State House Spotlight: Money matters
BOSTON (WWLP) – Early in the week, private attorneys who defend the poor–known as bar advocates–announced at the State House that they will no longer be taking on new cases until their pay is raised to match what attorney's make in neighboring states.
'The right to counsel, which is in the US constitution and the Massachusetts declaration of rights will only be words,' said Lowell-based attorney Sean Delaney.
Meanwhile, Governor Healey announced that her administration will be cutting down on regulations to make it easier to own and operate a profitable business in the Bay State.
'Just getting their way through the red tape is something that really takes the owner of that small business' eye off the ball of serving their customers,' said President and CEO of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts Jon Hurst.
These business regulations come as Massachusetts leaders are voicing their rising fears about federal policy changes.
As Trump's 'big beautiful bill' passed the House and moved on to the Senate, the Governor joined Congress people to sound the alarm.
'These guys are actually out there making history by taking away from hardworking families, from people down on their luck, from seniors, from little babies,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Movement from the Senate on the 'big beautiful bill' is expected by July 4th.
Back on Beacon Hill, the House and Senate will be busy working on their combined version of the state budget, at least until the end of June.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Warnock dodges question on whether Biden should've dropped out in 2024: ‘It's over'
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) sidestepped a question on whether former President Biden should have dropped out of the 2024 presidential race sooner, saying in a Sunday interview that the election is 'over.' 'Kristen, here is what we absolutely know about last year's election: It's over. And I'm going to spend all of my energy focused on the task in front of us,' he told NBC News's Kristen Welker on 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, before railing against the GOP tax and spending bill, which the Senate is poised to take up this week. 'We are headed into a very critical week,' the senator continued. 'The Republicans are trying to push forward this big ugly bill that's going to literally cut as many as 7 million Americans off of their health care. It is a drag not only on their health care, it is a drag on the American economy.' 'This is an unfunded mandate at a time when Donald Trump's tariff tax is literally raising the cost of groceries. And so I've got my sleeves rolled up and in front of me is the American people, the people of Georgia. I'm doing everything I can to save them from Trump's big ugly bill,' he added. Warnock's comments come in response to Welker's question about a quote from David Plouffe, a senior campaign adviser to former Vice President Harris, reported in the recent book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson. 'If Biden had decided in 2023 to drop out, we would have had a robust primary. Whitmer, Pritzker, Newsom, Buttigieg, Harris, and Klobuchar would have run. Warnock and Shapiro would have kicked the tires. Maybe Mark Cuban or a businessperson of some sort. Twenty percent of governors and 30 percent of senators would have thought about it. We would have been eminently stronger,' Plouffe said in the quote, which Welker read to Warnock in the interview. After Warnock gave his response, Welker noted that she 'didn't hear a direct answer to the question there,' but tried to move on. Warnock interrupted the anchor and again focused on the GOP legislative package that passed the House late last month. 'Well, I take very seriously my job. The people of Georgia hired me to stand up for them. And this really is a critical week,' Warnock said, continued to talk about the bill. The interview comes as high-profile Democrats have been asked to reckon with new reporting alleging Biden's mental and physical decline in the final couple of years of his term was more severe than what had previously been disclosed to the American public.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
With Harris on the sideline, top Democratic candidates for California governor woo party loyalists
California's most loyal Democrats got a good look this weekend at the wide field of gubernatorial candidates jockeying to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom at the state Democratic Party's annual convention in Anaheim, with a few chiding former vice president and potential rival Kamala Harris. The Democrats running for governor in 2026 hurried among caucus meetings, floor speeches and after-parties, telling their personal stories and talking up their bona fides for tackling some of California's most entrenched problems, including housing affordability and the rising cost of living. All the hand-shaking and selfies were done in the absence of Harris, who would be the most prominent candidate in the race, and who has not said whether she'll run for governor in 2026 or seek the White House again in 2028. The most visible candidates at the convention were former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and former state Controller Betty Yee, with former Rep. Katie Porter, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa taking less prominent roles. With the primary still a year away, the gubernatorial race is still in limbo. Two prominent Republicans are also in the race: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. Many Democratic activists, donors and elected officials said they were waiting to make up their minds until Harris makes up hers, because her entry into the governor's race could push some candidates off the ballot or into other statewide races. 'People are kind of waiting to see what she's going to do,' said Matt Savage, a delegate from San Jose, as attendees ate chia seed pudding and breakfast burritos at a breakfast hosted by Yee. 'She needs to decide soon.' Yee told the crowd: 'Regardless of who gets in the race, we're staying in.' Surrounded by canvassers who chanted his name as he talked, Cloobeck, a political newcomer, scolded Harris for not coming to the gathering of Democrats after her loss to President Trump in the November presidential election. 'If she decides to get in this race, shame on her for not showing up for the most important people in the party, which is the people who are here today,' Cloobeck said. 