Massachusetts South Shore Progressives

Directions

Massachusetts South Shore Progressives In pursuit of progressive political social dialogue and change, learning and activism.

Massachusetts area folks interested in progressive political, social and cultural dialogue, learning and activism. We like the the original definition of progressive as embodied by Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal: The Square Deal was President Theodore Roosevelt's domestic program formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. These three demands are often referred to as the "three C's" of Roosevelt's Square Deal. Thus, it aimed at helping middle class citizens and involved attacking plutocracy and big trusts while at the same time protecting business from the most extreme demands of organized labor. A progressive Republican, Roosevelt believed in government action to mitigate social evils, and as president denounced "the representatives of predatory wealth” as guilty of “all forms of iniquity from the oppression of wage workers to defrauding the public."

All invited 👁️
10/12/2026

All invited 👁️

10/09/2026

South Shore Progressives: Opportunities to Learn, Vote and Take Action, October 14–18

As early voting approaches, South Shore residents have several opportunities to learn about the Massachusetts ballot questions, encourage voter participation, join peaceful public rallies and connect with neighbors working for progressive change.

Indivisible Hingham Hull has shared the following schedule of activities taking place from Wednesday, October 14, through Sunday, October 18.

Stand up and speak out
Community members are invited to participate in three public rallies:
- Wednesday, October 14, 10:30–11:30 a.m.
Hingham Square, with Stand Up, Speak Out.
- Thursday, October 15, 5:30–6:30 p.m.
Nantasket Avenue in Hull, across from The Parrot.
- Saturday, October 17, 10:30 a.m.–noon

No Kings rally at Hingham Harbor along Route 3A.

Additional information about these and other local activities is available on the Indivisible Hingham Hull events page.
Prepare for the Massachusetts ballot questions
Massachusetts voters will be asked to decide nine statewide ballot questions. Before voting, residents can review nonpartisan information explaining what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean.

Helpful resources include:

- Massachusetts Information for Voters
- Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts voter guide
- Tufts MyBallot tool, which allows voters to review the questions, save personal notes and print or save their choices
- Indivisible Hingham Hull’s ballot-question overview

Two online discussions are also planned:

- Wednesday, October 14, 7–8 p.m.: Question 9

Indivisible Hingham Hull leader Debra Robbin will join Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence and chair of Yes on 9 for a Safe Massachusetts, and Greg Jackson, former deputy director of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, for a discussion of Question 9.

- Thursday, October 15, 2–3:30 p.m.: Questions 3, 4 and 5

MASSCreative’s Create the Vote initiative will host a webinar with coalition leaders supporting or opposing the three questions. Registration information is available from MASSCreative.

Early voting begins October 17

Early voting begins Saturday, October 17. Voters should check their town’s official website for exact voting hours and locations.

Indivisible Hingham Hull has also assembled early-voting information for Massachusetts communities.

Early voting offers residents a convenient way to cast their ballots without waiting for Election Day. Before voting, take time to review the candidates and ballot questions and make an informed plan.

Help voters in Chelsea

Indivisible Hingham Hull is also organizing a group to support voter participation through La Colaborativa in Chelsea on Saturday, October 17.

The program includes:

- Door knocking and rides to voting locations
- Phone banking beginning at noon, organized according to language preference
- Lunch and a community celebration with Latin food and music at 1 p.m.
Participants traveling with the Hingham group should meet at the Shipyard parking lot at 10:30 a.m. The group plans to arrive in Chelsea at approximately 11:30 a.m. and return to Hingham around 3 p.m.
No previous canvassing or phone-banking experience is required. Anyone interested in joining the group can contact [email protected].

Close the weekend with songs of change

The weekend concludes with an afternoon of music devoted to social progress and movements for equality.

The Unicorn Singers will present “Keep Marching On—Songs of Change and Social Justice” at 4 p.m. Sunday, October 18, at the Inly School in Scituate.

The program will feature music associated with the American Revolution, equal rights, women’s suffrage, LGBTQ+ rights and other movements for justice. Details and ticket information are available from the Unicorn Singers.

