ReportWire

Tag: LAW

  • Regulators flag “monumental day” for social cannabis use

    [ad_1]

    Cannabis regulators are hoping to hear from “as many people as possible” now that they have approved draft regulations that open the door to legal marijuana use at events and in social settings across the state.

    The Cannabis Control Commission voted late Tuesday afternoon to approve the regulations they spent multiple days combing through since they were first introduced in December.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmr@>>:DD:@?6CD 2FE9@C:K65 DE2776CD E@ 7:=6 E96 C68F=2E:@?D H:E9 E96 D64C6E2CJ @7 DE2E6’D @77:46[ 2 DE6A E92E H:== <:4< @77 2 C6BF:C65 AF3=:4 4@>>6?E AC@46DD]k^Am

    kAm%96 :562 369:?5 @?D:E6 D@4:2= 4@?DF>AE:@? 😀 E@ 2==@H 25F=ED E@ AFC492D6 2 >2C:;F2?2 AC@5F4E 2?5 FD6 :E 😕 E96 D2>6 =@42E:@?[ >F49 =:<6 AFC492D:?8 2=4@9@= 2E 2 32C @C 2 4:82C 2E 2 4:82C 32C]k^Am

    kAmp==@H:?8 @?D:E6 4@?DF>AE:@? H@F=5 AC@G:56 =682= =@42E:@?D 7@C >2C:;F2?2 4@?DF>AE:@? E@ E@FC:DED DE2J:?8 😕 9@E6=D 2?5 C6?E6CD H9@ 2C6 AC@9:3:E65 7C@> D>@<:?8 😕 E96:C 2A2CE>6?ED] ~77:4:2=D 92G6 2=D@ D2:5 E96 D:E6D 4@F=5 2=D@ 8:G6 A2C6?ED 2 A=246 E@ D>@<6 @C 4@?DF>6 >2C:;F2?2 H:E9@FE 6G6C 3C:?8:?8 :E 2C@F?5 E96:C 49:=5C6?]k^Am

    kAm%96 ?6H 7C2>6H@C< 42==D 7@C E9C66 D@4:2= 4@?DF>AE:@? =:46?D6 EJA6Di 2 “DFAA=6>6?E2=” =:46?D6 7@C 6I:DE:?8 >2C:;F2?2 6DE23=:D9>6?ED =:<6 C6E2:= DE@C6D 2?5 4F=E:G2E:@? 724:=:E:6D E92E H2?E E@ @776C E96:C 4FDE@>6CD E96 23:=:EJ E@ 4@?DF>6 AC@5F4ED AFC492D65 @?D:E6[ 2 “9@DA:E2=:EJ” =:46?D6 42E68@CJ E92E H@F=5 2==@H 7@C @?D:E6 4@?DF>AE:@? 2E ?6H @C 6I:DE:?8 ?@?42??23:D 3FD:?6DD6D =:<6 J@82 DEF5:@D @C E962E6CD[ 2?5 2? “6G6?E @C82?:K6C” =:46?D6 42E68@CJ E92E H@F=5 2==@H 7@C E6>A@C2CJ @?D:E6 4@?DF>AE:@? 2E 6G6?ED =:<6 C2==:6D 2?5 76DE:G2=D] %96 C68F=2E:@?D H:== C6E2:? 2 C6BF:C6>6?E E92E 6DE23=:D9>6?ED 92G6 2 EC2?DA@CE2E:@? A=2? 😕 E96 6G6?E 4@?DF>6CD 2C6 ?@E D276 E@ 5C:G6 9@>6 2D H6== 2D CF=6D 2C@F?5 6>A=@J66 AC@E64E:@?]k^Am

    kAmu@C E96 7:CDE 7:G6 J62CD[ E96 =:46?D6D H:== @?=J 36 2G2:=23=6 E@ 2AA=:42?ED H9@ BF2=:7J 7@C E96 rrr’D D@4:2= 6BF:EJ @C 64@?@>:4 6>A@H6C>6?E AC@8C2>D[ >:4C@3FD:?6DD6D 2?5 4C27E >2C:;F2?2 4@@A6C2E:G6D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 😀 2 >@?F>6?E2= 52J 7@C E96 |2DD249FD6EED 25F=EFD6 42??23:D :?5FDECJ 2?5 😀 E96 4F=>:?2E:@? @7 J62CD @7 92C5 H@C< D92A:?8 E96D6 ?6H =:46?D6D H:E9 :?AFE 7C@> DE2<69@=56CD 24C@DD E96 DE2E6[” rrr 24E:?8 r92:C qCF46 $E633:?D D2:5] “(6 =@@< 7@CH2C5 E@ E96 7:?2= DE6AD 😕 E9:D AC@46DD[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 FA4@>:?8 AF3=:4 4@>>6?E @AA@CEF?:E:6D] (6 H2?E E@ 962C 7C@> 2D >2?J A6@A=6 2D A@DD:3=6 E@ >2<6 E96 |2DD249FD6EED D@4:2= 4@?DF>AE:@? >@56= 2 =6256C 😕 E96 ?2E:@?]”k^Am

    kAmr@>>:DD:@?6C pG2 r2==6?56C r@?46A4:@? D2:5 E96 C68F=2E:@?D C6AC6D6?E “2 >62?:?87F= DE6A 7@CH2C5 😕 7F=7:==:?8 @FC >:DD:@? E@ 4C62E6 2 >@C6 6BF:E23=6 42??23:D :?5FDECJ E92E 6?4@FC286D 7F== A2CE:4:A2E:@? 3J A6@A=6 92C>65 3J >2C:;F2?2 AC@9:3:E:@? 2?5 6?7@C46>6?E]”k^Am

    kAmtDE23=:D9>6?ED H96C6 A6@A=6 4@F=5 FD6 >2C:;F2?2 D@4:2==J H6C6 4@?E6>A=2E65 😕 E96 a_`e 32==@E =2H E92E =682=:K65 ?@?>65:42= >2C:;F2?2[ 2?5 E96 rrr A=2??65 E@ :?4=F56 D@4:2= 4@?DF>AE:@? D:E6D 😕 :ED :?:E:2= a_`g =2F?49 @7 E96 =682= :?5FDECJ 367@C6 :E 3@H65 E@ AC6DDFC6 7C@> q624@? w:== E@ 7@4FD @? E96 C6E2:= C@==@FE 7:CDE]k^Am

    kAm%96 G@E6 42>6 2E E96 6?5 @7 EH@ 7F==52J H@C< >66E:?8D[ 5FC:?8 H9:49 E96 E9C66 4@>>:DD:@?6CD 2?5 DE2776CD 7C@> G2C:@FD 56A2CE>6?ED H6?E E9C@F89 A2CED @7 E96 C68F=2E:@?D H:E9 2 7:?6 E@@E9 4@>3 E@ >2<6 DFC6 6249 D6?E6?46 2?5 D64E:@? H2D E96 H2J E96J :?E6?565]k^Am

    kAm“sFC:?8 E96 =2DE 76H >@?E9D[ 4@>>:DD:@?6CD 92G6 366? 8@:?8 =:?63J=:?6 E9C@F89 E96 D@4:2= 4@?DF>AE:@? C68F=2E:@?D E@ 6?DFC6 H6 2C6 6IA2?5:?8 E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ 😕 2 DFDE2:?23=6[ D276 H2J] !F3=:4 D276EJ H2D 2? :?E68C2= A2CE @7 E96 56=:36C2E:G6 AC@46DD[ 2?5 H6’G6 3F:=E 😕 :?:E:2= D2768F2C5D 2:>65 E@ 96=A AC6G6?E @G6C4@?DF>AE:@?[” r@>>:DD:@?6C z:>36C=J #@J D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 rrr D2:5 :E H:== “:? E96 4@>:?8 H66>6?ED 2?5 9@DE 2 AF3=:4 962C:?8 E@ 6?23=6 A6@A=6 E@ H6:89 :?] s6E2:=D @7 E96 AC@46DD 2?5 5625=:?6D H:== 36 2??@F?465 2E E96 rrr’D AF3=:4 >66E:?8 @? pF8] `c[ E96 286?4J D2:5]k^Am

    kAmp7E6C C6G:6H:?8 4@>>6?ED[ E96 rrr 😀 6IA64E65 E@ C64@?G6?6 E@ G@E6 @? 7:?2= C68F=2E:@?D E9:D 72==]k^Am

    kAm%96 rrr D2:5 4@>>:DD:@?6CD >256 2 D6C:6D @7 492?86D E@ s646>36C’D AC@A@D2= 😕 C646?E >@?E9D[ >2:?=J E@ E96 6G6?E @C82?:K6C =:46?D6 EJA6i 6G6?E @C82?:K6C =:46?D66D H:== 36 C6BF:C65 E@ D64FC6 =@42= A6C>:ED 7C@> 2? 6G6?E’D 9@DE 4@>>F?:EJ 367@C6 D66<:?8 rrr 2AAC@G2= @7 2? 6G6?E A=2?[ >F?:4:A2=:E:6D H:== 92G6 E96 D2>6 >62DFC6 @7 4@?EC@= @G6C 42??23:D 6G6?ED 2D E96J 5@ @G6C D:>:=2C 6G6?ED F?56C E96 F>3C6==2 @7 E96 p=4@9@=:4 q6G6C286D r@?EC@= r@>>:DD:@?[ 2?5 6G6?E D2=6D H:== 36 =:>:E65 E@ ?@ >@C6 E92? ac D:?8=6 52JD 😕 2 42=6?52C J62C 2?5 ?@ >@C6 E92? 7:G6 4@?D64FE:G6 52JD @7 D2=6D 2E 2?J E6>A@C2CJ 6G6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 C68F=2E@CJ @G6C92F= 2=D@ :?4=F56D E96 6=:>:?2E:@? @7 E96 C6BF:C6>6?E E92E >2C:;F2?2 3FD:?6DD 6>A=@J66D >2:?E2:? 2 D6A2C2E6 rrr2AAC@G65 32586 7@C 6249 4@>A2?J E96J H@C< 7@C] }@H[ :7 2? 6>A=@J66 H@C@C6 E92? @?6 =:46?D66[ E96J H:== @?=J ?665 E@ >2:?E2:? @?6 32586]k^Am

    kAm%96 ?6H D6E @7 CF=6D H:== 2=D@ ?6H=J 2==@H >2C:;F2?2 6DE23=:D9>6?ED E@ D6== AC6A24<2865[ D96=7DE23=6 2?5 42??23:D7C66 7@@5 2?5 5C:?< :E6>D[ E96 rrr D2:5]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Colin A. Young | State House News Service

