October 13, 2026
A recent commentary piece by Massachusetts Senate counsel James DiTullio arguing that criticism of the Legislature’s productivity is misplaced because we are one of just seven states that allow for multi-issue “omnibus” bills drew considerable attention, including three op-eds written in response that we are publishing. In addition to the commentary below by Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass., there are responses by Scotia Hille of Act on Mass and former Democratic state representative Jay Kaufman.
IN A RECENT piece for CommonWealth Beacon, Massachusetts Senate counsel James DiTullio defends the Legislature’s productivity against statistics that show Beacon Hill passing far fewer bills than other states. He points out that Massachusetts is one of just seven states that allow omnibus bills covering multiple issues, a structure that he says reduces the number of bills in comparison to the vast majority of states, which only permit single-issue legislation.
But his piece ignores the way that such statistics can be artificially padded at the same time that they are artificially limited in comparison to other states, and raises questions about the way that Beacon Hill’s lawmaking norms evade transparency and accountability.
Given our paternalistic home rule system, in which Beacon Hill acts as a gatekeeper for cities and towns seeking to pass their own laws, many of the bills signed into law end up being home rule petitions. The first bill signed into law this year was approving a charter change for Malden, and the most recent was about Natick’s deputy police chief. Why does Beacon Hill need a role in either?
The total count is also bloated by administrative matters like sick leave banks, in which state employees are able to benefit from unused sick leave from their colleagues.
Last year, for example, there were 20 sick leave banks and 61 home rule petitions signed into law out of a total of 101 new laws. Of the 231 bills signed into law this year, 200 were home rule petitions and 6 are sick leave banks. If we were to look at laws of statewide import, the national statistics DiTullio rails against would be even worse.
But DiTullio is correct that the Massachusetts General Court’s embrace of omnibus bills and policymaking through budgets and supplemental budgets makes simple bill tallies an imperfect yardstick. It was through last year’s budget, for instance, that Beacon Hill passed a new immigrant legal defense fund and banned tenant-paid broker’s fees, both significant wins. Bills can also be subsumed into thematic omnibus bills— say, for example, the PROTECT Act, which combined a number of important provisions from other standalone bills.
However, you would never know this from the Legislature’s website. It records many of those individual bills as dead for the session, to be mourned today and to rise like a phoenix from the ashes in January. Indeed, understanding which bills have become law in the Legislature through budgets and omnibuses requires expensive paid subscriptions to companies specializing in bill tracking. Pity the poor engaged constituent, or even legislator, simply trying to understand what’s going on.
Rather than a defense of the Legislature’s productivity, the reliance on omnibus bills should be an indictment. Congress has faced criticism in recent years for overly relying on budget reconciliation to pass legislation, creating mega bills containing a full agenda that get negotiated behind closed doors. Beacon Hill deserves the same criticism. Indeed, the reliance on omnibus bills is a breakdown of legislative process, not a sign of its efficiency.
From the perspective of a rank-and-file legislator, you are forced into decisions about whether or not to support a bill that contains provisions you fought for and provisions you may despise. These trade-offs become pronounced when more and more unrelated items get cobbled together into one.
For advocates and everyday voters, such a practice eliminates basic mechanisms of accountability. Consider the recent economic development bill. Both the House and Senate included important progressive policy changes as part of their bills, which passed near unanimously as “must-pass” bills always do. But can you praise individual legislators for what the bill included? Did they even know what policy riders were in there? Would they have voted for them as standalone bills, or even amendments? Constituents don’t know. Many legislators simply vote for the economic development bill for the sake of the earmarks.
Democracy depends on being able to give positive and negative reinforcement to elected officials. Constituents should be able to praise legislators for what they do right and criticize them for what they do wrong. Omnibus bills weaken that ability, and that’s the point.
Such omnibus bills also disempower rank-and-file legislators and empower the handful of high-ranking legislators who craft these bills and then negotiate them in conference. Fewer people making an ever-larger number of decisions is bad for democracy, and it’s also one of the biggest causes of inertia. Even if you assume the best of intentions of all, centralization slows things down.
However, at the end of the day, the true test of productivity will never be based on the number of bills or outside sections of omnibus bills. Nor should it even be compared to other states. We need to judge the Legislature based on whether we are meeting our climate goals and our housing goals, whether we are making a more affordable and more equitable Commonwealth, and whether we are removing arbitrary hurdles to participation in our democracy. In all of that, we still have a lot of work to do.
Jonathan Cohn is policy director at Progressive Massachusetts.
Courtesy of Commonwealth Beacon
