Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of April 28 to May 2. There were no roll calls in the Senate last week.

All roll calls in the House were on matters relating to House passage of a $61.47 billion budget for fiscal year 2026.

House approves $61.47 billion budget (H 4000)

The House, 151-6, approved and sent to the Senate a $61.47 billion budget after three days of debate. The House version now goes to the Senate, which will approve its own version. A House-Senate conference committee will eventually craft a compromise plan that will be presented to the House and Senate for consideration and then sent to Gov. Maura Healey.

“The House’s fiscal year 2026 budget makes key investments that better support Massachusetts students and families, that increase access to affordable health care, and that provide for a safer and more reliable public transportation system — all without raising taxes,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy. “In a moment of incredible uncertainty at the federal level, our budget is proof that government can be both fiscally responsible and an agent of good, the kind of government that our residents deserve.”

“This budget builds off the successes of the last few years by prioritizing our residents,” said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, D-Boston, chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. “Whether it is greater investments into programs like housing stability, public transportation or early education, these initiatives are a reflection of our shared values.”

“The fiscal year 2026 budget is a bloated budget that is not attached to the reality of our fiscal situation, and there is a multitude of reasons I could not support it,” said Rep. Ken Sweezey, R-Hanson. “Although there are many good aspects relating to municipal funding that I was happy to see included, it does not go far enough in that realm and continues to poorly prioritize funds. With the fiscal uncertainty relative to the federal government, it is reckless to pretend that this budget should be business as usual and support a budget increase of 7% year-over-year and nearly 50% in just six years.”

“Beacon Hill has once again shown its commitment to secrecy over sound fiscal policy,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “The House tacked on $81 million in new spending over their original proposal. The last three days showed the House has no fiscal restraint. This was negotiated behind closed doors and rammed through massive, opaque consolidated amendments. … At a time when the state is facing declining tax revenues, increased outmigration and deep structural budget challenges, lawmakers should be tightening the belt, not throwing more money into a budget crafted in the shadows.”

A “Yes” vote is for the budget.

Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes

Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes

Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes

Municipal tax amnesty (H 4000)

The House, 25-132, rejected an amendment that would authorize cities and towns to conduct a municipal tax amnesty program over a two-month period, as determined by the local legislative body, any time prior to June 30, 2027. It would authorize communities to waive any or all penalties, fees, charges and accrued interest if the original overdue tax assessment were to be paid in full.

“This proposal would clear the way for the first municipal tax amnesty since 2003,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “I filed this as a flexible local option for cities and towns to generate additional revenues by giving residents an incentive to pay their overdue property and excise taxes. This amnesty program would not only help communities but also would benefit individuals who have outstanding tax liabilities so they can wipe the slate clean by settling their original debt.”

Rep. Adrian Madaro, D-East Boston, opposed the amendment, saying there is uncertainty in the budget process given recent events in Washington D.C. He said the House drafted a budget taking into account current municipal collections to develop local aid and apportionments. He noted that adopting this measure now may undermine those efforts and would require the House to reassess how much local aid will be needed to ensure municipalities have the resources they need again, at a time when it’s unclear what holes will need to be plugged at the federal level.

A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Allow detainment by ICE (H 4000)

The House, 25-131, rejected an amendment that would provide a mechanism for law enforcement and the courts to detain individuals for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the person poses a threat to public safety. It would specifically allow for the detainment of individuals for possible immigration violations for up to 12 hours upon receipt of a written request and a warrant from ICE.

“This amendment is an attempt to respond to the 2017 Commonwealth v. Lunn decision, in which the Supreme Judicial Court determined the authority to honor ICE detainer requests is not expressly permitted under current statutes,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “The amendment is a relatively modest proposal because the authorization is limited to ICE detainer requests for individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety for engaging in, or being suspected of engaging in, specific crimes such as terrorism or espionage, criminal street gang activity, sexual abuse or exploitation, human trafficking, unlawful firearm possession and drug distribution or trafficking.”

A “No” vote is against the amendment.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Right to shelter (H 4000)

The House, 27-129, rejected an amendment that would place further restrictions on the state’s right-to-shelter law by limiting participation in the emergency housing assistance program to U.S. citizens who have lived in Massachusetts for at least six months.

“Over the last two years, the state’s emergency shelter system has been plagued by cost overruns, fueled by the migrant crisis, which has led to waiting lists for services,” said Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “This amendment would help restore the original intent of the right-to-shelter law by ensuring that Massachusetts residents in need have access to emergency shelter.”

Rep. Alice Peisch, D-Wellesley, opposed the amendment and said it would unfairly restrict eligibility for the emergency shelter program to citizens of the United States and make legal residents ineligible. She argued that it also raises constitutional questions around defined length of residency. She said the state has put in a number of controls in place, and the number of people using it and seeking to use the program is now down to 4,804 families.

A “No” vote is against the amendment.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Public safety grant funding (H 4000)

The House, 28-128, rejected an amendment that would prohibit any city or town’s eligibility for public safety-related grants from being contingent upon that municipality’s compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.