    Source link

  • Stolen body parts are ‘goods,’ Judge tells Salem woman in Harvard morgue case

    [ad_1]

    A Salem woman who was arrested in 2023 for allegedly taking part in a ring selling stolen human remains claims her case should be dismissed because body parts are not legally considered “goods” — an argument a judge turned down this week.

    Katrina Maclean, 46, owner of the Peabody-based “Kat’s Kreepy Kreations” and curator of Freaksantiquesuniques, argued in a brief filed in April that human remains are not considered property under the law.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm$96 😀 244FD65 @7 36:?8 2 <6J A=2J6C 😕 2? :?E6CDE2E6 >2C<6E 7@C DE@=6? 9F>2? C6>2:?D E92E H2D :?:E:2E65 3J r65C:4 {@586[ E96?>2?286C @7 E96 >@C8F6 7@C E96 p?2E@>:42= v:7ED !C@8C2> 2E w2CG2C5 |65:42= $49@@=]k^Am

    kAm{@586[ H9@ =:G65 😕 }6H w2>AD9:C6[ 2?5 @E96CD :?G@=G65 😕 E96 C:?8 92G6 D:?46 A=62565 8F:=EJ]k^Am

    kAm|24=62?’D 9@>6 2?5 3FD:?6DD H6C6 C2:565 3J E96 uqx 😕 |2C49 a_ab[ 23@FE E9C66 >@?E9D 367@C6 96C :?5:4E>6?E] $96 😀 36:?8 EC:65 @? 492C86D @7 :?E6CDE2E6 EC2?DA@CE2E:@? @7 DE@=6? AC@A6CEJ 2?5 4@?DA:C24J E@ 5@ E96 D2>6]k^Am

    kAm|24=62? 2==6865=J 3@F89E 9F>2? C6>2:?D {@586 925 DE@=6? 7C@> E96 >@C8F6[ 2E E:>6D 6?E6C:?8 E96 >@C8F6 E@ D66 E96 C6>2:?D 96CD6=7[ 2?5 E96? C6D@=5 E96> E@ 2 !6??DJ=G2?:2 >2? 7@C AC@7:E[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 96C :?5:4E>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%C2?D24E:@?D H:E9:? E96 C:?8 :?4=F565 EH@ 5:DD64E65 7246D |24=62? 3@F89E 7C@> {@586 😕 a_a_ 2?5 9F>2? D<:? E96 8C@FA :?E6?565 E@ EFC? :?E@ =62E96C[ E96 :?5:4E>6?E :?5:42E6D]k^Am

    kAm“x? E9:D F?AC64656?E65 7656C2= AC@D64FE:@?[ 3C@F89E F?56C 2? :?DFAA@CE23=6 =682= E96@CJ[ E96 8@G6C?>6?E 92D 72:=65 E@ 4:E6 E@ 2 D:?8=6 7656C2= 4C:>:?2= 42D6 😕 E9:D 4@F?ECJ H96C6 ?@E @?=J 9F>2? C6>2:?D H6C6 566>65 E@ 4@?DE:EFE6 AC@A6CEJ[ 3FE H96C6 2 D:>:=2C 7656C2= 4C:>:?2= AC@D64FE:@? H2D 3C@F89E 3J E96 8@G6C?>6?E F?56C E96 }2E:@?2= $E@=6? !C@A6CEJ p4E[” |24=62? HC@E6 😕 96C C6BF6DE 7@C 5:D>:DD2=]k^Am

    kAm$96 2=D@ 2C8F65 E92E 9F>2? C6>2:?D 92G6 ?@ 4@>A6?D23=6 G2=F6 2?5[ E96C67@C6[ 96C 42D6 5@6D ?@E >66E E96 Sd[___ ;FC:D5:4E:@?2= 2>@F?E C6BF:C6>6?E 7@C E96 492C86D D96 7246D]k^Am

    kAmpD E96 D2=6D D96 E@@< A2CE 😕 H6C6 “D6A2C2E6 2?5 5:DE:?4E[” E96:C 2>@F?ED D9@F=5 ?@E 92G6 366? 25565 FA 7@C E96 D@=6 AFCA@D6 @7 6DE23=:D9:?8 2 4C:>6 “H96C6 E96C6 H2D ?@E 2 D:?8=6 A=2? @C 28C66>6?E[” D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAmyF586 |2EE96H qC2?? D9@E 5@H? |24=62?’D C6BF6DE 7@C 5:D>:DD2= %F6D52J[ D2J:?8 😕 9:D 564:D:@? E92E “E96 4@C6 AC:?4:A=6 8@G6C?:?8 E96 EC62E>6?E @7 3@5:6D[ F?H2G6C:?8 7@C 46?EFC:6D[ 😀 E92E 9F>2? C6>2:?D D9@F=5 36 EC62E65 H:E9 8C62E C6DA64E @C 6G6? D2?4E:EJ]k^Am

    kAm“pD E96 =2H 92D 56G6=@A65[ 4@FCED 92G6 366? :?4C62D:?8=J @A6? E@ 2446AE:?8 E92E E96 9F>2? 3@5J >2J 36 4@?D:56C65 AC@A6CEJ :7 DF49 2? 2AAC@249 😀 ?646DD2CJ E@ AC@>@E6 E92E AC:?4:A=6[” 96 HC@E6]k^Am

    kAmqC2?? 2C8F65 |24=62? 2?5 @E96C 5676?52?ED EC62E65 E96 C6>2:?D 2D AC@A6CEJ 3J 3FJ:?8 2?5 D6==:?8 E96>] pD D96 DA6?E Se__ @? E96 EH@ 7246D 2?5 62C?65 2 Sg[g__ AC@7:E 7@C D6==:?8 9F>2? C6>2:?D[ E9@D6 E@E2=D 2=@?6 AFE 96C @G6C E96 Sd[___ G2=F6 E9C6D9@=5[ qC2?? D2:5]k^Am

    kAmp AC64656?E D6E 3J E96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE 2==@HD 7@C E96 G2=F6 @7 8@@5D E@ 36 288C682E65 H96? 2DD6DD:?8 2 492C86] $A64:7:42==J[ :7 E96J 2== 2C6 C6=2E65 E@ 2 D:?8=6 @776?D6[ H9:49 😀 ECF6 7@C |24=62?’D 42D6[ 96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%F6D52J’D 5:D>:DD2= @7 |24=62?’D C6BF6DE D6ED E96 42D6 @? 4@FCD6 7@C 2 EC:2= 😕 E96 |:55=6 s:DEC:4E @7 !6??DJ=G2?:2[ E9@F89 52E6D 7@C 2 EC:2= 2?5 AC6EC:2= 4@?76C6?46D 92G6 ?@E J6E 366? D4965F=65]k^Am

    kAmk6>mr@?E24E r2C@=:?6 t?@D 2Ek^6>m k6>mk2 9C67lQ>2:=E@irt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qmrt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2mk^6>mk6>m]k^6>mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Trash issues continue to stink

    [ad_1]

    Thursday marks two dozen days since Republic Services Inc. workers went on strike.

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Officials face down Republic in court

    [ad_1]

    SALEM — Leaders of Gloucester, Beverly, Peabody, Canton, Danvers and Malden appeared in court Tuesday afternoon over against Republic Services’s lacking service during the ongoing Teamsters’ strike.