Democracy depends on participation

Voting is essential, but civic participation does not begin or end at the ballot box. It also includes learning about the issues, helping neighbors vote, attending public events and standing peacefully with others in support of democracy, equality and accountable government.

Whether you attend a rally, join a webinar, volunteer in Chelsea, vote early or simply help a neighbor find reliable election information, every constructive act strengthens our community.

Please share this information with friends and neighbors who may want to participate.

10/07/2026

MASSACHUSETTS IS OFFERING $150 MILLION IN ENERGY RELIEF — WHO BENEFITS, AND WHO ULTIMATELY PAYS?

Massachusetts families are heading toward what could be an extraordinarily expensive winter, and Gov. Maura Healey has declared a State of Energy Emergency while announcing nearly $150 million in temporary energy relief.

There is real assistance here—particularly for lower- and middle-income households. But there is also an important public-policy question: Is Massachusetts reducing the underlying cost of energy, or temporarily moving some of those costs somewhere else?

Here’s what the new plan actually does.
WHO GETS HELP?

Middle-income households using heating oil: For the first time, households earning between 60% and 100% of the state median income may qualify for a one-time benefit of up to $680. Approximately 50,000 households are expected to qualify. For a family of four, the income range is roughly $103,050 to $171,749. Applications are expected to open in December.

That is particularly important on the South Shore, where many older homes still depend on oil. Massachusetts says heating oil averaged $6.08 per gallon on September 28, compared with $3.52 a year earlier.

Lower-income households: Massachusetts is adding $15 million to the Home Energy Assistance Program. Approximately 156,000 households could benefit. Oil-heating households receiving HEAP will see benefits increased by 20%, while households heating with utilities will receive a 15% increase.

Electric customers: The state will use $80 million in state funding to remove the SMART solar-program charge from residential and commercial electric bills for January, February and March 2027.

Massachusetts will also reduce the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard obligation by 50% this winter, which the administration estimates will provide another $20 million in ratepayer relief.

Overall, the Healey administration says approximately 85% of ratepayers will receive some benefit. Massachusetts Government

BUT WHO PAYS?

This is where the discussion becomes more complicated.
Eliminating an $80 million charge from electric bills does not make the underlying SMART program disappear. Instead, the state will pay those costs rather than ratepayers paying them directly on their bills.

The administration is using, in part, money from alternative-compliance payments—funds paid when electricity suppliers fail to meet certain clean-energy requirements. Those funds have traditionally been available for clean-energy purposes. WBUR
So the relief is real, but much of it represents a shift in who pays and when, rather than $150 million in energy suddenly becoming less expensive.

That doesn't necessarily make it bad policy. During an energy-price emergency, shifting costs away from families struggling to heat their homes can be exactly what government should do.
But temporary relief should not be confused with a long-term solution.

THE BIGGER QUESTION FOR MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts remains heavily exposed to volatile fossil-fuel markets. The Healey administration is simultaneously pursuing clean-energy development and asking federal regulators to expedite an expansion of the Algonquin natural-gas pipeline, arguing that additional supply could reduce costs for about 600,000 gas customers.

That leaves progressives with some important questions:
How do we provide immediate relief without weakening the transition to cleaner energy?

Should public money temporarily replace clean-energy charges—or should utilities and their shareholders bear more of the burden?

How much of Massachusetts' high energy cost is caused by global fuel prices, and how much comes from our utility system, infrastructure, procurement policies and regulatory structure?

And perhaps most importantly:

What investments today would prevent Massachusetts from having to declare another “energy emergency” several winters from now?

Helping families through this winter is necessary.
But the longer-term progressive objective should be larger: an energy system that is affordable, reliable and increasingly independent of volatile fossil-fuel prices—not simply a system in which government repeatedly moves those costs around when they become unbearable.

For eligibility and application information, see the Massachusetts Home Energy Assistance Programs.

