4-26-2026 5:04am

Beacon Hill Roll Call

Alan Earls Editor

If you have any questions about this week's report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562.

Volume 51- Report No. 17

April 20-24, 2026

By Bob Katzen

GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 30,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday and Saturday mornings with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and influence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications.

MASSterList will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Saturday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: www.massterlist.com

THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.

BAN CONVERSION THERAPY FOR ANYONE UNDER 18 (H 140)

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 8 to 1 against a law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ children under 18 in Colorado. The court sided with a therapist who argued that the law violates the First Amendment and sent it back to a lower court for review. Conversion therapy is primarily used to try to convert gays and lesbians to be straight. LGBTQ+ groups and some mental health experts charge that the practice is scientifically unproven and unsound and can trigger depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts in these youngsters.

Massachusetts is one of several states that currently ban or restrict conversion therapy. The Supreme Court’s decision to send the case back down to the lower court to make a determination regarding the future of Colorado’s law doesn’t change the laws of the Bay State or any other state.

On March 13, 2019, the House 149-8 and then 148-8, approved a bill that prohibits psychiatrists, psychologists and other health care providers from attempting to change the sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of anyone under 18. On March 28, 2019, the Senate 34-0, approved a different version of the bill. A few days later the House and Senate agreed on a final version of the bill and approved it on a voice vote without a roll call vote. Former Gov. Charlie Baker signed that final version of the bill into law on April 8, 2019.

“I’m incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling,” said Gov. Maura Healey. “So-called conversion therapy is dangerous, discredited and has been shown to cause real harm to young people. That’s why Massachusetts banned this practice on a bipartisan basis in 2019, and it was signed into law by a Republican governor. That’s who we are as a state. We are reviewing the impact of this decision, but our commitment is unchanged. In Massachusetts, we will always stand up for LGBTQ+ young people and their families and make sure they are safe, healthy and able to be who they are.”

“[The] decision not only undermines efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth but also disregards years of scientific research showing that conversion therapy can have a devastating impact on the mental, emotional and physical health of young people,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “We are reviewing the court’s decision, and I will continue using every tool available to stand firmly against any attempt to legitimize practices that put our young people at risk.”

“I am disheartened by the Supreme Court's decision regarding Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors,” said Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Truro). “All persons, but especially young people, should not be subject to harmful treatments premised on the incorrect and outdated idea that it is possible to change anyone’s sexual or gender identity. Fortunately, the scope of the ruling is narrow and does not invalidate our law. I continue to work with my colleagues to examine the ruling for its potential impact on Massachusetts and assess whether we need to amend our statute. As ugly debates about the dignity of LGBTQ+ people swirl at the national level, I remain committed to defending marginalized youth here in Massachusetts.”

“I oppose a blanket ban on so-called conversion therapy because I am concerned that it is too broadly interpreted and in fact infringes on legitimate, patient-centered talk therapy that explores underlying issues through open dialogue and thoughtful questioning,” said Rep. Joe McKenna (R-Sutton). “Patients should have the freedom to engage in therapeutic conversations that challenge, rather than simply affirm, their perspectives when appropriate. To be sure, abusive coercion and shaming of a patient is wrong and should not be allowed. However, the other side of that coin is overly broad prohibitions that could unintentionally limit clinicians’ ability to provide genuine care based on each patient’s needs.”

“The Supreme Court made clear that counseling conversations are protected speech, and the government cannot favor one viewpoint over another,” said a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center. “We are hopeful this decision will open the door to challenging similar laws in Massachusetts and restoring the freedom of counselors to speak honestly with those they serve.”

"The vote regarding conversion therapy contained provisions regarding professional government compelled speech,” said Rep. Dave DeCoste (R-Norwell). “There was no aversive therapy conducted in Massachusetts. Anything like that would have been child abuse under the law.”

There were two roll calls on the bill in the House. Two representatives changed their votes on the second roll call.

Rep. Susannah Whipps (U-Athol) was first recorded as voting “No” and then was recorded as voting “Yes” on the second roll call. Whipps told Beacon Hill Roll Call, “During the 2019 roll call, my vote was incorrectly recorded. I immediately notified the clerk and speaker and requested a correction. A second roll call was taken to reflect my actual position, and I voted against conversion therapy. That reflects my position then and now.”