    Their lawyers asked a Salem Superior Court judge to issue a preliminary judgement demanding that Republic carry out all contracted services in these communities, as the company has routinely left trash to sit in dumpsters and on curbs days past scheduled collection dates during the strike.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm#6AF3=:4 92D 2=D@ 72:=65 E@ A:4< FA 2?J C64J4=:?8 😕 >@DE @7 E96D6 E@H?D D:?46 E96 DEC:<6 3682? yF=J `]k^Am

    kAm“(6 5@?’E H2?E E@ 36 96C6[” q6G6C=J |2J@C |:<6 r29:== D2:5 @FED:56 @7 E96 4@FCE9@FD6 7@==@H:?8 %F6D52J’D 962C:?8] “(6’C6 96C6 3642FD6 #6AF3=:4 92D ?@E 56=:G6C65]”k^Am

    kAmp 564:D:@? 😕 E96 42D6[ H9:49 H@F=5 6?7@C46 E9:D AC6=:>:?2CJ ;F58>6?E F?E:= E96 >2EE6C 4@F=5 36 2C8F65 😕 7C@?E @7 2 ;FCJ[ 925 ?@E 366? 7:=65 2D @7 d A]>] %F6D52J]k^Am

    kAm}@E @?=J 92D #6AF3=:4 72:=65 @? E96 C6D:56?E:2= 7C@?E[ 3FE 2=D@ H:E9 :ED 4@>>6C4:2= 4FDE@>6CD[ r29:== D2:5] #6AF3=:4 92D AC:@C:E:K65 :ED >F?:4:A2= 4@?EC24ED 5FC:?8 E96 DEC:<6 2?5 92D =2C86=J :8?@C65 C6DE2FC2?ED[ 4276D[ DE@C6D 2?5 @E96C 3FD:?6DD6D E92E 92G6 AC:G2E6 4@?EC24ED H:E9 E96 4@>A2?J E@ 92F= 2H2J E96:C H2DE6]k^Am

    kAm|F?:4:A2= =6256CD 92G6 :?7@C>65 #6AF3=:4 @7 @G6C7=@H:?8 AC:G2E6 5F>ADE6CD @? 2 52:=J 32D:D[ E96 =6256CD D2:5[ ?@E:?8 >2?J 92G6 ?@E 366? 6>AE:65 😕 2 H66< @C >@C6] $628F==D 92G6 A:4<65 2E E96 EC2D9 2?5 E96C6’D 6G:56?46 @7 C@56?ED 😕 2?5 2C@F?5 E96D6 5F>ADE6CD[ E96J D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“W#6AF3=:4’DX 72:=FC6 E@ 4@==64E EC2D9 😕 2 E:>6=J >2??6C 😀 2 AF3=:4 962=E9 4C:D:D[” !623@5J |2J@C %65 q6EE6?4@FCE D2:5] “p== @7 @FC 4@>>F?:E:6D 2C6 562=:?8 H:E9 E92E ?@H]”k^Am

    kAm{2HJ6CD 7@C #6AF3=:4 2C8F65 😕 4@FCE %F6D52J E92E E96C6 😀 ?@ ?665 7@C E96 :?;F?4E:@? 3642FD6 D6CG:46 😀 2=C625J :>AC@G:?8]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • First round of ‘dirty deeds’ cleaned up in Essex County

    [ad_1]

    BEVERLY — Essex County’s “dirty deeds” containing discriminatory covenants are finally being cleaned up.

    The Southern Essex Registry of Deeds recorded its first round of affidavits Monday to remove discriminatory covenants from real estate deeds in this area of the county. These covenants restricted people of certain ethnic or racial groups, particularly Black people, from buying homes or moving into specific neighborhoods years ago.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%9C@F89 E96 C68:DECJ[ AC@A6CEJ @H?6CD 42? C6>@G6 E96 4@G6?2?ED 3J D:8?:?8 2? 2EE@C?6J’D 277:52G:E E92E :?5:42E6D E96J 92G6 366? >256 2H2C6 @7 E96 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ =2?8F286 2?5 5@ ?@E H2?E E@ <66A :E @? E96:C 5665[ 6DD6?E:2==J 255:?8 :E 2D 2? 2556?5F> E@ E96:C 5665]k^Am

    kAmp ?6H 5665 H:E9@FE DF49 =2?8F286 H:== 36 :DDF65 H96? E96 AC@A6CEJ 😀 @?46 282:? D@=5 @C EC2?D76CC65]k^Am

    kAm“%@52J H6 C64@C565 E96 7:CDE `b 277:52G:ED[ >2C<:?8 E96 368:??:?8 @7 @FC AC@46DD @7 4=62?:?8 6G6CJ 5:CEJ 5665 😕 @FC 5:DEC:4E[” #68:DE6C t:=66? sF77 D2:5 😕 2 AC6A2C65 DE2E6>6?E] “%9:D H2D >256 A@DD:3=6 E92?6D 2?5 E96 }@CE9 $9@C6 }ppr![ H9:49 :56?E:7:65 2AAC@I:>2E6=J e__ ‘5:CEJ 5665D’ 😕 E96 $@FE96C? tDD6I #68:DECJ’D 5:DEC:4E]”k^Am

    kAm%96 AC@;64E H2D 2=D@ DFAA@CE65 3J =2H :?E6C?D 7C@> E96 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |2DD249FD6EED {2H $49@@= 😕 s2CE>@FE9 H9@ 96=A65 :56?E:7J a__ >@C6 @7 E96D6 5665D[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 C68:DECJ 92D 4@?E24E65 E96 @H?6CD @7 AC@A6CE:6D H:E9 5:CEJ 5665D 3J >2:= 2?5 H:== 4@?E24E E96> @G6C E96 A9@?6 E@ 96=A E96> C6>@G6 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ =2?8F286 7C@> E96:C 5665D[ sF77 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm!C@A6CEJ @H?6CD H9@ 92G6 C646:G65 E96D6 ?@E:7:42E:@?D 7C@> E96 C68:DECJ @C 92G6 BF6DE:@?D @C 4@?46C?D D9@F=5 42== E96 C68:DECJ 2E hfgdca`f__]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By News Staff

    Source link

  • Marblehead voters reject plan for MBTA Communities Act compliance

    [ad_1]

    MARBLEHEAD — Voters overturned a plan to put the town in compliance with the state’s controversial MBTA Communities Act this week.

    During a special election Tuesday, 3,542 Marbleheaders voted not to adopt an overlay zoning district that would allow multifamily housing by right as required by the law, also known as 3A, for all communities receiving MBTA service or abutting those that do.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 6=64E:@?’D “?@” G@E6CD E@@< 23@FE daT @7 E96 G@E6[ H9:=6 E96 b[ahf 😕 72G@C @7 bp 4@>A=:2?46 C6AC6D6?E65 C@F89=J cgT[ 244@C5:?8 E@ F?@77:4:2= 6=64E:@? C6DF=ED 7C@> E96 E@H?] p3@FE c_T @7 G@E6CD EFC?65 @FE 7@C E96 6=64E:@?]k^Am

    kAm|2C3=69625 925 F?E:= yF=J `c E@ DF3>:E 2 bp 5:DEC:4E 4@>A=:2?46 2AA=:42E:@? E@ E96 DE2E6]k^Am

    kAmqC@F89E 23@FE 3J E96 q2<6C!@=:E@ 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2?5 C6G:D65 D6G6C2= E:>6D F?56C v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J[ E96 =2H 2AA=:6D E@ `ff 4@>>F?:E:6D 2?5 2:>D E@ >2<6 :E 62D:6C 7@C >F=E:72>:=J 9@FD:?8 E@ 56G6=@A 2>:5 2 DE2E6 9@FD:?8 4C:D:D]k^Am

    kAm|2C3=69625’D G@E6 4@>6D 2 >@?E9 27E6C E96 DE2E6’D $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE 5:D>:DD65 2 =2HDF:E 3J ?:?6 |2DD249FD6EED 4@>>F?:E:6D 492==6?8:?8 E96 =2H’D 2FE9@C:EJ @G6C E96:C 4=2:> E92E :E 😀 2? F?7F?565 >2?52E6] xE 2=D@ C6G6CD6D 2 %@H? |66E:?8 G@E6 E@ 25@AE E9:D 5:DEC:4E E92E E@@< A=246 @? |2J e[ H96? 2 G@E6 @7 hd`fdh 😕 72G@C @7 E96 A=2? H@?]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 92D AC@>:D65 E@ C6G@<6 46CE2:? 8C2?E @AA@CEF?:E:6D 7@C 4@>>F?:E:6D E92E 5@ ?@E 4@>A=J H:E9 bp[ H9:49 |2C3=69625 @77:4:2=D D2:5 H@F=5 36 H@CE9 >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD @7 >:DD65 7F?5:?8 @AA@CEF?:E:6D 7@C E96 E@H?]k^Am

    kAmpE E96 |2J e %@H? |66E:?8[ C6D:56?E y@9? s:!:2?@[ H9@ 92D =65 E96 492C86 282:?DE bp 4@>A=:2?46 😕 E96 E@H?[ 2C8F65 |2C3=69625 H@F=5?’E =@D6 2D >F49 😕 8C2?ED 2D @77:4:2=D D2J] %96 =2H H:== ?@E 4C62E6 277@C523=6 9@FD:?8[ 96 D2:5[ 2D 4@>A=:2?E K@?:?8 42??@E C6BF:C6 AC@;64ED E@ 92G6 >@C6 E92? `_T @7 :ED F?:ED 36 4@?D:56C65 277@C523=6 H:E9@FE DA64:2= 2AAC@G2= 7C@> E96 DE2E6[ 2?5 :E >2?52E6D 56G6=@A>6?E]k^Am

    kAm!C@A@?6?ED 2C8F65 bp 5@6D ?@E >2?52E6 E96 56G6=@A>6?E @7 E96D6 F?:ED 3FE[ C2E96C[ D:>A=J 2==@HD E96> E@ 36 3F:=E] |2?J @7 E96 4@>>F?:E:6D E92E 92G6 25@AE65 bp 4@>A=:2?E K@?:?8[ =:<6 !623@5J 2?5 v=@F46DE6C[ 92G6 25565 E96 ?6H 5:DEC:4ED E@ 2C62D E92E 2C6 2=C625J 3F:=E @FE H:E9 >F=E:72>:=J 9@FD:?8[ >2<:?8 :E >@C6 5:77:4F=E 7@C ?6H 56G6=@A>6?ED E@ 4@>6 😕 F?56C bp]k^Am

