Free Inmate Call Advocates Hope for Special Session After Mass. Bill Derails
Massachusetts inmates might be denied free phone calls with their families due to a disagreement between Gov. Charlie Baker (R) and the Democratic-controlled legislature. The California legislature will decide this month the fate of a similar bill that was opposed by sheriffs. California’s Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday teed up a vote on that measure, a few broadband bills and two industry-opposed social media bills.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Baker and the legislature faced off over the Massachusetts proposal to make inmate calls free (H-5112). Legislators passed the measure as part of a budget bill, but Baker sought an amendment to revive his proposal, unrelated to calls, about expanding detention of defendants considered dangerous before trial. His proposal had earlier stalled in the legislature. “Providing free phone calls, a benefit our state government provides to no one else, to inmates while dismissing the pleas of victims of crime is contrary to the traditions of, and frankly beneath the dignity of, the Massachusetts Legislature,” Baker wrote July 28.
The House rejected Baker’s amendment in a 31-122 vote Saturday. As a lengthy Sunday session extended into Monday, the Senate rejected it 8-14 but then voted 30-8 to pass a revised version. “Because the Senate passed a different version of the bill than the House and there was no reconciliation of the two before the end of the session, Baker has no bill to sign, effectively killing no cost calls,” emailed Aaron Steinberg, Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts communications and development coordinator.
The legislature could call a special session by Jan. 3, said Progressive Mass Policy Director Jonathan Cohn, another supporter of the free-calls proposal. “If that does not happen … it is dead for the session.” House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D) and Senate President Karen Spilka (D) didn’t comment Wednesday.
“Ideally, a special session will be called where the bill could be reconciled and sent to Governor Baker on its own merit, without attaching to it the expansion of pretrial detention,” said Steinberg: The legislature could override any Baker veto in the special session. Advocates will take up the issue again next session if the legislature doesn’t return sooner, he said. “In the meantime, low-income families of color will continue to shoulder the burden of nearly $14 million per year to connect with their loved ones, as we head into a likely recession.”
The inmate calling measure would have been “a great step forward in lessening financial burdens on incarcerated people and their families,” even as amended, said Prison Policy Institute General Counsel Stephen Raher, noting the measure passed by the legislature also addressed video calling and electronic messaging. “It's unfortunate that such a popular and common-sense provision seems to be caught up in a partisan dispute.”
California Assembly appropriators included a free-calls bill (SB-1008) in a “suspense file" calendar approved Wednesday. That's a category reserved for bills deemed to be costly and that will be taken up later. California fiscal committees face an Aug. 12 deadline to advance bills to the floor and the legislature plans to adjourn Aug. 31. The prison-calling bill is opposed by sheriffs from counties other than San Francisco, which already has free inmate calls and says the service works well (see 2206300026 and 2206140062).
Web industry groups opposed California social media bills the committee also put in suspense. SB-1018 would require social media platforms with at least 1 million monthly users to annually disclose content moderation efforts. SB-1056 would require platforms with 1 million or more monthly users to say if they have a mechanism for reporting violent posts and allows persons who are or believe they are a target of a violent post to seek an injunction to remove it.
"Transparency and online safety are shared objectives across industry but prioritizing paperwork over action won't serve users,” said Computer and Communications Industry Association President Matt Schruers in a statement. He said the bills could create costly compliance requirements, “may raise constitutional concerns, conflict with federal law, and risk impeding digital services companies' existing efforts to restrict inappropriate or harmful content on their platforms.”
Supporters claim SB-1018 is a “mere ‘transparency’ bill,” but it “violates the First Amendment because it operates a back door for government infringement of protected editorial rights,” said NetChoice Counsel Christopher Marchese.
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday considered another industry-opposed bill requiring social media sites to post terms of service and report on content moderation policies (see 2208010060). The Senate panel moved that and other children-focused measures to their suspense file to be voted on next week.
The Assembly panel also added some broadband bills to the suspense file. SB-857 would extend until Jan. 1, 2028, California High-Cost Fund A and B programs, set to expire Jan. 1. SB-717 would require a report including sections on barriers to broadband deployment on government-owned structures, private and public lands and buildings and public rights of way. It would also seek recommendations on improving access and speeding deployment for tribes, low-income customers and underserved communities. SB-884 would require the CPUC to establish an electric undergrounding program that requires telecom providers to cooperate with the power company to put non-wireless infrastructure underground and pay proportionate costs.