Massachusetts South Shore Progressives

10/05/2026

WHAT’S NEW IN PROGRESSIVE MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS
October 4, 2026 • Sunday Evening Edition

Health Care, Workers’ Rights and the Ballot: Massachusetts Faces a Consequential Fall

Abortion protections, hospital working conditions, energy costs and the approaching election all figured prominently in Massachusetts politics this week. Here are the developments worth following, along with ways to learn more before voters head to the polls.

ABORTION SHIELD LAWS FACE A NEW CHALLENGE

Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to abortion shield laws in Massachusetts, New York and California. A separate federal lawsuit filed September 30 names the organization behind the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project.

The dispute raises a fundamental question: how far can Massachusetts go to protect providers serving patients across state lines? For reproductive-rights advocates, the consequences could extend well beyond the Commonwealth.

These are legal challenges, not rulings. The filings do not mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the merits or struck down Massachusetts protections.

Read more: Associated Press

NEW PRESSURE ON FOOD ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH COVERAGE

Federal changes taking effect October 1 reduced Washington’s share of SNAP administrative costs from 50 percent to 25 percent. That shifts an estimated $53 million annually onto Massachusetts.

Separate federal restrictions also changed MassHealth eligibility for some noncitizens. The effects depend on a person’s eligibility category: some adults move to emergency-only coverage, while protections or alternative coverage remain available for certain groups. It would be inaccurate to say every affected person loses all insurance.

The immediate challenge is making sure residents understand their notices and available options, while the state manages the additional financial pressure.

Sources: WBUR and MassHealth guidance

NURSES PUSH FOR BETTER CONTRACTS

Approximately 4,000 Brigham and Women’s Hospital nurses announced plans for an open-ended strike beginning October 14 unless an agreement is reached. Compensation, health insurance and reliance on temporary nurses are among the disputed issues. The hospital says it is preparing to maintain care and remains willing to negotiate.

Western Massachusetts saw a different outcome. Baystate Franklin nurses reached a tentative agreement September 28, averting a planned strike. The union reports improvements involving staffing, insurance and wages. Ratification remains unverified in the available reporting.

Both stories underscore how closely working conditions and patient care are connected in the debate over Massachusetts health care.

Sources: Brigham reporting, hospital update and Baystate Franklin reporting

GAS EXPANSION SPARKS AN AFFORDABILITY AND CLIMATE DEBATE

Governor Maura Healey asked the Trump administration to accelerate review of Enbridge’s Project RARE, an expansion of capacity on the existing Algonquin natural-gas pipeline system.

Healey argues the project could lower energy bills. Climate advocates question whether further gas investment would prolong fossil-fuel dependence and complicate the state’s clean-energy transition.

Federal approval has not been established, and projected savings are not demonstrated reductions in household bills. The debate calls for scrutiny of both near-term costs and Massachusetts’ long-term climate commitments.

Read more: WBUR

NINE BALLOT QUESTIONS DESERVE A CLOSE READ

The Massachusetts Working Families Party announced opposition to Question 3’s proposed top-two primary system, arguing that it would disadvantage grassroots candidates. That is the party’s assessment, rather than an established outcome of the proposal.

Other statewide questions address public records, collective bargaining for public-defender agency employees and fi****ms regulation. On Question 9, YES retains the fi****ms law and NO repeals it.

With nine questions on the ballot, careful reading matters. Official summaries provide a useful starting point before weighing campaign endorsements and arguments.

Sources: Working Families Party announcement and official ballot-question guide

ORGANIZING WATCH: FROM PROTEST TO TURNOUT

Newsletters this week show Massachusetts groups stepping up canvassing, voter education and turnout efforts.

Indivisible Hingham Hull is planning an October 17 rally at Hingham Harbor, 10:30 a.m. to noon, connected to the No Kings early-voting initiative. The group also lists an October 14 discussion of Question 9 featuring supporters of retaining the fi****ms law.

MassDems and other organizations are recruiting volunteers for the final election stretch. Check public event listings for current details and registration requirements.

Learn more: Hingham Hull events and MassDems events

DATES TO KEEP HANDY

• October 17–30: In-person early voting
• October 24: Voter-registration deadline
• October 27: Vote-by-mail application deadline
• November 3: Election Day

Confirm your registration, local voting hours and application requirements through the Massachusetts elections office.