'And if she doesn't have the IQ to show up, she's tone deaf once again.' In a three-minute recorded video, Harris told Democrats that with Republicans working to cut taxes for the rich and dismantle efforts to fight climate change, 'things are probably going to get worse before they get better.' 'But that is not reason to throw up our hands,' Harris said. 'It's a reason to roll up our sleeves.' Polling shows that if Harris were to run for governor, she would have a major advantage: A November survey from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that about 72% of Democrats would be very likely or somewhat likely to consider voting for her. Cloobeck said his campaign had spent 'probably a couple hundred thousand dollars' on the canvassers, who wore royal blue shirts emblazoned with his name and distributed glossy invitations to a comedy night with 'Roastmaster General' comedian Jeff Ross. One canvasser said he was paid $25 an hour and found the job on Craigslist. At the party's LGBTQ caucus meeting, Atkins, the only well-known gay candidate in the race, told the cheering crowd that she dreamed of making California work for others the way it had worked for her. Atkins, 62, was raised in southwest Virginia by a coal miner and a garment worker and moved to San Diego in her 20s. 'California has given me every opportunity,' Atkins said. 'I want that promise to be true for everyone.' At the Latino caucus, Villaraigosa said that the Democratic Party needs to focus on the affordability crisis facing working-class Californians, many of whom are Latinos, by tackling high gas prices, home prices, utility costs and other day-to-day cost of living challenges. Villaraigosa, 72, has been out of elected office for more than a decade. He last ran for for governor in 2018, placing a distant third in the primary behind Newsom and Republican businessman John Cox. He noted that he also lost the 2001 mayor's race before winning in 2005. 'Sometimes it takes two times,' Villaraigosa said to the caucus. 'We're ready, we're not invisible. We're going to stand up for working people and our communities.' Thurmond told the crowd during the party's general session on Friday afternoon that education is 'the centerpiece of our democracy.' It brought his grandparents to the U.S. and saved his life after his mother died when he was 6, he said. 'We must continue to be the resistance against Donald Trump's misguided policies,' he said. 'We will ensure that every student in this state has access to good quality education. And while we're at it, we will not allow for ICE to be on any of our school campuses.' Four candidates made brief appearances before the party's powerful organized labor caucus, trying to make the case that they would be the best choice for the state's more than 2.4 million union members. In a 45-second speech, Cloobeck told the union members that he used union labor in his hotel development projects and promised that if he were elected, he would support workers getting 'full pay, full wages' if they went on strike. Yee said she'd 'protect and advance your precious pension funds.' She took a passing shot at Newsom's now-infamous dinner at the French Laundry in Napa Valley during the COVID-19 pandemic. Newsom attended a lobbyist's birthday party at the upscale restaurant after he had pleaded with Californians to stay home and avoid multifamily gatherings. 'I'm not about gimmicks,' Yee said. 'I'm the least flashy person. Hell, I've not even stepped foot in the French Laundry — but I can tell you, I grew up in a Chinese laundry.' Kounalakis told the party's labor meeting that her father immigrated to the U.S. at age 14 and worked his way through college as a waiter at the governor's mansion before building a successful development company in Sacramento. Her vision of California's future, she said, is massive investment in water infrastructure, clean energy infrastructure, roadway infrastructure and housing: 'We're going to build the future of this state, and we're going to do it with union labor.' At the party's senior caucus meeting, Becerra told Democrats that he was raised by working-class, immigrant parents who bought their own home in Sacramento, then questioned whether a couple without college degrees could do the same today. He touted his experience fighting GOP efforts to cut Social Security Disability Insurance as a member of Congress and work lowering drug costs as President Biden's health chief. 'We're going to fight for you,' Becerra said. At the women's caucus, Porter, who left Congress in January after losing a run for Senate, said she was concerned that Trump's budget cuts and policies will have a disproportionate impact on mothers, children and the LGBTQ+ community. 'That s— is not happening on my watch,' Porter said. Ann McKeown, 66, president of the Acton-Agua Dulce Democratic Club in Los Angeles County's High Desert, said she had wanted Harris to be the president 'so badly,' but Porter is her top choice for governor. 'Kamala is nicer than Katie Porter,' McKeown said, 'and we don't need nice right now.' Delegate Jane Baulch-Enloe of Contra Costa County and her daughter spread the contents of their bag of Democratic Party swag across a table, taking stock of the flyers and campaign memorabilia, including a Becerra for Governor button, a clear plastic coin purse from Yee and a blue Thurmond bookmark that read, 'Ban fascism, not books.' Baulch-Enloe, who teaches middle school English and history, said she originally thought she'd support Thurmond because he understands education. 'But now that there's so many people in the race, I'm not sure,' Baulch-Enloe said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet
