asking for their vote,” said Rep. Daniel Hunt, D-Boston, House chair of the Committee on Election Laws. “This legislation ensures voters have access to timely, meaningful information before they head to the polls, helping cut through the confusion that can surround statewide ballot question campaigns. By modernizing reporting requirements, increasing transparency, strengthening accountability and making campaign finance information easier to access, we are giving voters the tools they need to make informed decisions and greater confidence in the integrity of our elections.”

(A Yes” vote is for the bill.)

Voting yes: Rep. James Arciero, Rep. Simon Cataldo, Rep. Rodney Elliott,  Rep. Kimberly Ferguson, Rep. Colleen Garry, Rep. Kenneth Gordon, Rep. Natalie Higgins, Rep. Tara Hong, Rep. Meghan Kilcoyn, Rep. Michael Kushmerek, Rep. Tram  Nguyen, Rep. David Robertson, Rep. Margaret Scarsdale, Rep. Dan Sena.

ILLUMINATING PUBLIC SPACES (S 3145) — The Senate, 39-0, approved and sent to the House a bill that supporters say would improve how public spaces are illuminated and would help protect public health and safety; reduce energy consumption; safeguard wildlife and ecosystems; and lower long-term costs for municipalities.

Provisions include requiring all new and replacement publicly funded outdoor lighting fixtures to meet industry standards and best practices for reducing light pollution and minimizing glare; directing the Department of Energy Resources to establish regulations governing the brightness, shielding and design of public outdoor lighting; establishing a cheaper electric rate for low-wattage street lamps which would help cities and towns trim their electric costs if they use the low-wattage lights; cutting down on extra light poles to ensure the number of streetlamps along a roadway matches the level needed for traffic and pedestrian safety; and exempting light fixtures related to safety or security needs, including lights related to aviation and nautical safety, and temporary emergency, repair and construction lighting.

“Light pollution poses real challenges for public health, public safety and environmental protection,” said sponsor Senate Majority Leader Cindy Creem, D-Newton. “It can disrupt sleep, create dangerous glare for drivers and pedestrians, waste energy and interfere with wildlife and natural ecosystems. [The bill] is a commonsense measure that will help municipalities save money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public lighting by prioritizing warmer, properly shielded fixtures.”

“This legislation strikes a vital balance of reducing unnecessary light pollution, conserving energy, and protecting both wildlife and the night sky,” said Spilka. “By introducing a lower electric rate for streetlights, mandating fully shielded fixtures and setting a warmer color temperature, we’re helping cities and towns cut costs while improving public safety and environmental health.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill.)

Voting yes: Sen. Michael Barrett, Sen. John Cronin, Sen. James Eldridge, Sen. Barry Finegold, Sen. Cindy Friedman, Sen. Vanna Howard, Sen. Bruce Tarr.

ENERGY COSTS (S 3143) — The Senate, 32-8, approved legislation that supporters said would save people money; repair the climate; grow the economy; tackle rising energy costs head-on by cutting unnecessary fees; even out price spikes that hit households during high-demand months; crack down on predatory sales practices by energy suppliers and steer the state away from expensive infrastructure projects that don’t deliver value for ratepayers.

“The cost of energy in Massachusetts has placed a real strain on family budgets,” said Spilka. “This legislation reflects the Senate’s commitment to addressing that strain in a serious and sustained way while continuing our deeply held commitment to lead on our climate goals.”

“With the passage of this comprehensive energy affordability bill, the Senate acted decisively today, laying the foundation for affordable and renewable energy for generations to come,” said Sen. Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport, chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee. “Homeowners, renters and small businesses across my district consistently cite expensive energy costs as one of the single biggest issues they face, and this legislation levels the playing field and provides a pathway to a more affordable future for consumers of the commonwealth. This bill will drive down monthly utility bills and flatten out sudden price spikes, and our proposal will lead to long-term savings that will be felt by residents across the commonwealth.”

“Baystaters want to power their lives without polluting our air and water, harming our health, changing our climate or emptying our wallet,” said MASSPIRG’s Legislative Director Deirdre Cummings. “This bill will help them do that. By removing costly and cumbersome red tape, this bill makes it easier and quicker for residents to go solar.”

“The systems run by the gas and electric companies are sprawling and complicated,” said Sen. Mike Barrett, D-Lexington, Senate chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. “The Senate sees no greedy masterminds behind the scenes, but we do identify pockets of overspending and overcharging that have accumulated over the years. My colleagues and I want to go after the excesses and save people some serious money.”

