Erika Uyterhoeven

Visited a Department of Correction prison or County jail this legislative session. (This will be updated on an ongoing basis)

Progressive Position: YES

Vote was on requiring one week of advance notice for any legislative hearing (as the MA Senate has endorsed), as opposed to the narrow existing 72 hour notice rule.

Progressive Position: YES

Vote was on eliminating the language from the House's tax package to reform Chapter 62F (the “tax cap law”) so that all taxpayers would get equal rebates, as opposed to larger rebates going to more affluent taxpayers.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on striking a proposed lift of the cap on the rainy day fund. Reaching the cap on the rainy day fund would trigger automatic regressive tax cuts.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on the House’s regressive tax reform package, which contained $440 million in tax cuts for the commonwealth's richest estates, residents, and corporations—undermining the new revenue produced by the Fair Share Amendment.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on eliminating language that would guarantee that constitutionally protected revenue from the Fair Share Amendment could not be diverted to regressive tax cuts via the 62F tax cap law.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on a $1 billion tax cut package disproportionately benefiting the Commonwealth’s richest residents, corporations, and estates.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on requiring employers with 25+ employees to disclose the salary or wage range for a position in all job postings, provide the salary range to employees offered promotions and transfers, and provide the pay range to employees for their current roles if requested. It would also require covered employers to supply wage and demographic information to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development.

Progressive Position: YES

Vote was on upholding the ruling of the chair that debate on the House's gun safety bill could begin despite the fact that it did not include a fiscal note detailing the cost of the proposal.

Progressive Position: YES

Vote was on expanding the use of pretrial detention despite severe and well-documented racial disparities in its use in Massachusetts.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on a comprehensive strengthening of MA’s gun safety laws, including a more robust assault weapons ban; measures to crack down on ghost guns; prohibitions on firearms in government buildings, polling places, and educational institutions; and more comprehensive data collection.

Progressive Position: YES

Vote was on guaranteeing free access to phone calls to incarcerated individuals, ending the predatory practice of price gouging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones to stay connected.

Progressive Position: YES

Vote was on excluding arriving families from access to emergency housing assistance funding.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on banning new residents of the commonwealth from access to emergency shelter.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on a right-wing messaging amendment to create a false narrative that programs focused on helping new arrivals to obtain employment are harming low-income individuals.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on defunding the dedicated account for the implementation of No Cost Calls (i.e., free access to phone calls for incarcerated individuals).

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on the first of a series of three right-wing budget amendments to prevent migrant and refugee families from accessing emergency shelter and to push false, xenophobic narratives.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on the second of a series of three right-wing budget amendments to prevent migrant and refugee families from accessing emergency shelter and to push false, xenophobic narratives.

Progressive Position: NO

Vote was on the third of a series of three right-wing budget amendments to prevent migrant and refugee families from accessing emergency shelter and to push false, xenophobic narratives.

Progressive Position: NO