    kAm%9@D6 😕 72G@C @7 bp 2=D@ 2C8F6 92G:?8 >@C6 9@FD:?8 DE@4< 2G2:=23=6 H:== 96=A 62D6 E96 56>2?5 7@C ?6H 9@FD:?8 2?5[ 2D 2 C6DF=E[ =@H6C E96 4@DE @7 2G2:=23=6 F?:ED]k^Am

    kAm|2C3=69625 ;@:?D 2 ?F>36C @7 >@DE=J D>2== E@H?D E92E 92G6 D2:5 E96J H:== ?@E 4@>A=J H:E9 bp[ :?4=F5:?8 |:55=6E@?[ H9:49 D2H :ED G@E6CD DEC:<6 5@H? AC@A@D65 K@?:?8 E92E H@F=5 92G6 3C@F89E :E :?E@ 4@>A=:2?46 5FC:?8 2 |2J a_ac %@H? |66E:?8]k^Am

    kAmp D:>:=2C C676C6?5F> 6=64E:@? E@ |2C3=69625’D H2D 96=5 😕 v=@F46DE6C 😕 pAC:= 27E6C E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= E96C6 25@AE65 bp 4@>A=:2?E K@?:?8[ 3FE G@E6CD <6AE E92E K@?:?8 😕 A=246]k^Am

    kAmk6>mr@?E24E r2C@=:?6 t?@D 2Ek^6>m k6>mk2 9C67lQ>2:=E@irt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qmrt?@Do?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2mk^6>mk6>m]k^6>mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • GOP hopefuls vow to ban ‘sanctuary’ laws

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A pair of Republicans challenging Democratic Gov. Maura Healey in next year’s gubernatorial election are vowing to push for a statewide ban on “sanctuary” policies if elected, arguing that the state’s immigrant-friendly laws have made it a magnet for the undocumented.

    Republicans Mike Kennealy, who served as former Gov. Charlie Baker’s housing and economic development secretary, and Brian Shortsleeve, a former MBTA head and venture capitalist, are vying for the GOP’s nomination to challenge Healey next year.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmw62=6J[ H9@ H2D 6=64E65 😕 a_aa[ 92D?’E 7@C>2==J =2F?4965 96C C66=64E:@? 42>A2:8?[ 3FE C646?E=J D2:5 D96 A=2?D E@ D66< 2?@E96C 7@FCJ62C E6C>]k^Am

    kAm~? E96 42>A2:8? EC:2=[ $9@CED=66G6 92D 7@4FD65 @? E96 >:8C2?E 4C:D:D 2?5 42==65 @? w62=6J E@ 32? “D2?4EF2CJ” A@=:4:6D 2?5 4@@A6C2E6 H:E9 7656C2= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E] w6 2==686D E96 8@G6C?@C’D “4@55=:?8” 92D C6DF=E65 😕 4@F?E=6DD AC6G6?E23=6 G:@=6?E 4C:>6D 2?5 4@DE E2IA2J6CD 3:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD]k^Am

    kAm“{2H 6?7@C46>6?E >FDE 36 23=6 E@ 5@ E96:C ;@3[ 2?5 :E 😀 36DE E92E :E 😀 5@?6 4@@A6C2E:G6=J H:E9 =@42= @77:4:2=D[” 96 D2:5] “%@ 4@?E:?F6 E@ @776C AC@E64E:@? 2?5 D2?4EF2CJ E@ 4C:>:?2= :==682= :>>:8C2?ED 😀 2? :?G:E2E:@? 7@C E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E E@ E2<6 FA@? E96>D6=G6D E96 ;@3 @7 6?7@C4:?8 E96 =2H 2?5 AC@E64E:?8 @FC C6D:56?ED]”k^Am

    kAmz6??62=J[ H9@ @G6CD2H E96 DE2E6’D D96=E6C DJDE6> 5FC:?8 E96 q2<6C 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ 92D 2=D@ 7@4FD65 @? :>>:8C2E:@? :DDF6D[ D2J:?8 :7 6=64E65 96 H:== H@C< H:E9 E96 s6>@4C2E:44@?EC@==65 {68:D=2EFC6 E@ 32? D2?4EF2CJ A@=:4:6D E92E “AC@E64E 4C:>:?2= :==682= :>>:8C2?ED]” w6 G@H65 E@ 4@@A6C2E6 H:E9 E96 765D “E@ C6>@G6 E96> 7C@> @FC D96=E6CD[ @FC DEC66ED[ 2?5 @FC DE2E6]”k^Am

    kAm“&?=:<6 v@G] w62=6J[ x H@?’E A:4< A@=:E:42= 7:89ED H:E9 (2D9:?8E@? E@ D4@C6 A@=:E:42= A@:?ED[” z6??62=J D2:5 😕 2 C646?E DE2E6>6?E] “x H:== 4@==23@C2E6 H:E9 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E E@ DEC6?8E96? @FC AF3=:4 D276EJ[ AC@E64E @FC 4@>>F?:E:6D[ 2?5 6?DFC6 |2DD249FD6EED 😀 ?@ =@?86C 2 D2?4EF2CJ 7@C =2H=6DD?6DD]”k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 5@6D?’E 92G6 2 =2H 564=2C:?8 :ED6=7 2 D2?4EF2CJ DE2E6] x? a_`f[ E96 $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE CF=65 E92E DE2E6 =2H 5@6D?’E 8:G6 =@42= A@=:46 E96 2FE9@C:EJ E@ 56E2:? A6@A=6 DFDA64E65 @7 36:?8 😕 E96 &]$] :==682==J F?=6DD E92E A6CD@? 7246D 4C:>:?2= 492C86D]k^Am

    kAm$6G6C2= 4@>>F?:E:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 q@DE@? 2?5 {2HC6?46[ 92G6 =@42= @C5:?2?46D C6DEC:4E:?8 4@@A6C2E:@? H:E9 7656C2= @77:4:2=D D66<:?8 F?5@4F>6?E65 :>>:8C2?ED @? D@42==65 xrt 56E2:?6CD[ H9:49 42? 36 6:E96C 4C:>:?2= @C 4:G:=]k^Am

    kAmqFE E96 DE2E6 s6A2CE>6?E @7 r@CC64E:@?D 😀 A2CE @7 E96 7656C2= agfW8X AC@8C2> E92E 2==@HD AC:D@? H2C56?D E@ EFC? @G6C 4C:>:?2= DFDA64ED D@F89E 3J 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 286?ED @? xrt 56E2:?6CD]k^Am

    kAmw62=6J[ 2 7@C>6C DE2E6 2EE@C?6J 86?6C2=[ 92D AFD965 324< @? 4=2:>D 3J E96 DE2E6’D #6AF3=:42?D 2?5 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? E92E |2DD249FD6EED 😀 2 56724E@ “D2?4EF2CJ” DE2E6 2?5 D2JD =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:4:2=D 2C6?’E 2==@H:?8 52?86C@FD F?5@4F>6?E65 4C:>:?2=D E@ 36 C6=62D65 :?E@ E96 4@>>F?:EJ]k^Am

    kAmpD 8@G6C?@C[ D96 2=D@ AFD965 E9C@F89 C67@C>D E@ E96 DE2E6’D 6>6C86?4J D96=E6C DJDE6> 😕 C6DA@?D6 E@ 2 DFC86 @7 >:8C2?ED E92E 4@DE E96 DE2E6 ?62C=J S` 3:==:@? =2DE J62C] %9@D6 C67@C>D :?4=F565 D6EE:?8 2 b_52J =:>:E @? DE2JD 😕 D96=E6C D:E6D 2?5 C65F4:?8 E96 >2I:>F> DE2J 7C@> ?:?6 E@ D:I 4@?D64FE:G6 >@?E9D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C E96 DE2E6’D “C:89EE@D96=E6C” =2H[ |2DD249FD6EED 😀 C6BF:C65 E@ AC@G:56 6>6C86?4J 9@FD:?8 2?5 7@@5 E@ 9@>6=6DD 72>:=:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 2DJ=F> D66<6CD 2?5 @E96C =682= :>>:8C2?ED]k^Am

    kAmx? |2J[ }6H w2>AD9:C6’D #6AF3=:42? v@G] z6==J pJ@EE6 D:8?65 2 3:== AC@9:3:E:?8 “D2?4EF2CJ” A@=:4:6D 2?5 C6BF:C:?8 =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E E@ 9@=5 DFDA64ED D@F89E 3J &]$] x>>:8C2E:@? 2?5 rFDE@>D t?7@C46>6?E @77:4:2=D 7@C 56A@CE2E:@? 7@C FA E@ cg 9@FCD]k^Am

    kAmpE 2 D:8?:?8 46C6>@?J[ pJ@EE6 ;23365 2E ?6:893@C:?8 |2DD249FD6EED @G6C “D2?4EF2CJ” A@=:4:6D 😕 D6G6C2= 4:E:6D 2?5 E@H?D[ :?4=F5:?8 q@DE@?] $96 96=5 FA 2 D:8? C625:?8 “s@?’E |2DD &A }w” – 2 D=@82? D96 FD65 5FC:?8 96C 8F36C?2E@C:2= CF? =2DE J62C]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:42? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A D:8?65 2? 6I64FE:G6 @C56C 😕 pAC:= 5:C64E:?8 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ E@ 4@>A:=6 2 ?2E:@?H:56 =:DE @7 “D2?4EF2CJ” ;FC:D5:4E:@?D H96C6 =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E C6DEC:4ED 4@@A6C2E:@? H:E9 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 286?ED]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A’D @C56C 244FD6D D@>6 DE2E6 2?5 =@42= @77:4:2=D @7 6?828:?8 😕 2 “=2H=6DD :?DFCC64E:@? 282:?DE E96 DFAC6>24J @7 7656C2= =2H” 3J @3DECF4E:?8 &]$] x>>:8C2E:@? 2?5 rFDE@>D t?7@C46>6?E @A6C2E:@?D]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Litman: Will Trump launch a reign of terror against his list of enemies? There’s little to stop him