What Massachusetts issue deserves more attention in next week’s roundup? Share your suggestions and reliable sources in the comments.

09/08/2026

IS THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ABOUT TO MOVE LEFT — AND WHAT WOULD THAT ACTUALLY CHANGE?

The Massachusetts Senate could look considerably different when the next legislative session begins — and the changes may give the chamber’s progressive wing more influence over both policy and how business gets done on Beacon Hill.

Recent Democratic primary results, combined with retirements and potentially one still-unresolved race, are changing the composition of a Senate where President Karen Spilka has exercised substantial leadership power.

Axios Boston reports that Spilka is losing several experienced senators who have played important roles within Senate leadership, while newly elected or incoming lawmakers could strengthen the chamber’s progressive bloc. (Axios⁠)

Among the changes:

Sen. Pat Jehlen, a longtime progressive senator representing Somerville and surrounding communities, is retiring.

Sen. Mike Rush, the Senate Majority Whip and an important member of leadership, lost his Democratic primary to progressive challenger Persis Yu. (BostonGlobe.com⁠)

And Democratic Socialist state Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven won the Democratic primary for Jehlen’s open Senate district covering Somerville, Medford and parts of Cambridge. WBUR reported that she defeated several candidates, including a more institutional progressive backed by Jehlen and Gov. Maura Healey. (WBUR⁠)

Meanwhile, the political future of Senate President Pro Tempore Will Brownsberger, one of the Senate’s highest-ranking members, remains unresolved in an extraordinarily close contest with challenger Daniel Lander. A recount is underway, so no final result should yet be assumed. (BostonGlobe.com⁠)

WHAT COULD ACTUALLY CHANGE?

Changing senators doesn’t automatically change Massachusetts law.

But a larger and more assertive progressive bloc could affect which proposals receive sustained attention and how much pressure Senate leadership faces to bring legislation forward.

Among the issues Axios identifies as potentially benefiting from the changing Senate are rent stabilization and Medicare for All. (Axios⁠)

Housing could be particularly important.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has repeatedly encountered resistance in the Senate to some of her housing and tax proposals. Two recent Senate primaries involving Brownsberger and Sen. Nick Collins became intertwined with disagreements over Wu’s proposal to temporarily shift more of Boston’s property-tax burden from residential taxpayers to commercial properties. Collins won his primary, while the Brownsberger race remains subject to recount proceedings. (BostonGlobe.com⁠)

THE FIGHT MAY ALSO BE ABOUT HOW BEACON HILL OPERATES

The potential change is not limited to policy.

Some incoming lawmakers campaigned on changing the Legislature’s internal culture, including the concentration of power among leadership and committee chairs.

Axios reports that new members are expected to push for changes in legislative process and decision-making, potentially giving rank-and-file senators a stronger voice. (Axios⁠)

That matters because Massachusetts has long faced criticism over the Legislature’s transparency and the amount of authority concentrated in leadership.

A more independent progressive bloc could therefore create debates over two different questions:

What policies should Massachusetts enact?

And:

Who inside the Legislature gets to decide which proposals actually receive votes?

WHAT TO WATCH IN 2027

The real test will come after the new Senate takes office.

Will progressive priorities such as rent stabilization or expanded government-backed healthcare move further?

Will tax policy change?

Will committee procedures become more transparent?

Will individual senators obtain more influence relative to Senate leadership?

Or will the institutional structure of Beacon Hill prove stronger than the ideological changes produced by one election cycle?

Those questions will determine whether Massachusetts is witnessing simply a change in personalities — or the beginning of a meaningful shift in the direction and operation of the State Senate.

Massachusetts South Shore Progressives

08/21/2026

Early Voting Begins Saturday: Markey vs. Moulton — Make Your Case

Early voting begins Saturday, August 22, in Massachusetts’ Democratic primary, and the U.S. Senate race between Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Seth Moulton is entering its final stretch before the September 1 primary.