Rep. Nick Boldyga (R-Southwick) was first recorded as voting “Yes” and then was recorded as voting “No” on the second roll call. Boldyga did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to explain why he was recorded as voting differently on the two roll calls.

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill banning conversion therapy. A “No” vote is against the bill banning conversion therapy and supports allowing the therapy. There was only one roll call in the Senate while the House held two roll calls.)

Rep. Jeffrey Roy Yes/Yes Sen. Rebecca Rausch Yes Sen. Karen Spilka Yes

ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL

LEGAL AGE TO BUY TOBACCO, ALCOHOL AND OTHER ADULT-USE PRODUCTS(H 5271) – The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to a bill that would provide that any state law approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor, that establishes a minimum age for the purchase of a product or service, or for participation in an activity, supersedes and preempts any rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law of a local city or town. The law would apply to products including tobacco products, nicotine delivery systems, alcoholic beverages and gambling.

Rep. Daniel Cahill (D-Lynn), the sponsor of the bill, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him why he filed the bill and to comment on itspassage. Supporters of the bill say that some cities and towns have implemented local age restrictions on these sales that are stricter and conflict with state law. They argued that this patchwork of local laws is confusing and unfair and said the state should have the power to make these local laws null and void and ensure that any state law supersedes a local law on these sales.

Stephen Helfer, co-founder of Cambridge Citizens for Smokers' Rights, said he applauds this proposal and supports that state law supersede any hodge podge of local regulations. “Retailers with multiple locations are hurt by the zealousness of some municipalities who wish to erode adult choice,” continued Helfer. “Adults are infantilized by health zealots who think they know what everybody should do. Isn't this the state where individual liberty was born?”

Opponents of the measure say that local cities and towns should retain the right that allows them to determine the age required to purchase these products. They argued that local law should supersede any state law.

A related proposal (S 1568) heard by the Public Health Committee last July would eventually end the sale of all nicotine and tobacco products in the Bay State. The proposal does not take away the right to purchase nicotine and tobacco products from anyone who is already legally able to do so. Instead, the measure would prohibit people under 21 who are not currently old enough to legally purchase nicotine and tobacco products, to ever be lawfully able to purchase these products in Massachusetts. The legislation was shipped off to a study committee last December. Most bills that go to a study committee are rarely actually studied and are essentially defeated. It is simply a way to kill a proposal without holding a vote on the bill itself.

“Hundreds of thousands of Americans die from smoking-attributable causes each year, and smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States,” said sponsor Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) when he filed the bill. “Massachusetts prides itself on being a national and even world leader in public health, which is why I was proud to file this bill to establish a statewide Nicotine-Free Generation policy, modeled after local policies already enacted in many Massachusetts cities and towns, including every community that I represent. This bill will not take away the right to purchase nicotine and tobacco products from anyone who is already legally able to do so. Rather, this legislation will protect future generations, who are being targeted by Big Tobacco, from the harms of smoking and create a healthier world for the next generation.”

Opponents again say that local cities and towns should retain the right to determine the age required to purchase these products. They said the eventual total statewide ban goes too far.

THE AI REVOLUTION IN MASSACHUSETTS - As Massachusetts looks to both lead and regulate the AI revolution, join leading legislators and thought leaders for a timely forum on AI's challenges and opportunities, hosted by the State House News Service and MASSterList. The timely policy forum is on Thursday, May 7, from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. at the MCLE Conference Center (Downtown Crossing), 10 Winter Place, Boston. Register at: https://events.humanitix.com/massai

PROTECTING VULNERABLE ADULTS FROM FINANCIAL EXPOLITATION (H 5300) – The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to a bill that would create a law to address the financial exploitation of persons with disabilities and adults 60 years of age or older.

The bill defines “financial exploitation” as: “the wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding, or use of money, assets or property of an eligible adult.

“In a state like Massachusetts, where our aging population is growing rapidly, safeguarding vulnerable adults isn’t optional, it’s a responsibility,” said sponsor Rep. Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham). “This bill strikes the right balance between protection, privacy and professional judgment.”

MUNICIPAL LIGHT PLANTS (H 2566) - Municipal light plants, which are local publicly-owned utilities, are trying to run broadband Internet in their communities. To do that, they need to attach fiber optic cables, or Internet lines, to existing utility poles, which are usually owned by private utility companies like electric or telecom companies. Instead of building new expensive poles, the municipal light plant rents space on these existing poles and pays the utility company a fee that is set by the state.