    [ad_1]

    During his ultimately victorious campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump made no bones about his intention to use the legal levers of government to go after his perceived enemies. When he takes office in January, we should therefore expect him to launch a reign of terror against dozens of people he sees as having crossed him. And his vengeance will be enabled by the Supreme Court opinion granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

    A recent National Public Radio analysis determined that Trump has threatened more than 100 federal investigations or prosecutions to settle scores. They run the gamut from President Biden and his family, whom the president-elect has promised to pay back on Day 1 of his tenure by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate unspecified crimes; to former Rep. Liz Cheney, whom he recently suggested should face something like a firing squad; to judges involved in his prosecutions; and journalists who refuse to give up their sources.

    Granted, Trump frequently gives the impression that he has little understanding of or even interest in many of the policies he pressed on the campaign trail. But retribution against his enemies is clearly something that gets him up in the morning. From well before his entry into politics, Trump has been single-minded in intimidating and exacting retribution against his opponents.

    A passage from one of his tacky books that was read into evidence at his New York criminal trial declares, “My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.”

    Trump is in this respect not unique in the annals of the American presidency. The desire to “screw” one’s enemies, a hallmark of the insecure leader, is the impulse that brought down Richard Nixon. Watergate originally sprang from Nixon’s vendetta against Daniel Ellsberg, whom he was determined to embarrass for exposing the Pentagon Papers.

    In the wake of Nixon’s abuses, the country put in place a series of laws, regulations and norms designed to prevent government by vengeance. These included a prohibition on White House meddling in Justice Department prosecutions that took on canonical status.

    I was a Justice official at the beginning of what became the Whitewater scandal, and it would have been unthinkable at the time for a White House official to try to direct the department to investigate a political enemy. No administration would have dared, and no department official would have acquiesced.

    Since Watergate, the only administration that failed to fully respect that principle was Trump’s. His political appointees repeatedly pushed the department to at least provide information about continuing prosecutions. In those difficult years, the department sometimes resisted but sometimes relented. Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, made it a priority to rebuild the wall between the White House and the Justice Department.

    Trump has made it clear that he intends to raze that wall in his first days in office. Working off the blueprint of Project 2025, Trump has announced that he plans to hollow out the department’s career staff and replace them with political appointees who will serve at his pleasure and be loyal to him, not the Constitution.

    At that point, there will be no real impediment to the use of federal power for revenge against Trump’s long list of enemies. It will be the opposite of the department’s proud aspiration to do “justice without fear or favor.”

    Moreover, Trump has said he will rely on the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion to provide full cover against any legal resistance. When asked recently how he would handle special counsel Jack Smith, who led his two federal prosecutions, Trump replied, “It’s so easy — I would fire him within two seconds,” adding that he would enjoy “immunity at the Supreme Court.”

    The irony and tragedy of Trump’s invocation of the opinion is that the court declared it was ruling not for Trump but “for the ages.” But it is indeed Trump whose unscrupulous ambition it has served. And while the court reasoned that immunity is needed to safeguard aggressive, nimble and presumably lawful presidential action, Trump takes the lesson that he can violate the Constitution with impunity.

    The corrupt use of prosecutorial power can amount to a crime. For starters, the federal code criminalizes conspiring to injure any person because of their exercise of constitutional rights or their race. But the Supreme Court has ensured that Trump could carry out unlawful prosecutions: He can commit crimes but can’t be made to answer for them.

    Trump’s retribution agenda may encounter other roadblocks. Grand juries may not go along with prosecutions that reek of vengeance, and trial juries and judges are more likely to resist.

    Also, presidential immunity doesn’t extend to other executive branch officials, and Trump will need confederates in the Justice Department to do his bidding. But with a clear Republican majority in the Senate, Trump is likely to get any senior official he wants confirmed. That could include the likes of the right-wing activist and attorney general hopeful Mike Davis, who wrote Wednesday of Trump’s opponents, “I want to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)”

    As a practical matter, by far the most important protections against vengeful prosecutions are career federal prosecutors’ nonpartisan professionalism and the norms forbidding the White House from telling them whom to prosecute. Trump is plainly fixing to lay waste to those safeguards. That alone would constitute a giant step away from the rule of law and toward autocracy.

    Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman

    [ad_2]

    Harry Litman

    Source link

  • Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — An abortion rights group is asking a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit against them and Gov. Maura Healey by anti-abortion groups in response to a state-funded campaign targeting pregnancy ‘crisis’ center operators.

    In a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court in Boston on Tuesday, lawyers for the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation argue that the plaintiffs “lack standing” to file the lawsuit and blasted the legal challenge as an attempt to “silence” their advocacy work.

    “Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, this case is not about any wrongful deprivation of the First Amendment or other constitutional rights …” lawyers for the foundation wrote in a court filing. “Instead, it is a blatant attempt to enlist this court’s assistance in its effort to silence Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its president Rebecca Hart Holder, by enjoining them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

    The lawsuit, filed in August by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center on behalf of Your Options Medical Center and others, alleges that the state and Equity Now violated their constitutional rights with a “campaign of harassment, suppression, and threats” against the Revere-based facility and other pregnancy centers.

    At issue is a taxpayer-funded education campaign by the state Department of Health warning the public to avoid pregnancy crisis centers, which have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning federal protections.

    The $1 million campaign, which began earlier this year, has blanketed social media platforms, billboards and radio, with ads emblazoned on MBTA buses, trains and depots.

    The plaintiffs allege the campaign has forced them “to operate in a culture of fear and harassment” and that they continue to face “unprecedented investigations, including unnecessary subpoenas,” despite a prior state investigation clearing the operators of any wrongdoing.

    But lawyers for Holder and Equity Now argue in court filings that the public education campaign hasn’t deprived the pregnancy centers of their free speech rights or interfered with their operations.

    “To be clear, the public has not been prevented from seeking out and receiving YOM’s services, and YOM has not been prevented from expressing its viewpoints or fulfilling its mission consistent with those viewpoints,” they wrote.

    The plaintiffs “utterly failed to allege facts that plausibly demonstrate this is one of those rare instances in which the conduct of private parties constitutes state action,” they added.

    Hart-Holder calls the lawsuit “an attempt to silence our organization and prevent us from exercising our First Amendment protected right to free speech.”

    “We will not be intimidated by this lawsuit, and we will always fight for New England patients and their ability to access the reproductive health care that is right for them,” she said in a statement.

    Pregnancy crisis centers have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning federal protections.

    The centers, which advertise free services and counseling for women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, have proliferated in the wake of the high court’s decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

    But Healey and women’s reproductive rights groups claim the facilities are funded by anti-abortion groups with the intention of blocking women from getting abortions.

    In June, the state Department of Public Health partnered with the advocacy groups on a new campaign to educate the public about the “dangers and potential harm” of anti-abortion centers that advocates say are providing misleading information to women.

    The $1 million taxpayer-funded public campaign features ads on social media platforms, billboards, radio and transit warning women about the pregnancy crisis centers.

    Some communities have moved to limit or ban the centers amid complaints that they are using deceptive advertising and providing misinformation.

    But anti-abortion groups say the centers are providing options to women other than abortions and being unfairly targeted by a “smear campaign” by proponents of the procedure.

    The Pregnancy Care Alliance of Massachusetts said the network of pregnancy care centers in the state “provides millions of dollars in no-cost support and care for thousands of women annually who face planned and unplanned pregnancies.”

    The alliance has accused Healey and other state leaders of “furthering their extreme abortion agenda by using a taxpayer-funded campaign to discredit our centers.”

    “Our pregnancy resource centers are paying close attention to the case and look forward to learning the outcome, since a decision will directly impact our service to women and communities across the state,” the alliance said in a statement.

    The conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which has helped former President Donald Trump fight his legal battles, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. It argues that the campaign targeting pregnancy centers is part of a strategy to “silence the anti-abortion movement.”

    Healey, who is being represented by the Attorney General’s office, hasn’t formally responded to the lawsuit’s claims but was granted an extension this week to file her response until Dec. 13, according to federal court filings.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Peabody man charged with 6th OUI in motorcycle crash

    Peabody man charged with 6th OUI in motorcycle crash

    [ad_1]

    PEABODY — A Peabody man was arrested on a sixth drunk driving offense earlier this month after crashing a motorcycle into a stone wall while under the influence.

    The incident occurred just before 11 p.m. on Oct. 5 at the corner of Franklin and Kosciusko streets.