The MBTA Communities Act, according to the state’s website, requires that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria,” including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than half a mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children.

“Earlier this year, the Healey administration changed the rules for the Firefighter Safety Equipment Grant program by denying grants to communities that are not in compliance with the MBTA Communities zoning law,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “Although the huge public outcry that followed led the governor to reverse course and restore this grant funding, it is important that we add language to the zoning law to ensure that this does not happen again. Tying public safety grant funding to compliance with the MBTA Communities Act is simply unacceptable, as it not only jeopardizes the public, but also the police, firefighters and other first responders who work to keep our communities safe.”

Rep. Richard Haggerty, D-Woburn, opposed the amendment and said it is not needed because the Healey administration showed its flexibility and announced that these grants are no longer at risk for noncompliant communities.

A “No” vote is against the amendment.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Require ID to vote (H 4000)

The House, 25-131, rejected an amendment that would require voters to present a valid form of identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, when voting. It also directs the Secretary of State’s Office to develop a program to make a Massachusetts photo identification card available free of charge for voting purposes.

“Establishing a voter ID requirement would help poll workers verify that an individual is properly registered to vote in Massachusetts,” said Rep. Brad Jones, R-North Reading. “This amendment would also allow individuals who do not have an ID to secure one free of charge through a new program that would be run through the Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections.”

Rep. Daniel Hunt, D-Dorchester, opposed the amendment, saying that in states that already require this, it’s often used as a tool, not a rule, and it’s used to disenfranchise voters. He noted that the Elections Law Committee has not yet held hearings on several bills that are being considered relative to voter ID, and urged members not to rush this amendment through the House but rather wait until the committee holds a public hearing on the bills.

A “No” vote is against the amendment.

Rep. Natalie Blais — No

Rep. Aaron Saunders — No

Rep. Susannah Whipps — No

Also up on Beacon HillWheelchair repairs (H 1278)

The Financial Services Committee held a hearing on a bill that would mandate a 10-business-day deadline for the completion of motorized wheelchair repairs, with a couple of exceptions.

“The bill … models a law recently passed in Connecticut,” said sponsor Rep. Jim O’Day, D-West Boylston. “This proposal requires the repair of a motorized wheelchair to be completed within 10 days, differing from a bill filed in the Senate that aims to extend warranty provisions. While I believe the House bill is easier to understand for both consumers and providers, both approaches seek to target the same issue — a consolidated market for repairs that leaves persons with disabilities and wheelchair users stranded and without options. At the end of the day, the goal is to expand consumer protection and dramatically improve life for Massachusetts residents who use wheelchairs.”

Health insurance plan transparency (S 685)

Another measure heard by the Financial Services Committee would require health insurance plans that are regulated by the state to include the following statement on members’ identification cards: “This health plan is fully insured, subject to all Massachusetts insurance laws.”

Supporters said this simple requirement would make it easier for patients to understand what rights they have and what treatments are covered under their health plans. They noted that roughly half of Massachusetts residents with employer-based health insurance are in “fully insured” plans regulated under Massachusetts law, while the other half are in “self-funded” plans that are federally regulated. They noted that the distinction is important, because fully insured plans are subject to state mandates guaranteeing access to treatment for more than a dozen medical conditions and for mental health conditions generally, while self-funded plans are not subject to these mandates.

Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee hearing

The Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee held a hearing on several pieces of legislation, including:

Automatic renewal of professional licenses (S 275): Would automatically renew professional licenses as opposed to requiring the license holder to submit an online application or wait on a renewal to be approved by a licensure board. Supporters said this would be beneficial due to more prompt renewal times for licenses, creating a more streamlined process that takes the burden off those who issue licenses as well as those who hold them.

Waive Social Security number requirement (H 451): Would standardize what forms of identification can be used by applicants when applying for occupational licenses from the Division of Occupational Licensure and the Department of Public Health. The measure would allow individuals to submit a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or another form of verified identification in place of a Social Security number.

Gas stove warning (H464): Would prohibit anyone from selling a gas stove that is produced or manufactured after Jan. 1, 2026, without a warning label affixed to the stove. The warning label would read as follows:

“Warning: Gas stoves can release nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide inside homes at levels exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for outdoor air quality. The presence of these pollutants may exacerbate pre-existing respiratory illnesses or lead to the development of asthma, especially in children. Gas stoves may also release other pollutants, including benzene and formaldehyde.”

Toxic chemicals in children’s products (H 384): Would ban toxic chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in children’s products. The bill would require the state Department of Environmental Protection to establish a list of known toxic chemicals, and require manufacturers and distributors to pay fees and submit biannual reports disclosing if these chemicals are in products they make or distribute for children under 12. After three years, the measure would ban the use of these chemicals in products for children 3 and under, children’s personal care products and anything designed to be put in a child’s mouth, such as a pacifier. The bill also allows MassDEP to restrict toxic chemicals from products for children ages 4 to 12 if scientific research shows a possible exposure risk. Safer alternatives must replace all toxic chemicals.