The Justice Department now is reviewing its entire docket and has already dismissed or terminated 'many' cases that were 'legally unsupportable' and a product of 'weaponization' under the Biden administration, said Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will fully enforce civil rights laws in a way that satisfies the ends of justice, not politicization,' she said in a statement to The Washington Post. Advertisement The review includes cases and reform agreements forged after years-long investigations that the administration says lacked justification. Civil rights experts estimate that dozens of discrimination cases involving banks, landlords, private employers, and school districts could face similar action. 'What we're seeing is an attempt by the Trump administration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country,' said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel and comanager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that has long advocated for the civil rights of Black Americans and other minorities. Advertisement At the center of this effort is 'disparate impact analysis,' which holds that neutral policies can have discriminatory outcomes even if there was no intent to discriminate. The legal standard stems from Griggs v. Duke Power, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision that became a staple of civil rights litigation. In that case, attorneys relied on statistical evidence to show how standardized testing prevented Black employees in North Carolina from advancing at the energy company. The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined into employment law by Congress. But President Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions, and settled cases. Now, government agreements and orders that relied on disparate impact in pursuing sex, race, and disability discrimination cases are being undone. On May 23, for example, the Justice Department terminated an agreement with Patriot Bank, a Tennessee-based lender accused of failing to lend in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods in Memphis, from 2015 to 2020. Prosecutors used statistical evidence to show disparities in the bank's lending practices alongside evidence of intentional discrimination, such as targeting most of its advertising in majority-white neighborhoods. A three-year agreement to reform its lending practices had been in place for a little over a year before Trump's Justice Department moved to end it, noting the bank was in compliance with the reform agreement. Patriot declined to comment. Civil rights advocates worry about the future of similar enforcement. Advertisement Disparate impact has long been anathema to conservatives, who say it can result in quotas and deny equal opportunity to white people. But past Republican administrations opted not to take this issue on, partly because of Supreme Court precedent and partly because it might prove politically unpopular. 'What changed is just political will,' said Kenneth L. Marcus, who headed the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights during both George W. Bush's administration and Trump's first term. 'The second Trump administration is more willing to take on potentially contentious civil rights issues than any Republican administration this century.' Trump issued a slew of executive orders to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs - calling them 'illegal and immoral' days after he returned to the White House in January - and ordered the government to close diversity offices and fire staff. His administration has since launched investigations into corporations, law firms and colleges over their diversity initiatives, while going to battle with Harvard University for its refusal to comply with a set of demands to alter its governance, admissions, and hiring practices. When Trump set his sights on disparate impact in April, he called it a 'pernicious movement' that ignores 'individual strengths, effort or achievement.' He ordered federal agencies to review any cases and reform agreements that rely on the theory - and terminate them as they see fit. The actions are long overdue, said Dan Morenoff, executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit law firm that opposes the use of disparate impact and diversity initiatives. He contends that the government's use of disparate impact has been, in many cases, legally dubious, adding that its assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Advertisement 'The people who most appreciate disparate impact appear, usually, to be deeply wed to the idea that any discrepancies are best explained by discrimination,' he said. The Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of disparate impact analysis in a 2015 housing case. But that decision was decided on a 5-4 vote in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives believe the court's current conservative supermajority might give them their wished-for outcome. 'It's clear what the Trump administration is aiming for is to get this question to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court will take that tool away,' said Smirniotopoulos of the Legal Defense Fund. The rollbacks are already underway. In 2023, the Justice Department alleged that Atlanta-based Ameris Bank avoided providing home loans to Black and Latino home buyers in Jacksonville, Florida, in a practice known as redlining. The bank almost exclusively advertised in majority-White neighborhoods and made little effort to do business in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, according to its lawsuit. Only 2.7 percent of Ameris's mortgages went to borrowers in Black and Latino communities from 2016 to 2021, the complaint said, while its competitors issued more than three times as many loans during that window. Ameris knew about the disparities but failed to correct them, the government alleged. Though it admitted no wrongdoing, Ameris quickly settled the case, agreeing to a set of measures whose progress would be monitored by the court. Then, on May 19, the Justice Department moved to unwind the settlement, saying that the bank has 'demonstrated a commitment to remediation' while freeing it from its legal obligations to implement the reforms. The bank did not object to the move. Prosecutors did note that Ameris had disbursed the entirety of a $7.5 million loan subsidy fund for borrowers in Black and Latino neighborhoods. Advertisement A judge granted the request a day later. Ameris declined to comment. The government moved to terminate cases involving two banks in Alabama and Tennessee that had agreed to court-monitored reforms tied to allegations of discriminatory lending practices. It also moved to dismiss a case in Kinloch, Mo., against property managers accused of refusing to rent to prospective Black tenants at disproportionate rates. There are at least eight other housing and lending cases across seven states that are similarly candidates for dismissal, according to a review. While the administration blamed the Biden administration for mishandling these cases, it has also dismissed cases going back decades. It did not directly concern disparate impact, but the Justice Department in April dismissed a 1966 consent order with a Louisiana school district concerning its desegregation efforts.