    George Bradley, 55, was allegedly speeding down Franklin Street on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle when he noticed a stop sign too late, tried to break and “left a skid mark for approximately 50 feet before disregarding the stop sign and crashing into the stone wall of 5 Kosciusko St.,” according to a police report.

    Bradley was evaluated at the scene for injuries, but refused to be taken to the hospital, police said. While the motorcycle was dented in the crash, the wall was undamaged.

    Police said Bradley failed field sobriety tests at the scene and was arrested.

    In addition to a sixth drunk driving offense, he was charged with operating an unregistered and uninsured vehicle, negligently operating a vehicle and driving with a suspended license.

    Police said the motorcycle was owned by someone other than Bradley.

    The Essex County District Attorney’s office confirmed that Bradley did have his driver’s license revoked for life upon his fifth OUI offense, per state law.

    He is being held without bail following a dangerousness hearing.

    Contact Caroline Enos at CEnos@northofboston.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Peabody tables generational tobacco sales ban

    Peabody tables generational tobacco sales ban

    [ad_1]

    PEABODY — A proposed generational tobacco sale ban for the city was tabled after a two-and-a-half hour public hearing Thursday night featuring those on both sides of the issue from around the state.

    The ordinance before the Board of Health aimed to ban the sale of tobacco products in Peabody to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2004.

    But with city councilors and local retailers showing up to oppose the measure, Board of Health Director Sharon Cameron suggested the Board work with local tobacco retailers to create an industry-led, self-regulation program around tobacco products.

    “Throughout my 20 years in local public health, we have always been two steps behind the tobacco industry…” Cameron said following public comment Thursday. “Let’s ask the retail tobacco industry to partner with us in a meaningful way to reduce the rates of kids initiating tobacco use.”

    Such a program could include training on tobacco policies and how to spot illegal tobacco products, like flavored goods that are sometimes sold to retailers in falsely labeled packages with documentation that they are legal, Cameron said.

    The program could set up a tobacco retailer certification similar to what restaurants have for certified food managers, along with compliance checks retailers could conduct themselves. The program could also include protocols created by retailers and the Board for assessing tobacco products for illegal gimmicks like being flavored.

    The Board adopted language to clarify its current discipline policies for retailers who violate tobacco sale laws and voted to initiate this program over the next year or two. And, if the program isn’t effective, to revisit regulations like the ban discussed Thursday.

    That proposal is similar to a “nicotine-free generation” measure Brookline passed in 2020 that banned the sale of such items to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000, a law that was upheld by the Supreme Judicial Court earlier this year.

    Since then, such laws have been proposed and hotly debated statewide in communities like Groton, Lexington and Medford, and passed in nearly 10 communities including Wakefield, Melrose, Stoneham and Reading, among others.

    Opponents who spoke Thursday said the ban would fuel a black market and harm convenience stores while creating two classes of citizens. The concerns came from local convenience store owners, adult tobacco use rights activists, Peabody residents and citizens from other communities where this type of ban has been presented.

    “I oppose this policy because it proposes to restrict the freedom of adults to choose,” Cambridge resident Emily Wieja said at Thursday’s meeting. “We allow adult consumers to choose addictive substances and practices like alcohol, marijuana and modern gambling. It’s ridiculous to propose a complete ban on tobacco.”

    A generational tobacco ban isn’t the first major reform on tobacco Massachusetts has seen in recent years. A statewide flavored tobacco ban was passed on Beacon Hill in 2019 and the national minimum tobacco sales age was also raised from 18 to 21 that year.

    Carlos Cesar owns a convenience store and gas station on Route 1. He told the Board of Health Thursday these tighter regulations on tobacco sales have cost his business $60,000 in tobacco revenue over the last several years.

    “This will directly impact our sales, our livelihood, our doing business, and it will affect us,” added Arthur Hiu, owner of A&L Liquors in Peabody Square.

    Peabody City Councilors Dave Gamache, Anne Manning-Martin, Stephanie Peach and Julie Daigle also spoke Thursday against adopting the ban.

    They too said it would hurt convenience stores and would turn Peabody into an island among communities that still allow the sale of these products to everyone over age 21.

    The ban also doesn’t address youth tobacco use directly, they said, despite that being part of the law’s reason for being adopted in other communities. They argued it would be more effective to tackle this issue through better enforcement and education, rather than a regulation like this.

    Tobacco use among high schoolers has declined from 23.9% in 2009 to 11.4% in 2017, according to data from the state. That same year, the percent of high schoolers smoking cigarettes in the state hit a low of 6.4%.

    But e-cigarette use increased 900% among high school students between 2011 and 2016. Since then, the use of vape pens and other newer, non-conventional tobacco products have gained popularity among youth.

    The three most common ways youth obtain tobacco products is from friends, a family member or a tobacco permit holding establishment, said Laura Nash, an epidemiologist with the North Shore Public Health Collaborative.

    That’s why it’s time to push for a “tobacco free generation” through bans like this, supporters said.

    Board of Health member Julia Fleet was in favor of pushing through the ban Thursday and was the sole member on the three-person board to vote against tabling it.

    Not adopting the ban now means the city is losing time in the fight to curb tobacco use, she said.

    “The ultimate goal for public health is that phasing out tobacco sales is to the benefit of our population as a whole,” Fleet said.

    Attorney Mark Gottlieb defended the Brookline law before the SJC. He said at Thursday’s meeting that no convenience stores in Brookline had closed since the policy was enacted three years ago.

    “While for some the nicotine-free generation idea may seem radical or a step too far, they may actually be in the minority,” he said, citing a 2023 CDC study that found the majority of Americans favor a policy to ban the sale of all tobacco products.

    Gottlieb has been joined by doctors and activists in encouraging local health boards around Massachusetts to pass generational tobacco ban rules over the last several months.

    As for Peabody becoming an island, Mass General Hospital pediatrician Jonathan Winickoff told the Board that won’t be the case.

    “The (tobacco) industry shuts down state level action unless a lot of towns come together first and take courageous action…” he said. “Once the momentum gets going, as it is for (generational bans), it won’t be long… I think before town by town, if Peabody takes this action, that we will be on a level playing field.”

    Contact Caroline Enos at CEnos@northofboston.com

    [ad_2]

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • DiZoglio blasts legislative leaders in audit

    DiZoglio blasts legislative leaders in audit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Legislature lacks transparency and accountability in its dealings, according to a new state audit, which blasts legislative leaders for refusing to open up their books for the performance review.

    The audit, released Monday by Auditor Diana DiZoglio, faults the state House of Representatives and Senate for failing to conduct timely financial reviews of its spending, a lack of transparency in its procurement policies and a website that makes it difficult for the public to navigate, among other criticisms.

    But DiZoglio also leaned into House and Senate leaders for refusing to provide information her office requested for the audit, including tracking year-end budget spending, how they decide which major bills are brought up for a vote and whether the two chambers are following their own rules regarding non-disclosure agreements.

    “It is deeply concerning that legislative leaders have refused to cooperate with our office to help promote transparency and identify ways to improve service to the people of Massachusetts,” the Democrat said in a statement. “Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy and enable the people to participate in government as intended in our Constitution, in a system of checks and balances.”

    The audit comes as DiZoglio urges voters to approve Question 1, which if approved would force legislative leaders to open up their books for an independent review.

    Under current laws, the auditor has the power to examine “all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth” but the ballot question would expand those powers to specifically include the Legislature.

    The referendum was proposed by DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat and former state lawmaker, whose high-profile efforts to audit the House and Senate have been blocked by legislative leaders who argue the move is unconstitutional.

    The partial audit released on Monday found that the Senate and House didn’t ensure annual financial audits were completed, filed with required recipients, or made available to the public in a timely way, in an apparent violation of their own rules.

    The review also found that the Legislature’s procurement policies lack transparency, which auditors said limit the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable.

    The Massachusetts Legislature’s website also lacks content and is hard to navigate, compared to other state’s legislative bodies, which auditors said “hinders the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.”

    Other concerns flagged by auditors included a lack of details about how legislative leaders appoint committee chairpersons and other posts that bump up lawmaker’s prestige and compensation.

    Legislative leaders were asked to respond to the findings of the audit, but DiZoglio’s office said they declined.

    “The purported audit of the Legislature released by the Auditor today confirms only one thing: the Auditor has abandoned all pretext of faithfully performing her statutory responsibilities in favor of using her office for pure political self-promotion and electioneering,” House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a statement on Monday in response to the report.

    “The Auditor should instead be focusing on her statutorily mandated reviews, as she continues to underperform her predecessors in the completion of that important work,” he added.

    DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation.

    Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    DiZoglio has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in Legislature, which is continuously ranked as one of the least effective and least transparent legislative bodies in the country. It is also one of only four state Legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws, DiZoglio points out.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.

    A panel of six lawmakers who reviewed the proposal issued a report concluding that passage of Question 1 would “undermine the separation of powers between the branches of government.” The report included testimony from constitutional scholars and civics educators who oppose the move.

    Despite that, recent polls have shown voters strongly support Question 1 — one of five referendums on the Nov. 5 ballot — which hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Debate over pay of tipped workers rages as election nears

    Debate over pay of tipped workers rages as election nears

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A union backed proposal to pay tipped workers the state’s minimum wage goes before voters in November, but critics say its passage would hurt Main Street bars and restaurants and drive up consumer costs.

