Beacon Hill is bracing for a high stakes showdown this week as the Protect Act hits a public forum. The bill would block local police from helping the feds with immigration enforcement, a move that could put Massachusetts directly in the crosshairs of a Trump administration crackdown. Reporter Alison Kuznitz of the State House News Service explains what Massachusetts lawmakers are signaling ahead of this public forum and if they’re in the mood for a war with Washington over the Protect Act.
Alison Kuznitz, SHNS: Lawmakers are being very careful with how they handle immigration policy on Beacon Hill. The new service and master list held a forum last week, and Senate President Karen Spilka said regulators and policy makers are really trying to work within the bounds of the law, within the bounds of the Constitution, to figure out how the state can intervene and provide some support to immigrant communities.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: So with President Trump freezing federal funds to sanctuary states, can Beacon Hill gamble on court stays or risk key health care and nutrition programs?
I think we've seen the attorney general time and time again file lawsuits, join multi-state coalition lawsuits, and actually successfully win or at least get temporary restraining orders.
I think there's also an economic imperative for Beacon Hill lawmakers to do something, because we're hearing time and time again that immigrants in Massachusetts, they're not able to participate in everyday living. They're scared to go to work, to go to school, to go to the doctor's appointment. So it's really creating a massive issue for our immigrant population.
The special legislative committee reviewing 11 potential November ballot initiatives will begin with hearings on issues affecting lawmakers this week. One proposed ballot question would reform and regulate legislative stipends. You're someone who knows this process inside and out. How much power does the legislature really have to shape or stall this before it ever reaches the ballot? And what's the appetite on Beacon Hill for letting voters weigh in?
Last election cycle, we did not see legislative leaders weigh in and tweak the initiative petitions, but this is within their purview. They have until May to actually take action on it. So they could vote on this, or they could somehow modify it.
And I think it's very telling that there are so many ballot questions that could appear in November. But Beacon Hill lawmakers are tackling the types of questions that directly impact them first. So they're giving themselves the biggest headway to figure out what to do with these questions.
Sticking with transparency here, last week, House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka doubled down on their refusal to comply with Auditor Diana DiZoglio push for a legislative audit. You know, they framed that resistance around existing transparency measures rather than constitutional concerns. Two years ago, voters approved that audit. That has yet to happen. So what hurdles legal procedural political remain and still complicate disclose gaining access to the legislature's records.
So, top Beacon Hill Democrats have admitted now that they really don't trust Auditor DiZoglio and what she's after. Senate president and House Speaker Ron Mariano have also said that their branches have worked on transparency reform. So they're kind of saying that they've done the work that the auditor could be doing.
There's also a number of lawsuits at play as well. So auditor DiZoglio recently sued top lawmakers in order to effectuate that voter law. And then we saw the attorney general intervene and say, you can't actually do this. And I'm the gatekeeper of intergovernmental branch disputes. And then in the past week, we again saw DiZoglio filing a counter motion. So, the activity in court on this matter is really ramping up.
