Brookline Needs New Representation
On November 10, 2020, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted on an amendment to increase the tax rate that investors pay on unearned income. Per progressive advocacy group Progressive Massachusetts, this bill would “tax unearned income … at a higher rate than earned income… , generating millions annually for investments in an equitable recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Representative Mike Connolly, who introduced the amendment, “This proposal would have called on the wealthiest 1% of Massachusetts households … to pay more in state taxes so we could avoid MBTA cuts and end homelessness.”
One might expect that this amendment would have no trouble finding broad support in such a thoroughly Democratic state legislature (Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers). After all, taxing the very wealthy to benefit society as a whole has been a staple of the post-FDR Democratic Party.
And yet the amendment was defeated — and it wasn’t even close. Just 30 representatives voted in favor, while a whopping 127 voted against.
Of the four state representatives who represent Brookline, only one, Nika Elugardo, voted in favor of this amendment. The other three — Tommy Vitolo, Michael Moran, and Edward Coppinger — voted against it.
Such an immoral (and frankly embarrassing) vote was not out of character for these three representatives; they vote against progressive priorities with regularity. But since next to no one pays attention to how our state representatives are representing us, they aren’t held accountable for their lackluster — or, in some cases, outright awful — voting records.
Brookline is a progressive town, so one would expect it to have progressive representation in the State House. In the 2020 Democratic primary for the MA-04 US House of Representatives seat, 63.9% of Brookline voters voted for very progressive candidates (defined here as candidates who voiced immediate support for Medicare for All); add in moderately progressive candidates (defined here as candidates who claimed Medicare for All as an eventual objective they would work towards) and that number climbs to 77.5%. In the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, more than half (54.7%) of Brookline voters voted for progressive candidates (Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren). Brookline residents have shown a clear preference for progressive representatives in government who will advocate for progressive policies. (And, relevant to the Massachusetts House’s recent vote against raising tax rates on the richest in our commonwealth, these are candidates who made raising taxes on the super-rich a cornerstone of their campaigns.)
But our representation in the Massachusetts House of Representatives doesn’t reflect that desire. Only Elugardo can claim to have a progressive voting record, with a sterling A+ rating from Progressive Massachusetts. The other three range from disappointing to downright Republican: Vitolo has a C+, Moran has a C-, and Coppinger has a D-.
They’ve earned these dismal scores with some plenty of highly questionable votes in the current legislative session. For example, all three voted against a transparency pledge (SH0 1) that would’ve made committee votes visible online. They voted against bills (H2019 2 and H2019 4) that would’ve required allowing sufficient time to read bills before they were voted on. They voted against allowing voters to register or update their registration on Election Day (H4768 181). They voted against protections for renters, such as allowing rent control and just cause eviction ordinances (H4879 231). These votes are the opposite of progressive; they paint a picture of three men who want to protect the powerful and turn their back on the common citizen. After all, what justification could there possibly be for not wanting constituents to have more visibility into their voting records? Or for requiring legislators to actually spend time reading bills before they vote? Or for opposing easier and more accessible voting? Or for siding with landlords over renters?
Things get even more grim when you look at the voting records of just Moran and Coppinger. Both have shown that they prioritize protecting the police over protecting the populace. They voted against limiting qualified immunity for police officers (H4860 222), and, most troublingly, against banning police use of tear gas (H4860 207). Tear gas, to be clear, is banned by the Geneva Convention. Its use would be considered a war crime on the field of battle, yet these men think it’s acceptable for the police to use it on US citizens.
Coppinger is the worst of all. Including the two previously mentioned bills, he has voted to obstruct attempts to improve policing in our commonwealth an incredible nine times in the 2019–2020 legislative session. Notably, he voted against a restriction on police acquisition of military equipment (H4860 225) that wasn’t even a ban — it was just a requirement that municipalities have a hearing and a vote before any military equipment acquisition by police. Such a hard-line pro-police stance (which is implicitly an anti-Black stance) seems baffling for a Democratic representative in a deep blue state; it’s an unmistakably Republican position.
So this begs the question: What’s the point of having a Democratic supermajority when the Democrats representing us are going to vote like this? Brookline is a progressive town and deserves progressive representation. Instead, we have one progressive representative and three others who range from tepidly centrist to positively Republican.
But mediocre — or legitimately awful — state representatives can easily skate by year after year because no one is paying attention. All of Brookline’s representatives ran unopposed this year in both their primaries and their general elections. Voters see one name on their ballot under “state representative,” see the word “Democratic” next to it, and fill in the bubble automatically. Most of these voters won’t think about who their state representative is until the next time they’re at the polls.
Meanwhile, these representatives whom we elect by default use those years in between elections to vote against the interests of our commonwealth’s most vulnerable citizens. Progressives may have sent them to the State House, but they don’t feel beholden to those progressive ideals because their voters aren’t holding them accountable.
That has to change.
In the short term, we can only hold their feet to the fire. All of our representatives were just voted in for new terms this November, so they’ll be representing us for the next two years. That means you need to make your voice heard, because we’re stuck with them for now. If Vitolo, Moran, or Coppinger represent your district, write and call them to let them know how you feel about their vote on this tax rate increase — a vote to protect the super-rich and turn their back on the needy. And while you’re at it, let them know how you feel about their other decidedly non-progressive votes during the 2019–2020 session.
In the long term, these men desperately need primary challengers. We can only change Massachusetts for the better if we get better representation in the State House, and it’s clear that three of Brookline’s four representatives just aren’t cutting it. Let’s start planning now to have a credible, progressive opponent for all three of them. They represent Brookline’s past; let’s find candidates who can represent our future, instead.