    Question 5 asks voters in the November election to decide if the state should require bars, restaurants, hotels and other hospitality venues to pay tipped workers the state’s $15 per hour wage floor, in addition to gratuities.

    The plan calls for phasing out the tipped wage for workers over five years, allowing workers to earn up to $15 per hour and keep their tips. It would also allow restaurants to “pool” tips and distribute them equally among all workers, such as cooks, dishwashers and others who don’t interact with customers.

    Supporters of phasing out the tipped-wage law — which includes labor organizations and worker advocacy groups — say it would improve wages for underpaid workers who are struggling to survive with the state’s high cost of living.

    Saru Jayaraman, president of pro-Question 5 group One Fair Wage, said its passage would ensure that tipped workers “finally receive fair wages, giving them the financial stability they need to support themselves and their families.”

    “Since the pandemic, restaurant workers have left the industry in droves. Many of them are tired of barely scraping by on poverty wages and tips that are unpredictable at best,” she said. “It’s time we end the injustice of the subminimum wage and create an industry that truly values and compensates its workers with dignity.”

    But critics, like the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and “No on 5” Committee to Protect Tips, argue the plan would increase costs for bars and restaurants that already operate on narrow margins, and lead to higher prices for consumers.

    “This would put a massive increase on the costs of small businesses at a time when they are still recovering from COVID,” said Chris Keohan, a spokesman for the “No on 5” opposition group. “This would increase the costs of the average restaurant by about $300,000 a year.”

    He said the increased labor costs would push some bars and restaurants out of business or accelerate the shift away from full-service establishments, as employers hire less staff and move to automated operations like McDonald’s and Dunkin’s new self-serve kiosks.

    Municipal leaders representing communities including Newburyport, Methuen, Haverhill and Gardner also oppose the proposal, arguing it would devastate Main Street restaurants that are still recovering from the economic effects of the pandemic.

    Massachusetts law requires workers to be paid at least $15 an hour — under the “grand bargain” package the Legislature brokered to avert a proposal to cut the state’s sales tax and other proposals. But the 2018 law also allows bars and restaurants to pay tipped workers $6.75 per hour.

    The state is home to some 50,000 waiters and waitresses, 20,000 bartenders, and 5,000 manicurists and pedicurists, according to the latest labor data.

    If Question 5 is approved, Massachusetts would be the first state in decades to eliminate its tipped minimum wage, which observers say makes it hard to know how the transition will play out in the post-pandemic economy.

    The closest example is the District of Columbia, which is two years into a five-year phase-out of its tipped wage, the report noted. Some Washington, D.C., restaurants have set-service fees — ranging from 3% to 20% — to offset the higher labor costs. Critics point to data showing some restaurants have closed in the law’s wake.

    A recent report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis said restaurants and other tip-dependent businesses will face higher costs from having to cover the full minimum wage, and will likely compensate for that with a mix of price increases, new fees, reduced hiring, and potentially lower profits.

    But phasing out the state’s tipped wage will translate into higher pay for most service employees who currently depend on the extra money, according to the report.

    In June, the state Supreme Judicial Court tossed out a challenge by restaurant groups alleging the proposal violates a requirement in the state Constitution that initiative petitions must contain only ‘related or mutually dependent’ subjects.

    The justices unanimously concluded that Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office correctly certified the question for the November ballot.

    The Massachusetts Restaurant Association and Committee to Protect Tips filed a complaint with the state Ballot Law Commission alleging that backers of the ballot question submitted “fraudulent” signatures from people who aren’t registered to vote, among other claims.

    But the groups withdrew their objections at the last minute, citing a lack of time to conduct a thorough review and make their arguments before the panel.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Nurse’s union blasts changes by new hospital owners

    Nurse’s union blasts changes by new hospital owners

    [ad_1]

    Unionized nurses at Holy Family Hospital’s campuses in Haverhill and Methuen are accusing the new owners of violating the terms of their contracts by making “unilateral” changes to their health care coverage and other benefits.

    Lawrence General Hospital formally took over ownership of the hospitals last week as part of the sale of bankrupt Steward Health Care System’s Massachusetts hospitals in a $28 million deal signed off on by a federal judge in Texas.

    The sale was heralded by Gov. Maura Healey, health care leaders and local elected officials as a way to preserve jobs, improve working conditions and prevent the closure of the hospitals.

    But the Massachusetts Nurses Association alleges that Lawrence General is violating the terms of the court-approved sale and collective bargaining agreements for registered nurses who work at Holy Family’s two campuses.

    In an emergency motion, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on Wednesday, the union alleges that LGH unilaterally imposed changes to the nurses’ health plans that will increase premiums, out-of-pocket costs and deductibles, and removed credits for uninsured members.

    The hospital also required nurses at Holy Family to switch to a different, more costly type of retirement plan, and reduced coverage through its life insurance plans, according to the union, which estimates the changes will cost nurses thousands of dollars in lost wages.

    “Unless immediately addressed, Lawrence’s improper actions will cause significant economic injury to MNA and its members by reducing benefits while imposing significantly higher costs, including increased deductibles and copays,” lawyers for the union wrote in the 91-page complaint.

    The complaint asks the bankruptcy judge to declare the hospital in violation of the terms of the sale and require it to honor existing collective bargaining agreements with unionized nurses.

    “We remain an active and engaged participant in discussions with the Massachusetts Nurses Association, just as we have from the outset,” a spokesperson from Lawrence General Hospital said in a statement. “The court filings will not impact or interrupt our ability to deliver high-quality, compassionate, and culturally competent care. We continue to work together with the MNA and all of our staff to meet the health care needs of our patients, their families, and the communities we serve.”

    In the court filing, the union said shortly after the sale of Holy Family hospitals was announced in September nurses entered into negotiations with Lawrence General for new employment terms.

    But the union said hospital officials rejected several offers and then “threatened” to impose the changes on nurses if they didn’t agree to the new terms. After the sale of the hospitals closed on Oct. 1, Lawrence General imposed the new employment terms by “fiat,” according to the complaint.

    “Lawrence’s actions cannot be excused as inadvertent mistakes or transitional hiccups,” the union’s lawyers wrote. “Rather, they are its most recent attempt to impose significant economic changes on MNA-represented nurses.”

    The Dallas-based Steward operated about 30 hospitals nationwide before it filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year to pay down $9 billion in debt to its creditors.

    In September, a federal judge approved plans to transfer ownership of several of Steward’s Massachusetts hospitals, including Holy Family, Morton Hospital in Taunton and St. Anne’s Hospital in Fall River. Morton and St. Anne’s were purchased by Lifespan, a Rhode Island-based company, a deal valued at more than $175 million.

    The state took over a fifth Steward hospital — St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Brighton — by eminent domain until Boston Medical Center takes it over as its new owner.

    Steward closed its hospitals in Dorchester and Ayer at the end of August after failing to reach adequate terms with prospective buyers.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Question 5: Should tipped workers be paid minimum wage?

    Question 5: Should tipped workers be paid minimum wage?

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A union-backed proposal to pay tipped workers the state’s minimum wage goes before voters in November, but critics say its passage would hurt Main Street bars and restaurants and drive up consumer costs.

    Question 5 asks voters to decide if the state should require bars, restaurants, hotels and other hospitality venues to pay tipped workers the state’s wage floor of $15 per hour, in addition to gratuities.

    The plan calls for phasing out the tipped wage for workers over five years, allowing workers to earn up to $15 per hour and keep their tips. It would also allow restaurants to “pool” tips and distribute them equally among all workers, such as cooks, dishwashers and others who don’t interact with customers.

    Supporters of phasing out the tipped-wage law — which includes labor organizations and worker advocacy groups — say it would improve wages for underpaid workers who are struggling to survive with the state’s high cost of living.

    Saru Jayaraman, president of pro-Question 5 group One Fair Wage, said its passage would ensure that tipped workers “finally receive fair wages, giving them the financial stability they need to support themselves and their families.”

    “Since the pandemic, restaurant workers have left the industry in droves. Many of them are tired of barely scraping by on poverty wages and tips that are unpredictable at best,” Jayaraman said. “It’s time we end the injustice of the subminimum wage and create an industry that truly values and compensates its workers with dignity.”

    But critics, like the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and “No on 5” Committee to Protect Tips, argue the plan would increase costs for bars and restaurants that already operate on narrow margins, and lead to higher prices for consumers.

    “This would put a massive increase on the costs of small businesses at a time when they are still recovering from COVID,” said Chris Keohan, a spokesman for the “No on 5” opposition group. “This would increase the costs of the average restaurant by about $300,000 a year.”

    He said the increased labor costs would push some bars and restaurants out of business or accelerate the shift away from full-service establishments, as employers hire less staff and move to automated operations like McDonald’s and Dunkin’s new self-serve kiosks.

    Municipal leaders representing communities including Newburyport, Methuen, Haverhill and Gardner also oppose the proposal, arguing it would devastate Main Street restaurants that are still recovering from the economic effects of the pandemic.

    Massachusetts law requires workers to be paid at least $15 an hour — under the “grand bargain” package the Legislature brokered to avert a proposal to cut the state’s sales tax and other proposals. But the 2018 law also allows bars and restaurants to pay tipped workers $6.75 per hour.

    The state is home to some 50,000 waiters and waitresses, 20,000 bartenders, and 5,000 manicurists and pedicurists, according to the latest labor data.