Not everyone was on board with the bill.

“This Massachusetts Senate bill asks families and businesses to pay more money for a less reliable electric grid,” said Sen. Fattman. “It would dramatically expand offshore wind mandates while shifting the financial risk from developers to ratepayers. The proposal could cost an estimated $20 billion, leading to even higher electric bills at a time when Massachusetts is already one of the most expensive states in the country in which to live and do business. Energy affordability and reliability must be the objective — not increasing costs for hardworking families. My goal is to make Massachusetts more affordable, not less, and this proposal misses the mark.”

“Tonight’s vote is a profound disappointment for the hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts consumers who exercise their right to choose who supplies their electricity,” said Chris Ercoli, president of the Retail Energy Advancement League. “Rather than standing with their constituents, members of the Senate voted today to cede control of the Legislature to local government over a decision that belongs to consumers.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.)

Voting yes: Sen. Michael Barrett, Sen. John Cronin, Sen. James Eldridge, Sen. Barry Finegold, Sen. Cindy Friedman, Sen. Vanna Howard. Voting no: Sen. Bruce Tarr.

ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL

CHANGE “HEARING IMPAIRED” TO “DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING” (S 3142) — The House gave initial approval to a measure, already approved by the Senate on June 23, that would strike outdated language from state laws that refer to people who are deaf or hard of hearing as being “hearing impaired.” The legislation replaces the term “hearing impaired” with the phrase “deaf or hard of hearing.”

The Senate bill was sponsored by Sen. Cindy Creem, D-Newton. “Words shape how we see one another, and our laws are no exception,” said Creem when the Senate first approved the measure on June 23.  “This bill takes a simple but important step toward ensuring that the words we use reflect respect, accuracy and the preferences of the communities they describe. I’m proud the Senate is taking decisive action to help modernize our statutes and affirm the dignity of deaf and hard of hearing individuals across Massachusetts, and I’m grateful to the students of Newton’s CAPS Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program for bringing this issue to my attention.”

“Members of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community have been advocating for this change for years, and they made a compelling case that the language currently found in our laws no longer reflects the people it is meant to describe,” said Sen. Nick Collins, D-South Boston.

BAN MEDICAL DEBT FROM BEING REPORTED TO CONSUMER CREDIT AGENCIES — A proposed regulation filed by Gov. Healey and the Department of Public Health would prohibit licensed health care providers and debt collectors working on their behalf from reporting medical debt to credit bureaus. Supporters said this will help protect patients from long-term financial harm after an unexpected illness or medical emergency.

“Getting sick is hard enough.” said Healey. “It shouldn’t ruin your credit. No one should have to worry that seeing a doctor, filling a prescription or taking their child to the emergency room will damage their financial future. Medical debt shouldn’t make it harder to buy a home, rent an apartment or get a loan years after you’ve recovered and when you’re working hard to make your payments. This action will help protect patients while we continue our work to lower health care costs and ensure all Massachusetts residents can afford to get the care they need when they need it.”

“Today’s action by the governor is a much needed first step in preventing disastrous debt spirals,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kiame Mahaniah. “Families in Massachusetts should be able to access the health care they need free from the worry that their credit could be ruined.”

The Department is now accepting written public comments on the proposed regulations and will hold public hearings on July 27 and 28 before finalizing the rules.

For more information or to sign up to testify remotely and/or with written testimony, go to: https://tinyurl.com/5pfzvxem.

MAKE IT EASIER TO CANCEL SUBSCRIPTIONS — A proposed law that would require companies to make it easier to cancel subscriptions was included in Gov. Healey’s version and the Senate’s version of the fiscal 2027 state budget, but the House did not include it in their version. The conference committee that hammered out a compromise version of the budget chose not to include the requirement in its version which was approved by the House and Senate and sent to Gov. Healey. The proposed law would have required that methods of canceling a subscription are as simple as the methods of signing up for that one. The idea has gathered support as many entertainment options shift into monthly subscription models, leaving individuals to manage a portfolio of differing payment cycles.

House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz, D-Boston, who led budget talks on the part of the House, said that the proposal still needs some work but added that he’s sure the issue will resurface, possibly very soon. “From the House side, I don’t think it’s that we were averse to the discussions” he said. “I think it was just more about the mechanics, how to make it actually be meaningful and work, and I don’t think, from our end, we were there yet.”

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at [email protected].