A bill, given initial approval by the House, on a voice vote without a roll call, would prohibit utility companies from compelling municipal light plants to incur unreasonable direct or indirect costs, such as requiring them to produce a surety bond (a type of financial guarantee), that exceeds the fees previously established by the state.

Supporters said the bill, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Saunders (D-Belchertown), would prohibit utility companies from charging light plants a costly and unnecessary fee, beyond the fee for the rental of the space on the poles, that utilities are currently allowed to impose on small municipal broadband providers. The surety bonds that utility companies require municipal light plants to carry are unnecessary and noted the bond functions less as a real safeguard and more as an added expense that ultimately drives up costs for customers.

RAISE AGE AT WHICH A PERSON CAN BECOME A POLICE OFFICER (H 4093 and H 3929) – The House, on a voice vote without a roll call, gave initial approval to two bills that would raise the age at which a person can become a police officer.

The first measure, approved as a home rule petition in Boston and sponsored by Rep. Adrian Madaro (D-East Boston) would increase from 40 to 45 the current maximum age requirement for those seeking to enter the Boston Police Academy. Madaro said the current limit of age 40 excludes many capable Boston residents during an ongoing officer shortage in several Boston neighborhoods. He argued that raising the maximum age to 45 would expand the pool of eligible applicants, strengthen community representation and support the timely recruitment of experienced individuals to meet the city's public safety needs.

The second measure would increase from 32 to 39 the maximum age of eligibility to be certified for original appointment as a police officer in Worcester. “Making sure the city of Worcester has the resources and manpower to keep its residents safe is one of my top priorities in the Legislature,” said sponsor Sen. Michael Moore (D-Millbury). “By increasing the age of eligibility for the Worcester Police Department, we’d be expanding the pool of qualified and capable candidates to do these tough jobs."

QUOTABLE QUOTES

“Our various faith traditions have much in common, the most basic of which is their mandate to welcome the stranger and to do right by those least among us. Having heard and seen the horrors brought forth by ICE, CoreCivic and GEO Group this past year alone, we cannot stand by and allow our dollars to be used to dehumanize and in some cases kill our neighbors.”

--- Rev. Ray Hammond, spokesperson for Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, criticizing Citizens Bank for financing CoreCivic and GEO Group, two private prison companies responsible for managing ICE detention centers nationwide.

“These awards are about trusting communities to lead and giving them the resources to get results. Across Massachusetts, Community Development Corporations and support organizations are building housing, strengthening families and expanding opportunity block by block.”

--- Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Juana Matias announcing $12.8 million in Community Investment Tax Credits to 52 Community Development Corporations and Support Organizations across Massachusetts. These awards will support local nonprofit organizations as they advance affordable housing development and preservation, strengthen neighborhood-based programs and expand economic opportunity in communities across the state.

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs have increased costs for every Massachusetts business and resident. It’s important that refunds are now available, and I encourage eligible businesses to apply.”

--- Gov. Healey encouraging Massachusetts businesses to apply for refunds from the federal government if they were charged for President Trump’s illegal tariffs. The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs earlier this year.

“This ruling is a decisive rejection of the federal government’s attempt to intimidate providers and deny young people access to medically necessary, life-saving care. The harm from these threats is already being felt, including here in Massachusetts where some providers have scaled back or declined to offer care out of fear of federal retaliation."

---Attorney General Andrea Campbell on Massachusetts and a coalition of 21 other states securing a federal court order blocking an unlawful attempt by the Trump Administration to threaten healthcare providers that provide care for youth with gender dysphoria.

HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK’S SESSION?

Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature’s job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts.

Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session.

During the week of April 20-24, the House met for a total of 30 minutes and the Senate met for a total of 45 minutes,

Mon. April 20 No House session.

No Senate session.

Tues. April 21 House 11:00 a.m. to 11:21 a.m.

Senate 11:07 a.m. to 11:27 a.m.

Wed. April 22 No House session.

No Senate session.

Thurs. April 23 House 11:00 a.m. to 11:09 a.m.

Senate 11:19 a.m. to 11:44 a.m.

Fri. April 24 No House session.

No Senate session.

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com