    If Question 5 is approved, Massachusetts would be the first state in decades to eliminate its tipped minimum wage, which observers say makes it hard to know how the transition will play out in the post-pandemic economy.

    The closest example is the District of Columbia, which is two years into a five-year phase-out of its tipped wage, the report noted. Some Washington, D.C., restaurants have set-service fees — ranging from 3% to 20% — to offset the higher labor costs. Critics point to data showing some restaurants have closed in the law’s wake.

    A recent report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis said restaurants and other tip-dependent businesses will face higher costs from having to cover the full minimum wage, and will likely compensate for that with a mix of price increases, new fees, reduced hiring, and potentially lower profits.

    But phasing out the state’s tipped wage will translate into higher pay for most service employees who currently depend on the extra money, according to the report.

    In June, the state Supreme Judicial Court tossed out a challenge by restaurant groups alleging the proposal violates a requirement in the state Constitution that initiative petitions must contain only ‘related or mutually dependent’ subjects.

    The justices unanimously concluded that Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office correctly certified the question for the November ballot.

    The Massachusetts Restaurant Association and Committee to Protect Tips filed a complaint with the state Ballot Law Commission alleging that backers of the ballot question submitted “fraudulent” signatures from people who aren’t registered to vote, among other claims.

    But the groups withdrew their objections at the last minute, citing a lack of time to conduct a thorough review and make their arguments before the panel.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is hitting the road to rally voter support for her ballot campaign to open up the state Legislature’s financial books.

    DiZoglio said she plans to begin a 141-mile trek across Massachusetts to raise awareness of Question 1, which asks voters in the election Nov. 5 to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature.

    She argues that the audit would ensure the Legislature is operating in accordance with government rules and regulations.

    The Methuen Democrat’s “Walking for Sunshine” sojourn was to get underway Friday night in Great Barrington, where she was to meet supporters at a local bar before hitting the long road to Boston.

    DiZoglio said she will meet with voters at nightly events along the way and urge them to “demand greater transparency for the state Legislature” by approving the referendum.

    DiZoglio, a former state lawmaker, launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she has not been able to receive access to the people and records her office needs for a forensic investigation. She has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in state government.

    House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation of the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record suggests she does not have standing to file the legal challenge.

    But DiZoglio and other supporters gathered enough signatures from voters to put the question on the November ballot.

    “We believe taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and they deserve transparency, accessibility and accountability from elected officials,” the Yes on 1 campaign said in a statement.

    “But instead of taking meaningful action that makes life better in the Commonwealth, they continue to be characterized as one of the least efficient, least productive legislatures in the country, plagued by late-night horse trading and closed-door discussions, with constituencies cut out of the process.”

    The state’s restrictive records law consistently earns Massachusetts failing grades from First Amendment groups.

    In 2016, the state overhauled its public records law for the first time in decades, limiting how much state and local governments and police departments may charge for public records and setting deadlines for agencies to respond to requests for information, among other changes.

    But lawmakers left in place many of the exemptions shielding the Legislature, courts and law enforcement agencies from disclosing certain records.

    Recent polls have shown voters strongly support for Question 1 – one of five referendums on the November ballot – which so far has not drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Healey moves to implement gun control law

    Healey moves to implement gun control law

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey is moving to implement a tough new gun control law in response to a lawsuit challenging its provisions and a effort to repeal the restrictions.

    On Wednesday, Healey signed an executive order attaching an emergency preamble to the bill she signed in July that expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    Gun control groups praised the rare maneuver, which they said is aimed at blocking an effort by critics of the new law to block its implementation as they gather signatures to put the issue before voters in two years.

    “After years of advocating for these gun safety measures to become law, we weren’t going to stand by and let the gun lobby get in the way of our progress,” Anne Thalheimer, a survivor fellow with the Everytown Survivor Network, said in a statement. “We’re grateful to Governor Healey for standing with us and taking decisive action to ensure that this lifesaving law is implemented.”

    But the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the law’s training and licensing requirements, said Healey’s “radical move” signing the executive order makes hundreds of thousands of lawful gun owners across the state into “felons in waiting.”

    He accused the governor and Democratic lawmakers of waging a “consistent effort to silence our voices and mislead the general public.”

    “Ever since this tantrum against the Supreme Court decision Bruen started last year, the so-called ‘process’ has become even more putrid,” said Jim Wallace, GOAL’s executive director, in a statement. “At every turn, the Legislature and now the governor, have avoided honest public input, especially from the 2A [Second Amendment] community.”

    Wallace said despite the order the group is still urging the federal judge to issue a temporary injunction to block the law from going into effect as the ballot initiative and legal challenge plays out in court.

    Besides the legal fight, critics of the new law or gathering signatures to put the question before voters in the 2026 election. They argue that the restrictions will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive legal gun owners of their constitutional rights.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the state’s assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It also set strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as so-called “Glock switches” that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the legislation.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill through the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is hitting the road to rally voter support for her ballot campaign to open up the state Legislature’s financial books.

    DiZoglio said she plans to begin a 141-mile trek across Massachusetts to raise awareness for Question 1, which asks voters in the Nov. 5 elections to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature, which she argues will ensure that it is operating in accordance with government rules and regulations.

    The Methuen Democrat’s “Walking for Sunshine” sojourn gets underway Friday night in Great Barrington, where she will meet supporters at a local bar before hitting the long road to Boston.

    DiZoglio said she will meet with voters at nightly events along the way and urge them to “demand greater transparency for the state Legislature” by approving the referendum.

    A former state lawmaker, DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation. She has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in state government.

    House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.

    But DiZoglio and other supporters gathered enough signatures from voters to put the question on the November ballot.

    “We believe taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and they deserve transparency, accessibility and accountability from elected officials,” the Yes on 1 campaign said in a statement. “But instead of taking meaningful action that makes life better in the Commonwealth, they continue to be characterized as one of the least efficient, least productive legislatures in the country, plagued by late-night horse trading and closed-door discussions, with constituencies cut out of the process.”

    The state’s restrictive records law consistently earns Massachusetts failing grades from First Amendment groups.

    In 2016, the state overhauled its public records law for the first time in decades, limiting how much state and local governments and police departments may charge for public records and setting deadlines for agencies to respond to requests for information, among other changes.

    But lawmakers left in place many of the exemptions shielding the Legislature, courts and law enforcement agencies from disclosing certain records.

    Recent polls have shown voters strongly support for Question 1 — one of five referendums on the November ballot — which so far hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    [ad_1]

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms and other items made with certain synthetic food dyes will be expelled from California public schools, charter schools and state special schools under a bill signed into law Saturday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Assembly Bill 2316, which will go into effect starting Dec. 31, 2027, spells the end for snack foods that contain the dyes known as blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. All are common industry staples that can give foods unnaturally vibrant colors in an effort to make them more appealing.

    “Our health is inextricably tied to the food we eat,” Newsom said in a statement. “Today, we are refusing to accept the status quo, and making it possible for everyone, including school kids, to access nutritious, delicious food without harmful, and often addictive additives.”

    The chemicals have been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, according to the bill’s authors, who cited a 2021 report from the California Environmental Protection Agency. They expressed hope that the new law can have ripple effects beyond the Golden State.

    “California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who introduced the legislation.

    The new law “sends a strong message to manufacturers to stop using these harmful additives,” he added in a statement.

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos contain three of the six newly forbidden chemicals: red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. The ingredient list for M&Ms includes those three dyes as well as blue 1 and blue 2.

    Other food items that could disappear from cafeterias and school vending machines as a result of this law include Cheetos, Doritos, sports drinks and sugary breakfast cereals such as Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch.

    For Gabriel, the bill is personal. He told The Times in March that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child. His son also has the neurodevelopmental disorder.

    Last year, Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation ban on food additives found in popular cereals, candy, sodas and drinks, including brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3. That law will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations.

    California lawmakers hope the bans will prompt manufacturers to reformulate their recipes.

    AB 2316 faced opposition from the American Beverage Assn., the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Confectioners Assn.

    The groups said food additives should be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not evaluated on a state-by-state basis.

    But how or when the FDA will take action on the issue remains to be seen, said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the law.

    “The FDA should certainly also take action on these dyes, but that’s no reason to wait to make sure that kids in California are safe,” Benesh said after the bill passed the Legislature.

    “There are plenty of alternatives to these chemicals,” Benesh said. “I think it’s on industry to find a way to reformulate and market their foods without using chemicals that may hurt our kids.”

    In addition to the ban on food dyes, Newsom also signed a bill that aims to standardize information about the expiration dates on food products. AB 660 is designed to give consumers more clear and consistent information about the freshness of their food in the hope that it will reduce food waste.

    “Having to wonder whether our food is still good is an issue that we all have struggled with,” the bill’s author, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), said in a statement. The enactment of this bill is a “monumental step to keep money in the pockets of consumers while helping the environment and the planet.”

    Erica Parker, a policy associate with Californians Against Waste, which co-sponsored the bill, said the legislation will get rid of the confusion consumers face when examining products that have the words “sell by,” “expires on” or “freshest before” printed on their packaging.

    The result of that confusion “is a staggering amount of food waste. Californians throw away 6 million tons of food waste each year — and confusion over date labels is a leading cause,” she said in a statement when the bill was sent to Newsom’s desk.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Solis, Susanne Rust

    Source link