House Democrats handily shut down a Republican-backed attempt to redirect millions set aside for no-cost prisoner calls to local aid for municipalities, a move that had representatives diving head-first into the second day of debate on their fiscal year 2025 budget.

Lawmakers voted 29-127 to reject the proposal from Rep. Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican, before the branch approved a series of amendment bundles throughout the day that tacked on an additional $25.8 million to the $57.9 billion budget.

Lawmakers were expected to continue working on the yearly spending plan into the evening after kicking off debate Wednesday, when the House added $26.9 million to the bottom line all while calling for fiscal prudence amidst struggling state revenues.

Frost pointed to dismal tax returns and unilateral budget cuts made by Gov. Maura Healey earlier this year as one reason to redirect $35 million in funding for free inmate phone calls to unrestricted local aid for cities and towns.

“We know things could be getting tougher in the year or two years to come,” he said. “We know our communities are going to take the brunt of it over time and so we got to do more for them.”

Related Articles

House budget debate kicks off with fiscal warnings from Democrats and Republicans

Now is not the time to let up on ‘critical investments,’ Senate Pres. tells Chamber

Pols & Politics: State-run shelter residency requirement rising from the ashes, again

Healey eyeing changes to State Police promotion process

Massachusetts House files $58B budget that is slightly less than Gov. Healey’s plan

Rep. Michael Day, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, asked representatives to oppose Frost’s budget amendment, arguing the no-cost calls policy “makes communities safer” by keeping incarcerated individuals connected with families and friends.

“It allows families to stay united despite the circumstances one of the parents may find themselves in. Again, we’ve debated this twice. We’ve passed this twice and we’re funding this now, for the second time. The policy works. It puts our communities first,” the Stoneham Democrat said.

A debate on the contours of the shelter system could also emerge during the House’s consideration of the fiscal year 2025 budget, though it was unclear if lawmakers would tackle the issue on Thursday or Friday.

That debate could feature a Republican-backed push to implement residency requirements, an issue that faced stiff resistance from Democrats earlier in the year

Across the building in the Senate, Minority Leader Sen. Bruce Tarr briefly touched on the issue before the branch voted on a separate supplemental spending bill, arguing a residency requirement could ensure residents of Massachusetts are prioritized for shelter placement.

“We should prioritize the needs of those who have been long-standing citizens of the commonwealth and residents of the commonwealth before those who are newly presenting and seeking the resources of our state,” he said. “That is just a fundamental issue of fairness.”

Senate budget chief Michael Rodrigues said it is unconstitutional to base “certain basic services” on the length of a person’s legal residency.

“Whether you are a resident for a year, your whole life, six months or you are a recently arrived, legal resident in Massachusetts seeking asylum, you are entitled constitutionally to the same basic services of housing, medical, food and the like,” the Westport Democrat. “All of these families, these women and children within the shelter system, are here legally.”

But Tarr said that an unsuccessful 2019 legal challenge to the one-year residency requirement a person must meet before filing for divorce sets the precedent to impose a similar measure on the shelter system.

“When we speak in terms of it being a given that the residency requirement would be unconstitutional, I think we need to take a step back,” he said. “There is certainly case law that might suggest that, but there is case law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2019 that might suggest otherwise.”

The ultimate solution to the dilemma, he said, is for the Legislature to formally ask the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on the matter.

This is a developing story…