Recent polling gives Markey a significant advantage. A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released this week found 52.2% of likely Democratic primary voters supporting Markey, compared with about 38% for Moulton, with roughly 9% still undecided.

At the same time, the Boston Globe Editorial Board endorsed Moulton, arguing that he offers generational change, leadership experience and a different approach to issues including transportation, foreign policy and the future of the Democratic Party. That endorsement represents the Globe editorial board’s view, not an independent assessment here.

Markey, meanwhile, has continued emphasizing his long progressive record, including climate policy and the Green New Deal, and this week received another high-profile endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

So as early voting begins, we’d like to hear from Massachusetts South Shore Progressives:

If you support Ed Markey, make the affirmative case for Markey.

If you support Seth Moulton, make the affirmative case for Moulton.

Try to focus on what you believe your candidate would actually bring to the Senate over the next six years.

Some questions worth considering:

* Which candidate better represents your priorities on climate and clean energy?
* Health care and prescription-drug costs?
* Housing affordability?
* Gaza, Israel and U.S. foreign policy?
* The Trump administration?
* Corporate power and economic inequality?
* Transportation and infrastructure?
* Does congressional seniority and experience matter more right now, or is generational change itself important?

And one request: make the case FOR your candidate rather than simply attacking the other one.

Many voters in this group have probably already decided, but others may still be weighing the race. A thoughtful discussion could actually be useful to people making their decision this weekend.

Who are you supporting — Markey or Moulton — and what is the strongest reason for your vote?

08/08/2026

Progressive economic ideas are polling surprisingly well with independents

A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 64% of independent voters support higher taxes on corporations and billionaires, while 60% support government-provided health coverage for everyone. At the same time, independents remain considerably less comfortable with the “democratic socialist” label.

Why it matters: There is an important political distinction between progressive policies and progressive labels. That is an excellent discussion topic for Massachusetts South Shore Progressives- what do you think? 🤔

07/26/2026

Boston Appeals Court Blocks Trump Mail-Voting Order—for Now

A federal appeals court based in Boston ruled Saturday that the Trump administration cannot enforce key parts of its executive order changing mail-in voting procedures in 23 states while a constitutional challenge moves forward. (Reuters⁠)

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left in place an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Boston that found significant portions of the order were likely unconstitutional. The administration argued the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies had not yet fully implemented the order, but the appeals court disagreed, noting that states were already facing election-planning deadlines. (Reuters⁠)

The ruling does not decide the ultimate legality of the executive order. Instead, it keeps the current rules in place while the case continues through the courts. The Justice Department could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. (Reuters⁠)

Although this is a national story, it has a strong Massachusetts connection. The case was heard by the Boston-based First Circuit, and Massachusetts is one of the states challenging the executive order. (Reuters⁠)

Regardless of political views, the case raises an important constitutional question:

Who should have the authority to set the rules for federal elections—the President, Congress, or the states?

As always, please keep comments respectful and focused on the issues rather than one

06/26/2026

AI, government power, and civil liberty

The recent reports about the federal government delaying broader access to a powerful new AI model — while giving early access only to selected “trusted” users — should concern people across the political spectrum.

This is not about being anti-AI. AI can help ordinary citizens, workers, small businesses, lawyers, journalists, students, towns, and advocacy groups. But if the most powerful AI tools are controlled first by the federal government, large corporations, defense contractors, and politically connected insiders, we should all be asking hard questions.

Who decides who is “trusted”?

What standards are being used?

Is there public oversight?

Are civil liberties protected?

Will ordinary people eventually get access, or will this become another system where power flows upward and the public is told to wait and trust the experts?

Yes, powerful AI needs safety rules. But safety cannot become a cover for secrecy, favoritism, surveillance, or government control over who gets access to the most important technology of our time.

Progressives should insist on transparency, congressional oversight, civil-liberties protections, and equal public access once legitimate safety issues are addressed.

AI should not become a private club for government and corporate elites.

Guardrails, yes. A gatekeeping priesthood, no

Address

Cohasset, MA

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Massachusetts South Shore Progressives posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share