It's nearly July 31, traditionally the frantic finish line for the Massachusetts Legislature. But new rules this year mean the formal lawmaking session deadline has been pushed out longer than what it used to be. Reporter Sam Drysdale at the State House News Services explains what lawmakers can actually keep pushing through after Friday and what's officially dead on the vine.
Sam Drysdale, SHNS: You know, without getting too into the weeds of these new rules, anything that has passed both branches, the House and the Senate, and is officially in negotiations by July 31st, can stay in play throughout the summer and into election season and through the official end of session into December. And that's a change from the way that things previously worked.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: So, what are the bills that remain active right now?
Yeah, they include a high priority energy cost containment bill, which Governor Maura Healey, who is running for reelection this fall, would really like to see on her desk and signed before her reelection. She's running on an affordability platform.
There's some other large bills in play as well. There's an environmental protection bill, economic development, protecting health care workers from violence, shoring up data privacy, and regulating social media.
Some ideas that only passed one branch, which, you know, there's still a few more days before Friday, and they could still cross that finish line (but it seems like they're not going to get over the line) those include: primary care reform, a bill to support local farms and expand agritourism, and legislation to regulate AI and campaign ads.
Before the World Cup, passing new immigrant protections was a major priority on Beacon Hill, or it seemed that way. But the Protect Act has been stalled in negotiations. Uh, now that lawmakers have less sporting distraction, is there any real drive left to get it passed?
Yeah, I would say that it definitely is still in play. Both branches have done their own versions of that bill, but there's some big differences there, so they have to work out a compromise.
Advocates have been pushing really hard for that. There was a push to get it over the finish line before the World Cup to help protect people coming here from around the world. But the real driver behind the bill has been and continues to be the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) sweeps that we're seeing somewhat intermittently from the Trump administration. So, I think that there's still a political will there for sure.
Circling back, a generally empty August calendar for lawmakers, elections loom. School starts up soon. How active do you expect Beacon Hill to be over the next couple of months? And what are the next actual legislative deadlines that we should be watching for?
Yeah, we're going into the summer with most of the legislation that lawmakers have been discussing all session still incomplete. I'd anticipate still an August lull that is traditional, but then for things to pick back up in September.
They'll return to the negotiating table. They'll return to the campaign trail. Of course, there's September 1st primaries, but most lawmakers don't face primary challenges.
So, you know, they'll really pick things back up in September, get back to those laws that they've left on the table.
You mentioned AI. Let's move on to tech. OpenAI and Anthropic are locking horns over what they want to see in a Massachusetts artificial intelligence bill. They're split on whether the Commonwealth should just copy the rules in places like California and Illinois, or write the toughest safety standards in the country. So where exactly are these two tech giants diverging?
Sure. Anthropic, which owns Claude, is pushing to ratchet up safety standards on the state level with AI legislation that pushes aggressive mandates, while OpenAI, which owns ChatGPT, is pursuing what they call 'reverse federalism' to align all states with more limited regulations and allow for more uniform federal rules. So they're kind of, like you said, locking heads about this.
Anthropic says that it's looking out for its consumers, but OpenAI is saying that it's really just trying to push out the competition with a patchwork of rules and heavily regulated system. Anthropic was in town last week advocating for stronger protection policies in the economic development bill that the Senate debated last week.
Privacy advocates and civil rights groups like the ACLU of Massachusetts say AI can be used to discriminate against job applicants and snoop on workers, and they are resolute guard rail advocates. And then there's local business leaders like Rick Sullivan, of the Western Massachusetts Economic Development Council, and Diana Szynal at the Springfield Chamber, who warn that overly strict rules could chill tech growth here in the Pioneer Valley. Is Beacon Hill listening to the regional pushback, or are they only paying attention to Boston Tech lobbyists?
It's a good question. I don't think it's just Boston driving this debate. AI companies have been very active on Beacon Hill, but legislators are also hearing from chambers of commerce and regional economic development groups around the state.
At the same time, public opinion appears to favor stronger safeguards. A new MassINC poll released last week found about three quarters of Massachusetts voters support the AI safety proposals, so, I think that they're hearing pressure from all sides related to balancing safety and innovation.
